Blog Nine

Blog Nine

I enjoyed reading chapters 11 and 12 in the Hughes book because I was able to make connections several times. I took a Brit Lit class last semester and we spent an extensive amount of time on poets such as Keats, Blake, Shelley, and Coleridge. During the class it was briefly mentioned that Coleridge had used Opium, but his drug use was not considered much further. It was not actively considered when analyzing Coleridge’s pieces of literature, and this was unfortunate. I think it is very interesting how Hughes mentions works of literature Coleridge created on Opium (Kubla Khan), and creation of works before his addition (Rime of the Ancient Mariner). My connection here is that I have read both of those works in the past, and I think it would be neat to go back and compare them knowing what was taking place in Coleridge’s personal life during the construction of the poems. Understanding the biographical nature of the creator certainly helps us to better understand the creation (exemplified by Picasso in the beginning of chapter eleven). Furthermore, I think it is challenging and fun to look at a piece of visual art work and make connections to creativity (be it drug use, considering what the author was going through at the time, etc..) and now I understand how important this “creative analyzing” is when looking all pieces of creativity (texts included). I would have loved to have known more about Coleridge’s addiction to opium, Blake’s ability to meditate, Poe’s addictions, Walt Disney’s use of cocaine, jazz musicians use of cannabis etc, when considering all of their different mediums of creativity. In a way it illuminates the works, and forces us to analyze them in a new way.


I appreciated how Hughes separated the kinds of creativity to induced creativity and natural creativity. Furthermore there are several citations supporting both sides. Consider Poe’s use of Opium. Poe writes of premature burials, underground passages, hypersensitive perceptual reactions, and all of these images are directly associated with the opium experience. And isn’t this what makes his stories stand apart from the rest… his creativity being so different from other authors of the time? Therefore even though his stories are being constructed through the eye of the opium addict we still highly revere his works, for their creativity. However Hughes does present the other, darker side of using such drugs to induce creativity. The French poet Jean Cocteau wrote, “With opium euphoria leads the way to death.” Malnutrition, respiratory complications, and low blood pressure are some of the associations with the addiction (163). And as with most drugs to get the same feelings of euphoria the amount of drug use steadily increases as it destroys the body. Certainly marijuana can induce creativity, regardless of personal beliefs regarding drug use, but there are consequences. There are consequences to using heroin, cocaine, mushrooms, acid, and other designer drugs, and I suppose it is up to the creator to decide if a “chemical wedding” (as Hughes cleverly calls it) is how they want to stimulate creativity.