creating novel wilderness isn’t about tourism

---

Creative responsiveness as an artwork done is usually regarded by commentary (or expository criticism) as received, i.e., as an object of reception or appreci-
ation, not as an occasion to understand the backstory of the Work which results as the received work.

So, if you’re interested in creative process (Work to work), you usually depend on autobiographical and biographical narratives, work whose own Work isn’t
a focal theme, apart from brief prefacing in that work.

I want to gain trans-authorial understanding of the Work-to-work venture, i.e., creative process, analogous to well-established interest in creativity as such,
but focused on “literary” creativity.

When I earlier avowed want of literary resort, that was about creative writing—conceptual writing—not want of Literary companionship or art appreciation. I’ve hoped that professional Literary criticism and theory would be easily helpful for generally understanding literary creativity. But academic Literary studies seem to be mostly about reception, about appreciation, which doesn’t address my interest.

So, I’m in a wilderness of sorts (given, not discovered).

Delving into “Literature” as such is fascinating in its own terms, but not especially useful for understanding Work-to-work processes.

I want to understand ideals of literary arts relative to creative aspiration, not history and standards of appreciability. Literature inspires complex enjoyment, but it also authorially aims for that in the Work-to-work processes. How can that be generally best understood? The other side of appreciated Literary value as receptive matters is literary value in creative processes: What does the writer aspire to achieve?

Obviously, that’s a very individual “thing.” So, I want to form a selection of exemplary writers (members of my favored resort), then go on from there, inevitably relative to my own sensibility which selected the resort members, then relative to their influence on my own venture, preceding then advancing “our” resort, which will be, I suppose, somewhat of a wilderness newly.

What may the textuality of it all promise for designing new literary-conceptual landscape? The question has as much integrity as any conceptual interest, including the relative rarity of conceptually focal interest outside of high Literary theory and academic philosophy. So be it!

In any case, I already know that my path into that sees “Literature” becoming inter-domainal, intergeneric comparative thought whose intertextuality scales (or will scale) to a conception of consilience whose singularity may have little general merit other than some exemplarity of that kind of venture (which could, for other venturers, involve whatever resort membership that’s preferred).

But isn’t singularity of work common in research and art?—not because the venturer seeks singularity, but because that’s what happens in a singular venture.

Then, the end is merely another beginning via whatever appeals for the resultant conception for “literary,” conceptual living, like any creative life eager to discover what’s emerging in various horizons.