As a senior graduating in May, I'm taking a couple of senior-level classes designed to prepare me for life after college. Because I'm an artist and a writer, this means talking a lot about inspiration.

In particular, Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book by Walker Percy takes an interesting perspective on the topic. Inspiration, as defined by Percy, is an elevated mental state characterized by the degree of detachment required to comment perceptively on the world. Percy compares inspiration to reaching orbit around the earth, floating, free, godlike, all-seeing, and draws the reader's attention to the artist or writer's great struggles - achieving "orbit," and reentry from it. How can one who has experienced an inspired state stand the monotony of an ordinary Monday afternoon? It is torture.

Disclaimer: if you've read my previous posts on the topic, you know how I feel about the "tortured artist" stereotype. The fact remains, however, that many very talented, creative people live particularly dark lives. So, though I believe firmly that the perception that artistic success and misery go hand-in-hand is dangerous, I'm interested in this notion of inspiration as the root of the artistic and writerly tendency toward self-destruction.

Since reading Percy's book, I've been trying to decide whether I agree with his theory. I've never really thought about writers in light of the tortured artist stereotype, though of course, many well-known writers have died early deaths at their own hands. Percy says that, though both writers and artists struggle with finding and returning from inspiration, artists are at least assisted by their mediums. Paint, chalk, clay, and whatever else the artist might choose to work with are all physical objects that both provide a conduit to the inspirational state, aiding the writer in ascending to "orbit" and tether the artist to the physical world, aiding in "reentry."

The writer, on the other hand, has only his or her own mind. He or she must somehow find the inspired state without assistance from his or her medium, and, for this reason, sometimes turns to drugs and alcohol for assistance, or else sinks into despair. This is Percy's theory.

As both a writer and an artist, I'm not sure I can comment on the truth of this greater writerly struggle. Though I am certainly dependent on inspiration for much of my work, I am able to turn to my writing when my art fails, and to art when writing fails. When I think about it, however, I believe it would be difficult to seek all my creative fulfillment in writing, for precisely the reasons Percy explains - there is too little to provide connection. Writing is lonely work, and when inspiration fails the writer, there is very little one can do about it.

I hope this has provided food for thought, reader, and I'd be interested in any thoughts you may have on the matter. Do you agree with Percy on his analysis ?