Introduction
Creativity has long been a subject of scholarly debate, often positioned as an essential human capacity that drives innovation, problem-solving, and societal progress. In the context of educational and literary discussions, creativity is not merely an artistic pursuit but a fundamental skill that can be nurtured or stifled by societal structures. This essay engages with Pat Sullivan’s article on creativity in composition teaching, using it as a framework to analyze Lois Lowry’s novel Gathering Blue (2000). Sullivan argues that creativity has been overlooked in educational discourse, drawing on thinkers like Ken Robinson to emphasize its role as a “gift of human intelligence” essential for navigating complex worlds (Sullivan 1-2). By applying Sullivan’s ideas—such as the need to nurture curiosity, openness, and persistence—I examine how Gathering Blue portrays creativity as a means of survival and resistance in a dystopian society. The novel suggests that creativity is innate but often suppressed by authoritarian systems, a view that aligns with Sullivan’s critique of educational “Death Valleys” where talents are squandered (Sullivan 3). In my opinion, Lowry’s depiction highlights creativity’s transformative potential, though it raises questions about accessibility in unequal societies. This analysis will explore the novel’s ideas on creativity, compare them to Sullivan’s arguments, and reflect on their implications for understanding why creativity matters.
Sullivan’s Framework: Creativity as a Nurtured Human Capacity
Pat Sullivan’s essay underscores the marginalization of creativity in modern education, particularly in composition classrooms. He notes that “creativity has been largely ignored in recent discussions and the teaching of composition,” yet there is an “emerging consensus about its importance and value” (Sullivan 1). Drawing from Lewis Hyde, Sullivan posits creative expression as a unique way of producing knowledge and understanding the world (Sullivan 1). More prominently, he references Ken Robinson’s claim that “creativity is the greatest gift of human intelligence,” especially as the world grows more complex, requiring innovative responses to challenges (Sullivan 2). Robinson further asserts that “everyone has the capacity to be creative and that creativity is something that can be nurtured and learned” (Sullivan 2). This perspective frames creativity not as an elite trait but as a universal potential that education should foster.
Sullivan extends this by critiquing how educational systems have “educated out” creativity, likening them to an “education Death Valley” where assumptions about intelligence stifle talents (Sullivan 3). He quotes Robinson: “We are all born with immense natural talents but that too few people discover what they are and even fewer develop them properly” (Sullivan 3). This links creativity to human achievements, warning that without it, society could not survive (Sullivan 3). Sullivan also incorporates Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s view of creativity as “the domain of the future,” driving innovation, and Robert Sternberg’s components: curiosity, openness, engagement, creativity (in generating ideas), and persistence (Sullivan 4). These elements—curiosity as the desire to know more, openness to new ways of thinking, engagement in learning, novel approaches to ideas, and sustained attention—form a holistic model for nurturing creativity (Sullivan 4).
In my view, Sullivan’s framework is compelling because it shifts creativity from an abstract ideal to a practical skill set. However, it assumes a supportive educational environment, which may not always exist, especially in resource-limited or oppressive contexts. This limitation becomes evident when applying Sullivan’s ideas to Gathering Blue, where creativity emerges not through formal nurturing but through individual resilience amid societal constraints.
Creativity in Gathering Blue: Survival Amid Suppression
Lois Lowry’s Gathering Blue presents a dystopian village where creativity is both a rare gift and a controlled resource. The protagonist, Kira, is a young girl with a physical disability—a twisted leg—that would typically lead to her abandonment in the Field of Leaving, a place where the weak are left to die. However, her exceptional talent for embroidery saves her; she is recruited by the Council of Guardians to preserve and enhance the village’s historical robe, which chronicles their society’s past (Lowry 22-45). Through Kira’s story, Lowry explores creativity as an innate ability that enables survival and subtle rebellion against a rigid, authoritarian system.
The novel illustrates creativity’s role in knowledge production, echoing Sullivan’s reference to Hyde (Sullivan 1). Kira’s embroidery is not mere decoration; it is a form of storytelling and prophecy, allowing her to “see” and depict future events intuitively (Lowry 118-120). This aligns with Robinson’s idea, via Sullivan, that creativity helps record new ideas and transmit knowledge across generations, ensuring human survival (Sullivan 3). In the village, where illiteracy and oral traditions dominate, Kira’s creative output becomes a vital archive, preventing the “run dry” of innovative thought that Robinson warns against (Sullivan 3). Yet, the Guardians exploit this talent, confining Kira to a luxurious but isolated space, which stifles her full potential. This suppression mirrors Sullivan’s “education Death Valley,” where systemic assumptions squander talents (Sullivan 3).
Furthermore, Lowry depicts creativity through Sternberg’s components outlined by Sullivan (Sullivan 4). Kira embodies curiosity in her eagerness to learn about colors and dyes from Annabella, an elder dyer, despite societal taboos (Lowry 85-90). Her openness is evident in her willingness to question the village’s traditions, such as the ritualistic Ruin Song, and to envision alternatives (Lowry 150-155). Engagement and persistence shine through her dedication to the robe, even under duress, as she invests in long-term projects that challenge the status quo (Lowry 200-210). Finally, her novel approaches—infusing the robe with unscripted visions—represent creative innovation (Lowry 220-225). In my opinion, Lowry effectively shows creativity as a survival mechanism; Kira’s abilities not only preserve her life but also foster connections with other “artists” like Thomas the carver and Jo the singer, forming a clandestine community of creators (Lowry 130-140). This suggests that creativity thrives in collaboration, a point Sullivan implies but does not fully explore in educational settings.
However, the novel’s portrayal raises critical questions about accessibility. While Sullivan and Robinson argue that everyone has creative capacity (Sullivan 2-3), Gathering Blue implies that only those with exceptional, visible talents are valued, while others are discarded. For instance, Kira’s mother protected her gift, but many villagers, like the “tykes” in the Fen, live in squalor without opportunities to develop skills (Lowry 10-15). This disparity highlights a limitation in Sullivan’s optimistic view: in oppressive systems, creativity is not equally nurtured, often serving the powerful rather than the individual or society at large.
Comparing Approaches: What the Novel Achieves Beyond the Article
Using Sullivan’s project as a frame reveals both synergies and divergences in how Gathering Blue approaches creativity. Sullivan’s essay is theoretical, advocating for educational reform to integrate creativity into composition teaching (Sullivan 1-4). It draws on experts like Robinson and Csikszentmihalyi to argue for nurturing innate talents, emphasizing innovation for future challenges (Sullivan 3-4). The novel, conversely, narrativizes these ideas, making them tangible through Kira’s experiences. Where Sullivan discusses abstract components like persistence, Lowry demonstrates them in action: Kira’s sustained work on the robe, despite isolation, exemplifies how persistence sustains creative projects (Lowry 180-190; Sullivan 4).
In my view, the novel achieves what the article does not by humanizing creativity’s emotional and ethical dimensions. Sullivan focuses on intellectual nurturing, but Gathering Blue explores creativity’s role in empathy and moral questioning. Kira’s visions prompt her to challenge the Guardians’ deceptions, such as the fabricated “beasts” used to control the populace (Lowry 160-170). This adds a layer of social critique, suggesting creativity fosters ethical innovation—daring to “break the thrall of tradition,” as Robinson puts it (Sullivan 3). The novel thus extends Sullivan’s ideas, showing creativity not just as a skill but as a force for societal change.
That said, both texts share a concern for creativity’s suppression. Sullivan critiques educational systems (Sullivan 3), while Lowry depicts a society where creativity is commodified. However, the novel goes further by implying that without collective action, individual creativity may remain isolated. I believe this makes Gathering Blue a more cautionary tale; it warns that ignoring creativity, as Sullivan notes, could lead to societal stagnation (Sullivan 3), but it also shows the human cost through characters’ suffering.
Conclusion
In conclusion, applying Pat Sullivan’s framework to Gathering Blue illuminates the novel’s portrayal of creativity as an essential, innate capacity for survival and innovation, often hindered by systemic barriers. Sullivan’s emphasis on nurturing curiosity, openness, and persistence resonates with Kira’s journey, yet the novel critiques the unequal access to creative development that Sullivan’s educational focus somewhat overlooks (Sullivan 1-4; Lowry). Ultimately, Lowry argues that creativity matters because it enables knowledge transmission, ethical questioning, and resistance—echoing Robinson’s view of it as humanity’s “greatest gift” (Sullivan 2). In my opinion, the novel enriches Sullivan’s ideas by grounding them in narrative, revealing creativity’s transformative power in adversity. This engagement suggests that fostering creativity requires not just education but societal equity. As discussions on creativity continue, texts like these remind us of its vital role in human progress, urging us to nurture it actively to avoid the “Death Valleys” of untapped potential.
Works Cited
- Lowry, Lois. Gathering Blue. Houghton Mifflin, 2000.
- Sullivan, Pat. “The Unessay: Making Room for Creativity in the Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 67, no. 1, 2015, pp. 6-34.
(Word count: 1528, including references)
