Do tangible, testable links exist between the autistic spectrum and creativity? How would such links work from the perspective of an author with Asperger's Syndrome? To what degree would autism mould the author's work, and how would it affect writing technique and style compared to neurotypical (non autistic spectrum authors)? Do these links provide a tangible advantage? Can an Asperger's author successfully engage a non-Asperger's readership? Has Asperger's become fashionable in fiction and if so what are the benefits/consequences? Can an “extraterrestrial stranded without an orientation manual”1 communicate ideas in a meaningful way to non-autistics? Asperger's Syndrome is a form of high functioning autism where those affected express a range of social, behavioural and perceptual traits which have no actual bearing on their level of intelligence. As an author with Asperger's my intention is to examine the degree to which my autism affects my writing technique and style compared to neurotypical (non autistic) creatives. Asperger's sufferers lack empathy and social skills, therefore creating situations a reader can empathise with is challenging. To an Asperger's other people are 'aliens'. If the characters and scenarios in my work are coloured by my difference, then it may be the difference itself which provides the hook for the reader. To what extent do Asperger's authors need to 'pretend to be normal' in order to engage a neurotypical reader, or to make their work generally marketable? Is there an argument that they shouldn't even try? With increasing diagnosis and better understanding of the autistic spectrum, the Asperger's limited but intense range of interests and ability to focus without human distraction might link in to creative excellence that has an appeal far beyond the boundaries of the autistic spectrum. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether claims of autistic links to creativity are more than heresay. I examine alleged positive evidence for these links, and see how this evidence ties in with my experience both as an Asperger's and an author, with particular regard to my decisions in crafting my novel The Ghost Land.

No description available.

Long before the publishing of Verlaine's Poetes maudits , it has been written and thought, in various circles and contexts, that writers of genius were doomed to an unhappy life. Nevertheless, it was only about 1760--1770 that the conditions allowing for the emergence of a myth of the unhappy writer were gathered. This myth affirms the christlike vocation of the author and associates greatness to unhappiness. This thesis seeks to understand this mythical phenomenon within a historical perspective. The first part recounts the three principal families of topoi associated, before 1770, to authorial unhappiness. These three series are those of melancholy, poverty and persecution. In the chapters concerning these topoi, the objective is to bring to light their specificity and also the representations and the exempla that they call to mind. Moreover, the goal is to identify the connections that are at work, in discourses, between melancholy and genius on the one hand, poverty and truth on the other hand, and finally persecution and merit. Even if one can't already consider that these various discursive connections are sufficient to build a mysticism of the unhappy man of letters, they still can be studied, in their context, for what they are: a pool of topoi where the writers would soon draw some discursive materials, and from which this myth will get its historical acceptability, its obviousness. The second part of the thesis is devoted to the study of this obviousness. After Rousseau, some believe that unhappiness is inseparable from genius, and that literary vocation is a curse spelled on the poet. From then on, the object of study is not anymore to follow each topos as if it was a separate thread, but instead, to see how all this acquires the value of commonplace (lieu commun ) between 1770 and 1840, in addition to imposing itself as an horizon of meaning. The last chapter and the epilogue show that the myth lives on, during the second half

The state of writing abilities throughout the United States presents an urgent issue. Low student achievement in English Language Arts (ELA) exams and standardized English assessments persist (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012), while businesses spend billions of dollars on remedial writing instruction (Dillon, 2008). Technology is increasingly cited as a potential solution to these issues. Evidence for this is limited, as is existing research into the basis of the issues that technology might address. On account of that context, this thesis turns to a basic distinction between digital and non-digital writing: the writing surface and implement, or pen and paper - screen and keyboard. Conceptualizing such artefacts through a view of writing as a way of thinking raises the following question, which is this study's guiding inquiry. Might we use digital implements and surfaces to support the ways of thinking involved in composing written works of semantic cohesion? Building on research into writing as thinking, the study presented in this document analyses how uses of writing surfaces and implements relate to ways of thinking while writing, and which contextual factors influence those relationships. Drawing on a neuro-anthropological approach, the study focuses on the writer's mind as the driver and source of the lived experience of writing. Expert writers, therefore, are considered to be those who exhibit the ways of thinking while writing to which other writers aspire. To examine a range of uses of writing surfaces and implements with reference to expert writers' ways of thinking, the study was conducted in two parts. Part 1involved a content analysis of published interviews with professional writers. This generated a framework through which to conduct in-depth qualitative research with college student writers - part 2. This thesis is as much about thinking while writing as it is about the different tools available for writing. As such, the study refutes the hyperbolic and deterministic claims about technology and writing, and finds that technology is not leading to new ways of thinking while writing. Instead, surfaces and implements available allow writers to change how they practise their ways of thinking while writing. By considering this distinction and developing understandings of the dynamics involved and their implications, writers may begin to realize the potential of technology for writing. Ultimately, this thesis contributes to existing theories on writing through an informed discussion of how to think about implements and surfaces in ways that support writerly thinking, and by offering fresh ways to think about the lived practice of writing.

No description available.