The Hughes reading was interesting. I like that he addressed the mental states of various artists. They really run the gamut!! Erdos is probably the most extreme example (p.80). His type is personified in fictional writings, television and movies, yet is hopefully very uncommon. He was an mathematical genius, yet couldn't care for himself. He was a leech to friends, and from the sounds of it, maybe even to people he really wasn't friends with. Personally, I have to think that he had a true, severe psychological disorder, and that it wasn't just a matter of him being SUCH a mathematical genius that there was little room in his brain for anything else. There are plenty of very creative artists who can fully function in life, so there is proof that it can be done.

Walsh talks similarly about the shamanic experience. Since most Westerners don't understand the shamanic experience, the write it off as a psychological disorder. It has been diagnosed as: epilepsy, hysteria, psychosis and schizophrenia. While Western creatives can be consumed by their work and ignore their surroundings, and even their own self-care, Walsh states that shamans are often the most functional members of their communities (p. 107).

There is a piece by Stephen Spender that is referenced by Hughes (p. 86), which addresses the creative process. True, Beethoven was a musical genius, but a slow genius. It took him years to write his symphonies, and much development was needed to get from the original ideas to the end product. He jotted down bars here and there, finally piecing them together and forming the beautiful works we now know. Mozart, on the hand, came up with entire pieces in his head and then put them to paper, from beginning to end. No one would argue that Beethoven was not a musical genius. The contrast between these two artists shows how different the creative process can be from person to person.