# Culture vs. Copyright/Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4

# Culture Beyond Art

My deliberations on the nature of art as a branch of culture were both difficult and easy. They were difficult because the subject is quite mysterious, and they were easy because the arts are the most typical representative of culture. Moreover, the peculiarities of the arts reveal a lot. Now the question is: What about other areas of human life and activities? Can culture reside in any of these?
The first answer I can offer is that because culture is defined as creativity and dialogue, we come face to face with culture whenever we encounter these. Let us see how this really works.
Thinking about the subject, I once surprised myself when I found that creativity may emerge even in the least creative case, such as production of some simple, well-known goods. When you produce something, you use materials, spend time, and implement ideas. Even in a case where you produce, or participate in the production of, an article created by others, your own ideas are still utilized. Why? Because creativity is a necessary element of any human activity unless this activity is totally automated. Even in less creative processes, you can and normally do use your own ideas. Lots of ideas from different people have been collected over the course of history and implemented in even the simplest of contemporary products.
This sounds reasonable. . . . But can creativity be part of a non-creative process? . . . This sounds weird. Although I did not get too far in my analysis of the subject, I did not need to worry. My fellow researchers had developed considerable muscle in the course of our previous conversations. Hence, I decided it was possible to start with

### When Do People Create?

Teacher: When do people create? Beta: What do you mean “when”? Kappa: Well, sometimes we do, don’t we? Delta: And the question is “when?” Beta: I’m thinking we need to clarify the question. Teacher: That never hurts. Gamma: We are not talking about time, are we? We’re talking about situations, right? Teacher: Of course. Alpha: I know! It’s like when someone hasn’t prepared for a test. One should be ve-e-e-ry creative! Teacher: Could be. Can you elaborate? Gamma: Could it be that one has to reinvent some scientific data in that case? Is that what you mean? Alpha: If people are not prepared, they guess. Nothing else. Kappa: But some people guess better than others. Alpha: “Creative guessing!” Ha ha ha! Kappa: Why don’t we turn to the arts? Delta: It’s too obvious. Of course people create while making art. That’s got to be true by definition! Teacher: Not necessarily. Delta: I got it. If a painter is just copying the unique work of another artist, he is not creating, is he? Teacher: Not necessarily. Gamma: I watched a movie, The Moderns. A very talented painter got a commission to make copies of some of Matisse’s paintings because a woman wanted to steal the originals away from her husband. Then she robbed the painter because she didn’t want to pay him. But she mistook the copies for the originals. And the painter was really proud afterwards that he was able to make such perfect copies! Alpha: OK, he was proud. What does that tell us? Beta: Well, he was talented, and he was proud he could do it. It does tell us something. Alpha: What? ​Delta: I believe that not every painter can make a precise copy of a great work. He has to be talented to be up to the job. Alpha: If someone is a talented copier, does this mean he is creating while copying? Teacher: Good question! Beta: I wish I had a good answer. Kappa: Is it maybe like understanding other people? Don’t you think? Delta: You mean, seeing all of the details of one’s painting and reproducing them? Beta: Look, what are we talking about here? If exact reproduction requires creativity, then inexact reproduction, when you substitute an author’s details with yours, is not creativity! Gamma: Wow! How can that be? Alpha: Wait, wait, who says it can? Who says that reproduction requires creativity? Beta: No one does, so far. I said “if.” Gamma: So, is it possible for brilliant work, even copying, to not be creative? What is talent for? Alpha: How about photography? Beta: I got something. Look, a photograph depicts something real, exactly how it is, right? Gamma: So? There are riveting and telling pictures out there, and there are many that are good for the trash can only. How is this possible? Beta: That’s where I was heading. When you take a picture and get what you wanted, how you wanted it . . . Delta: You mean, when you intend to capture something, or what? Alpha: My uncle is a photographer—a very good one; everyone says that. He says you have to be ready for a quick shot. It is not as if you have to have some goal. Beta: I understand, you have to be prepared . . . but that is also a goal, isn’t it? Alpha: It’s different.

### Summarizing Questions

Teacher: Don’t we have something for the first summary? Delta: A bunch of questions. Kappa: It is something. We wanted to clarify our problem, remember? Teacher: I remember. Would you like to try, Kappa? Kappa: OK, but you all help me. Delta: Count me in! Beta: I’ll join in. Gamma: I’ll do my best. Teacher: Alpha, are we in? Alpha: I’m not sure we’ve got enough material for all helpers. . . . I’ll let you know if you miss something. Teacher: It’s a deal. Go ahead, Kappa. Kappa: OK. We have got, so far . . . first, could someone be creative in taking a test one is not prepared for? Does this question stand? Alpha: Baloney. Delta: Continue, Kappa. You got one. Beta: Generally, if you don’t know an answer, then a simple question becomes a complex problem to resolve . . . Kappa: OK. The second question is: could it be creative guessing? Alpha: But that’s the same question! Delta: I believe guessing is part of any creation. Alpha: But this doesn’t make any sense! Teacher: Alpha, we shall discuss this, but let us do the summary first. Alpha: We were going to sum up questions, but the first one is obviously not a question at all, and the second one is the same as the first one. Beta: I wouldn’t be so sure about both. You can never predict what pops up in a discussion. Alpha: All right, I’ll keep silent regardless of what you say. Delta: You can’t, Alpha. You promised to let us know if we miss something. Alpha: That’s enough! Do you want to discuss me or our topic? Teacher: Our topic. And I assume everyone is ready to continue. Kappa: If someone does not like a question, we can reformulate it, right? ​Teacher: Acceptable. Kappa: OK. Do we have the correct question about test taking, or is it better to leave the general question about guessing only? Gamma: Why can’t we discuss both? Delta: I agree. We don’t know what to do, anyway. Alpha: Exactly. Delta: OK. We don’t know what to do anyway, so we need as many questions as possible. Alpha: And to stay here overnight. Gamma: That’s destructive! Alpha: What? Gamma: What you are doing now is destructive. Alpha: And collecting a thousand questions to solve a single problem is constructive? Gamma: Do you really hope to solve it today? Alpha: Why did we even start if we didn’t want to solve it? Beta: Who said we didn’t? Kappa: We’ve counted two questions so far. The third one would be whether making art is always a creative process. Alpha: Who questions that? Teacher: I do. Alpha: Why? Teacher: Why don’t we finish with the summary first? Kappa: The fourth one will be: . . . “Could copying be creative?” The fifth one: “If a copied work is brilliant, was creativity involved in copying it?” Teacher: An excellent formulation. Kappa: The sixth question: “Is the copying of a painting similar to the understanding of an idea?” Beta: I have another one. Is the copying of a creative work the same as understanding its author’s way of thinking? Delta: Why the same? How could it be the same? Gamma: Kappa said “similar to.” Kappa: Aha. Can we put it like this: Is copying generally like understanding? Delta: Of course! You can never repeat something if you don’t understand it! ​Beta: Yeah, I agree. This doesn’t mean that repeating and understanding are the same. Gamma: What does that mean? Beta: Now I think they are related. Alpha: Come back, guys. You are disrupting the accounting process. Kappa: All right. So the seventh question could be: How does copying and understanding relate to each other in general terms? Teacher: Perfect! Delta: I got the eighth one. Is seeing a creative process? Gamma: Where did that come from? Delta: I asked earlier whether a person who makes copies is creative because he is seeing all of the details. Gamma: I have an example of when seeing all the details relates to creativity: investigation. Beta: Hey, a good example. Sherlock Holmes is a creative guy. Alpha: What does he create? Delta: A picture of a crime. Alpha: That one was created by a criminal. Teacher: The crime, not the picture. Gamma: Sherlock Holmes doesn’t know the criminal’s plan and actions, thus, he has to invent them from scratch and check them against the evidence, right? It is a creative process. Kappa: Ha, look, we got it again. A bad investigator cannot recreate the picture—how it was in reality—and amends it with invented details. So he happens to be less creative at the same time. Wow! Teacher: Have we recalled all of our questions? Kappa: There were a few more, I think . . . one about photography. . . . Does creation relate to some goal? Beta: I want to ask another one. Does seeing something unusual mean being creative? Kappa: Seeing again? Teacher: All right, we’ve got a pretty decent list. I would add one last question. Do all creative features of human activity apply equally to arts and non-arts? Or better yet: Do all of our questions apply

### Creativity and Goals

Beta: We’ve touched upon this problem many times. Kappa: Actually, we were on track many times, but were interrupted. Alpha: Don’t blame me. Kappa: It was not you . . . well . . . not only you. We interrupted our discussion to proceed with the list. Alpha: Aha! Thus a goal can be disruptive! Delta: Maybe there could be different goals? Alpha: Look, like I said, suppose you go out to take a picture of your friend, OK? Then you see a beautiful flower, OK? But you pass it by because you have another goal and you miss . . . Beta: I believe that picture you are going to take can be as beautiful . . . Gamma: And so that flower can be forgotten, right? Kappa: Alpha is right. A creator has to be ready . . . Beta: Actually, yes, you don’t know for sure what happens in the end; it wouldn’t be creation otherwise. Gamma: But this equally applies to both pictures! You don’t just “take a picture” if you want it to turn out well. Delta: Thus, there has to be some sort of goal. Kappa: OK, suppose you know what you want, I mean a picture. . . . OK, you have a goal. . . . You may even have two goals. Delta: I know. Goal number one—to get something special on film. Goal number two—to make it beautiful. Alpha: Here we go! Goal number three—to make it quick! Beta: Of course—to catch the moment when one and two meet. Kappa: Let me finish, guys. . . . Actually you helped a lot. But let me finish now. Delta: Go ahead. Kappa: What if you think about all three goals but still fall short? You click, click, click and nothing good comes out. What then? Alpha: What then? You are a lousy photographer then. That’s it. Beta: I got it. . . . You can know what you want, you can know how you want it, and you try to be quick, yet you fail because you do not have the skills. . . . Is that where you were heading, Kappa? Kappa: Maybe, . . . I’m not sure. . . . Just asked because it’s kind of an obvious question. ​Delta: I remember it was Beta’s assumption in the very beginning that a talented author can achieve what he wants, right? Alpha: What if he wants something stupid? Gamma: “Stupid” is not an issue here. Stupid can be beautiful. Alpha: Do you have an example? Gamma: All right, have you watched Chicago? Alpha: I have. So? Kappa: Ha, Roxie is stupid and beautiful! That’s right! Alpha: She is not that stupid. Beta: Hey, let’s go back one step. That was interesting. Alpha said it could happen. I mean, a picture can get spoiled if the photographer has a trivial aesthetic goal, right? Teacher: Correct. Alpha: I didn’t know I was that smart! Gamma: Remember that movie The Majestic, where the producer suggested changes to the movie scenario at the beginning and at the end? Kappa: Yeah, yeah! He said such stupid things! Delta: And he could have done them all!

### Creativity and New Form

Teacher: It looks as we are approaching another summary. Beta: May I? Teacher: Sure. Beta: In order to create, an author needs, first, to have a subject, like he wants to take a picture of someone. Second, he needs to have an aesthetic idea of how to make it beautiful. Third, the aesthetic idea has to be unique. Fourth, he needs to be skillful enough to implement these three. Fifth, he needs to grasp the moment when all four converge. Delta: Isn’t the fifth point included in the fourth one? Beta: Why? Delta: You said to grasp the moment, right? Isn’t that about a skill? Beta: No, I actually meant a moment of time. It should happen. It is not enough to be ready. You are ready to grasp the moment, but the moment must occur, right? ​Delta: Got it. Alpha: I can imagine a photographer saying to himself, “I’ll do it beautiful such and such, blah, blah, blah . . .” Gamma: Maybe yes, maybe no. Alpha: You take a quick shot when you see it is worthy. That’s it. Kappa: And what happens if you don’t like the picture? Alpha: Then you do it again. That’s it. You do not theorize. Beta: Of course you do. You ask yourself what went wrong and do it again. Delta: Ha, you guess! That’s what you do! Alpha: Ah, long time. Gamma: Why not? You guess and think it over, and guess again and think it over again . . . until you get what you like, . . . until you’re satisfied. On the other hand, they say Mozart never did drafts; he just wrote his music. Kappa: But others do drafts, and their art can be no less perfect, I think. Like I know that Degas made countless sculpture models for his paintings and was never satisfied with them. He even destroyed them, driving his agent crazy. And other people have always considered these sculptures to be the work of a genius. Alpha: Mozart was a genius. Delta: You can guess, think it over, and nobody will ever know how many drafts you actually did. Gamma: And you can do it fast. Alpha: Yeah, a thousand strokes per second. Strike, strike, strike, strike, strike ... Teacher: Is this truly so crucial? Alpha: What? Teacher: All these technicalities . . . how it finally comes to perfection. Alpha: I didn’t start this. Beta: It is interesting although it is not relevant to the initial question; I agree. Teacher: What, in your opinion, is the most salient point in your summary, Beta? Beta: I cannot skip any of them. Kappa: Yes, you can. Just ask how necessary each of them is. ​Beta: They all are necessary. You skip any single point and you will not get a work of art. Kappa: But you certainly don’t know how to take a beautiful photograph in the beginning, do you? How does your aesthetic goal work then? Beta: And if one doesn’t have this goal, how then can a beautiful picture happen? Kappa: What if you wanted to take one picture but happened to spot another interesting subject? Beta: That means I changed the subject, but I could not just skip it, right? You cannot make a picture of nothing. Alpha: Why don’t you make “nothing” your subject then? Beta: You still have to have a subject. Delta: OK, what if we ask another question. Do these points of yours apply only to art? Alpha: The initial question was about creativity in general, not about arts. Gamma: Yes, and we even have questions, whether art is always creative and whether all we asked about art could be applied to non-arts and vice versa. Teacher: That is right. Kappa: Listen, Beta. One can be really, really non-creative even with a subject, right? Beta: . . . Yes, . . . obviously. Gamma: Can one be non-creative and still have a creative goal? Beta: You mean one can want to create something? Just want? Kappa: Yes, and this will be number two, agree? Teacher: I am recalling that Beta said the idea must be about how to make something beautiful. Gamma: If we are talking about arts! Delta: Yeah, we can drop this requirement about beauty. Beta: I feel like you are going to leave me bone dry. Alpha: You will survive, don’t worry. Kappa: Hold it. Number three—one can have excellent skills . . . Beta: And accomplish nothing. I give up. Delta: Wait, wait. You cannot have the third point in place and yet be non-creative! ​Gamma: That the idea should be unique? That’s a given, isn’t it? Alpha: How will we know that our ideas are unique? Kappa: What do you mean? Alpha: Someone might have had the same idea earlier. Kappa: What difference does that make? Delta: If you come up with something new for yourself, it does not make you less creative if some other guy did the same before you. Beta: Definitely. . . . You see something new and you know it is new. Kappa: See?! Alpha: If you see something, then everyone can see it. Kappa: How about a photograph? Alpha: No, that’s different. . . . I told you many times, you have to be quick. Beta: Or else? It disappears? Alpha: Not necessarily . . . but other people won’t see it the way you do. Delta: You said if you see it, everyone can . . . Kappa: No one will! . . . Until you point it out! That is how it works, for one. For two, I think we were talking about some kind of inner seeing . . . like we were discussing earlier. You guess, you try, say don’t like it, and you do it again until you like it. It’s like you’re seeing something in your mind and trying to match it . . . Teacher: What is it? . . . Assuming the subject is here . . . and the subject can be seen by every passerby. Remember that flower Alpha suggested? But you, creator, have to see something invisible to others, right? . . . What is it? Beta: It is “how!” I said it in my summary! It is how you want it. Gamma: And what is this “how” anyway? Kappa: Can we hypothesize that it is how you organize your subject? . . . Delta: OK, let’s take that flower. What do I have to do? Organize surrounding things in my mind? Alpha: You do nothing around that flower! You shoot! Quickly! This is it! You don’t have time for long discussions, calculations, plans, checks, whatever! You just shoot! End of story. Beta: Listen, Alpha. Why are you skipping over everything we discussed and repeating the same thing like a parrot over and over again? Kappa: Beta! ​Beta: OK, OK, sorry. Teacher: I think we have gotten to a particularly interesting point. At the very moment of creation, you arrange things in your mind in a way unique to yourself. I think that is the essence of any creative process. Kappa: Uh, you did a summary this time. Teacher: It was too tempting . . . and exciting. Beta: I believe this formula can be applied to activities other than art as well. Alpha: Like passing a test. Gamma: Why not? If you try to recreate a piece of knowledge . . . By the way, Alpha, it was you who offered the example of a test. Maybe you have something to say about that? Teacher: Actually, I don’t see what the specific situation of a test adds to our analysis. Maybe we can talk about recalling things in general . . . What do you think? Delta: We already have a question about seeing. Recalling seems to be in line. Kappa: If we add the “arrangement” thing to Beta’s summary, we will have a pretty decent tool for researching different examples. Teacher: That is perfect! Who can implement the idea? Gamma: I can do it. Creation occurs when a creator catches a form so that he can arrange his subject in a new way. He has to be skillful enough to implement the new arrangement. Teacher: A form? This is new! Beta: This is the word! A new arrangement of a subject and the new form that things get organized into. Form sounds better. Alpha: Better than what? Beta: Arrangement. Delta: Arrangement sounds more like the process and form sounds like the result. Both are suitable in a way. Alpha: Saying “arrange things in a new way” is just a longer way of saying “create.” Kappa: For me these are not simply “long” and “short” because the long one shows how it really works while the term “create” just

### Going after Examples

Gamma: By the way, sometimes they coincide literally. Delta: What do you mean? Gamma: Invention. . . . Say, an inventor tries to create a new engine. He has to assemble some known things in a new form. Kappa: Don’t you think that the idea of a new engine has to come to his mind first? Gamma: For example? Kappa: Well, . . . I don’t think I have any specific knowledge . . . Delta: Jets! My dad says it was a revolutionary change in aviation! Alpha: Ah. The Chinese invented gun powder rockets lo-o-ong ago. And aircraft were invented too. All it took was just to join the two ideas. Kappa: Just to join? That easy? Gamma: “Join”! See? Alpha: What? Gamma: What “what”? You take two different things: aircraft and rocket, and arrange them into one idea—a jet! See? Alpha: What I’m trying to say is that it was not so horribly new. Kappa: What is “horribly new” for you? Something born out of nothing?

### How New Content Emerges

Beta: Wait, wait. I’ve got an interesting assumption! A new idea equals the new form! The one you arrange known things in! Alpha: Is that not what we’ve been discussing for the last half an hour? Delta: Five minutes at most . . . after Gamma gave her last definition. Alpha: All right, let it be five minutes! What’s Beta’s discovery, anyway? Delta: It isn’t clear for me either, to be frank. . . . Beta, can you elaborate? Beta: I realized that a new idea is totally equal to a new form . . . Gamma: Totally? Beta: Yes. ​Kappa: OK. This jet. . . . This new idea. It is a new form, but it is not just a “new form.” It is the new form in which to arrange old things, . . . a rocket and an aircraft. Can we separate them from each other? . . . I mean the form and those things? Teacher: I’m starting to understand Beta’s insight. I would have thought that a new idea relates to some new content rather than a new form . . . I would have before, but not now. Gamma: It is difficult to keep in mind all these nuances, but in any case, it becomes clearer. That new form is the essence of creativity. Beta: A new form as a result and as a goal. . . . Yes, it is the essence, I agree. Kappa: Aha! When you arrange old things in a new form, you get new content! Beta: Wow, that resonates! Can we put it this way: You get new content by arranging old content in a new form? Teacher: I say wow too! You guys surprise me! Alpha: OK, how does this apply to our third question? Kappa: Is it . . . Alpha: That doing arts can be non-creative. Delta: It applies very well. If you are not arranging old things in some new form while painting, or singing, or writing . . . Alpha: New to whom? Gamma: We talked about this already. If it is new to you, then you are creating. Alpha: But if it is not new for others? Beta: Bad luck. Bad for your business. So what? Our subject is creativity, not business.

### Can Copying Be Creative?

Alpha: All right, how can copying be creative? Beta: Well, let’s see . . . Delta: If you see everything in a painting, you can copy it. Alpha: All right, you see everything! How is that creative? Do you arrange old content in a new form there? Teacher: I think it is possible. ​Alpha: How? Gamma: It is probably like investigation. You have to correctly reconstruct all the elements. Alpha: But it is different with a painting! You already see all the details on it! Delta: You look at them. It does not mean you see them. Alpha: What does it mean to us mere humans? Gamma: Look, Alpha, when it comes to investigation, different people see different things although they are all looking at the same crime scene. Kappa: Yeah, they all look at the same scene but they see different things. . . . Yeah . . . what does this give us? They arrange things in different ways in their own minds! Beta: Hey! It’s a major point! Gamma: Wait, wait. What is it? It does not matter what you are looking at! I mean, whatever you are looking at must be arranged in some form in your mind . . . Delta: And if it’s new for you, then you are creating. Wow! Alpha: Someone got lost here. Delta: Who might it be? Kappa: Come on, guys. Teacher: So copying can be creative. Delta: It looks as if it can be even more creative than the original work. Alpha: Ooops! Gamma: How is that? Beta: May I? Delta: Go ahead. Beta: Say you arrange things in a new form. That means you have invented a new idea, right? Now, say you try to understand another person’s idea, OK? You have to do the same, right? Plus, you have to make sure that the idea you are creating matches that one you are trying to grasp. So, it’s like you are making two arrangements at once. Kappa: Ha! This is why people don’t understand each other! Gamma: . . . So, we’ve gotten the first answer to the last question. Teacher: Really? ​Gamma: It can be said now that creativity in arts is of the same nature as creativity in human communication. Delta: I cannot believe it. It was so fuzzy in the beginning! Alpha: Aha. I would say it has been. Delta: Actually, we saw that the same creativity found in invention is also found in the arts, like with jets. That example Gamma gave us was very helpful. Gamma: I see no difference with investigation either, by the way. Delta: Yeah, it is all the same. Beta: So, creativity is all the same wherever we come across it—in arts, technology, investigation, pure human communication . . . everywhere! The only things which change are the subject and the role of the outcome. Teacher: So is creativity always the arrangement of known things in a new form? Kappa: I also cannot believe how clear it is now! Alpha: OK, you guys have come to the conclusion that copying is even more creative than producing the original work. Isn’t that weird? Kappa: Hmm. It sounds really weird. Delta: Why don’t we think this over? Gamma: Alpha, what do you think? Teacher: Gamma, what about you? Alpha: This new form . . . you all are talking about, . . . it doesn’t exist when it is first created, but it does when it is grasped by someone else, not the creator. Delta: It is obvious, but what does “is grasped” mean? We saw it as a creative action too. Alpha: As creative as the original creation itself? Beta: I don’t see how we can measure this. Kappa: My dad says it sometimes takes centuries for humankind to understand new ideas, inventions, or art that some individuals came up with. Understanding is creative! Delta: And understanding among people in everyday life is the same.

### Journalist and Writer

Teacher: What if we leave this “measurement problem” for a while? I am eager to hear what you think about one of Beta’s assumptions. Gamma: Which one? Teacher: That creativity is always the same. The only things that change are the subject and the real meaning of the outcome. Alpha: That is more than one question. Teacher: True. Alpha: Which one do you want to discuss then? Teacher: I am curious about examples of outcome. Beta: What do you mean? Teacher: How it works in different areas of human activity. Gamma: Like we discussed already, investigation, invention, and photography? Teacher: Yes, like those. Delta: Do you have something specific in mind? Teacher: I am not sure yet. Can’t we come up with some examples together? Beta: What are we looking for? I’m not sure either. Teacher: All right, what about journalism? Gamma: What about it? Beta: Actually, the first thing that comes to mind is that a journalist does not create facts, does he? Kappa: So? Alpha: It is like photography. Delta: Quick shot, eh? Kappa: Oh, God! Won’t you ever stop? Alpha: That’s all right. I don’t care and I don’t mind. Beta: You don’t mind what? Alpha: The quick shot is still more important. Delta: But seriously, Alpha, I fail to see it there. A journalist gets a job to go somewhere and bring back a story. Say there was a car accident. The editor of the paper sends some guy to cover the story. Beta: Well, the question stands as it was. One journalist makes up a story that nobody wants to read, and another one writes so well that people rip the paper out of each others’ hands! ​Delta: I am not talking about “made up stories”! Beta: Actually, I’m not either. But whatever the facts are, you have to arrange them in a story! Different journalists would do this differently, right? One story could be terribly boring, and another could be incredibly exciting, right? And the facts on the ground would still be the same, right? Delta: Yeah. Kappa: What about the “quick shot”? Beta: What about it? Kappa: I agree with Alpha that journalism does resemble photography. You have to reflect real things, but you can do it in different ways. Gamma: Would that be only in those cases when a journalist does not have specific tasks and encounters something extraordinary? Beta: But this changes nothing! Alpha: What do you mean “nothing”? Beta: I don’t see how this specific case would change what we have learned about creativity itself. If it is always the arrangement of known things into new forms, then circumstances mean nothing. Kappa: But we are exploring how it works in different circumstances now. That, in fact, was the question . . . Beta: Agreed. So, what about the journalist and his story? Alpha: And his news? Gamma: I see no difference between that and fiction writing. Alpha: Fiction is the same as news? Gamma: Wait, let me finish. I just want to compare the two. Kappa: It is interesting. Teacher: It is. I am dying to hear. Gamma: All right. Obviously, creativity itself is the same in both instances. Both the fiction writer and the journalist have to arrange things in an attractive form . . . Alpha: Except the writer makes facts up. Delta: Not necessarily. Gamma: Yes, you are right, both of you. . . . Let me finish. They both have to create stories to engage their readers and make them feel involved . . . Kappa: That is right! That is exactly right! ​Gamma: Yeah, I know. OK, they make up stories; they try to engage readers. There is no difference so far. But the real value of their stories—the real job is different. Alpha: I didn’t get it. How come it is all the same, it is all the same, it is all the same, it is different? Gamma: Look, when the journalist engages readers, he leads them to the facts. The fiction writer engages people with some general feelings or trends or ideas . . . Teacher: I believe both things can be involved in both genres. The fiction writer can use real events and names while the journalist can talk about some general ideas. Beta: But they use those differently, I think. Alpha: How? Beta: I think the writer uses real facts to put forth his general ideas, and the journalist uses general ideas to put forth facts! Gamma: Maybe. . . . It is necessary for the journalist to introduce the public to the events happening right away, and he can use whatever he wants to in order to achieve that. Beta: Hmm. Actually the same thing can happen to the fiction writer too. He can write about the past or the future but imply present problems. Kappa: Can we say that the journalist is bound to the present in terms of content and the writer is not? People just know that the journalist’s job is to draw them into immediate events. This is like a rule of the game. I think Gamma and Beta said the same. Gamma: Yes, the writer and the journalist just have different goals. Teacher: So despite the fact that they both do essentially the same job, their work is judged and valued by readers on different bases? Beta: This is what readers would think. Teacher: What do you mean? Beta: It is simple. If they both do the same work in terms of art— namely, engage their readers in the events they portray—then the public gets involved in the same manner. The public fools itself about the real value of a fictitious story and the real value of a newspaper story. ​Kappa: They all are fools, ha ha ha. But listen, Beta, you contradict yourself. You said a few minutes ago that the two stories have different relations to reality, didn’t you? Alpha: The fiction writer can write about his dreams, what the world could be like. The journalist writes about reality. Beta: Yeah, Kappa, you are right. It is clear that the goals are different, but the real jobs are so similar. . . . I am going back and forth and in circles. Gamma: We are all going in circles, but I’ve got a funny idea about journalism. It is impossible to write about the present. It is always about the past, a near past, but still the past. Beta: Physically. But people do perceive it like it is happening now. Like it can all be fixed right away. Alpha: Come on! Fixed? Somebody got killed—go fix that! Gamma: It is always a kind of illusion. However, like Kappa said, it is a rule of the game, the journalism game. A reader should get the feeling that action should be taken, that something can be fixed, that justice must be restored. Teacher: All right, so let there be another circle. Isn’t it the same with fiction? Alpha: Like in Stargate, ha ha ha. Gamma: Like in Stargate. The difference is that those fictitious events are substitutes for real ones, and thus, they stand for general ideas while events reported in a newspaper are what they are in reality. Ah! All of this was already said today! Kappa: Yes, but it is amazing how differently things look in the beginning of a discussion from how they look after a while. My first impression was that fiction and newspaper articles have nothing in common. Then we started to analyze them. The journalist writes about current events, but the fiction writer can very well write about these too. The journalist wants an action to be taken, and the writer can desire this too. The writer organizes his reality so as to engage the public, the journalist does the same. The writer can turn to the past or future, the journalist can do the same to make his point. The only real difference we saw is in how the public perceives their writings. If it is fiction, the public becomes concerned with fictitious events but feels ​easy about them. If it is news, the public becomes concerned with the immediate situation. Well, I am asking myself if this is really so . . . Teacher: All right. I think this is enough for today. Thank you all.