Science and Creativity don't clash. In fact, there's science in writing. 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the process of turning thought into physical action is quite complex and full of interesting scientific tidbits that can bore many creative souls. To many artists, science is square, instructional, evidence-based, and full of facts and confusing questions. Whereas art is where the soul goes to explore, to exist without shackles, to create something unique and personal. These two worlds are often considered opposites. Rarely do people ponder the crossover.

 

Probably, at this very moment, some of you are sitting there, staring at the screen and screaming, "Blasphemy! Art is freedom. Science is constrictive. How dare I associate the two when the mere mention of this association is triggering?" 

 

I get it. Take it from someone who sits on the threshold of these two worlds every day, admiring how often both worlds blur the lines and then struggling to keep them separate, these two worlds are more interconnected than we think. Let's take "writing" for example. 

 

Out of millions of people who think about writing a book (MILLIONS!), only a small percentage start. Of those who start, guess what percentage finish? Less than 5%! An even smaller portion advances to the editing process. It's estimated that less than 1% of people see a book through to publication. And an even smaller percent write a second book. Why? Because it's hard. Because it's a lot of work. Because it's emotionally taxing. Because it requires discipline. Because, well... science.  

 

Contrary to what people believe, writing is not just about jotting down words! It involves a combination of cognitive processes, linguistic skills, and psychological factors. You probably already know, through experience, that emotional states can greatly impact creative output. But have you considered the cognitive aspect of it all? What does the act of writing do to the brain? What parts are engaged? The neuroscience behind it?

 

Don't worry, I won't go into specifics and bog down this post with scientific terms or the psychological aspects, because that's not the point of this post at all. For those of you who are curious, though, I'll leave you with this: Brain regions responsible for planning and decision-making, as well as those involved in language processing (the prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes), are actively engaged in writing. 

 

For those of you who want me to get to the point... I will, eventually. You should know why this scientific tool is necessary first. And for that, I'd ask you to think about how you write, where you write, and your recall ability. Can you remember the color of the secondary character's eyes, or what exactly the character was doing a few pages ago, or that huge piece of evidence you wrote about three months ago? 

 

There's a common belief that writers know every single detail of their books and can recall them, and quote them on command, as if they were reciting the five times tables. Readers are often disappointed when they find a discrepancy in the eye color, or a repeated name in a different book, or a minor plot hole across an 800k series (shameless plug—Dr. Plot Twist can help with that), but the reason these things happen funnels down to retention. Sorry, creatives, we've circled around to science again.

 

Memories rely on complicated neural systems. They can be classified as long-term memory or short-term memory, the former leading to structural and functional changes that are, for lack of a better word, complex. You can do the reading on it. But there's a reason I can still remember all the words to Sir Mix a Lot's "Baby Got Back" but have to confirm spacing in the CMOS handbook. Or why I can still give you the full landline number to the pizza place around the corner (I was a teen then), but ask me what I ate for lunch two days ago. 

 

So if you've beaten yourself up over a small error in your books, or chastised yourself for having to reread what you wrote the day before because you can't remember what exactly you wrote, then ask yourself this: If you can't recall where you left your keys last night, what makes you think you'll remember every single detail you wrote yesterday, a week ago, or a year ago?

 

Which brings me to the "where" and "how" you write. Writing on a digital device and writing on paper are not the same. Physical handwriting activates more complex systems and promotes learning and memory retention. This is why you may have that frustrating what-did-I-write-yesterday conversation with yourself. Or the I’m-getting-too-old-for-this conversation. If this is you, you’re not alone. Many authors, who consider themselves pantsers or plantsers (a mixture of plotters and pantsers), often struggle with recalling the details of their story. Even plotters, who do everything digitally, can struggle with the same thing without first referencing the outline.

 

But don’t fret! Writing things out can help.  I don’t mean write the entire book on paper, though there is merit to this for some authors, but consider implementing one of the fundamental scientific tools–a journal. More specifically, an Author’s Log. It’s like a scientist’s journal, but instead of experiments and results, you have a log of your “current” status in the writing project and a summary after each day. 

 

There are many ways to set this up, but the idea is to keep a bound journal, of your choice (I am partial to the Moleskine Expanded Journal for my Editor's Log), and set up a section for each day.  Here you can track the main points written, any questions or genius ideas that come up, doodle a thought, track time and word count, and what points you should hit during your next writing session. Here are a few examples of what one looks like and different layouts. They are easy to set up and customizable. Worth a try!