I didn't really find the conclusion convincing, and thought the inclusion of Martha Graham and Ghandi was less than helpful. Ghandi doesn't seem to fit into the narrative as well as the first 3 cases, and Graham's section was awkward since her work could not really be well described in print. Her chapter seemed underdeveloped as a result. I also had issues with the gender aspect of these cases, though Gardner does try to address gender. I wished that this set of cases had included someone along the lines of Andre Norton or Agatha Christie, women whose work could have been more easily discussed in print. Still, this was an interesting read, and offers some insight on creativity, even if I would have designed the project a little differently. ( )

I first heard about Gardner's book while reading another book. Gardner was often quoted in the book Writing as a Way of Healing: How Telling Our Stories Transforms Our Lives (0046442072434)by Louise Desalvo. Because of her references I found myself excited about ordering Creating Minds as the next read.

Gardner's book is an important book as he looks at the lives of seven great creators within the Modern Period and their similarities and differences. It is however a very different approach from Desalvo's book. At first I was disappointed because I expected writing more in the vein of Desalvo's. Gardner's approach was analytical rather than writing to encourage personal exploration. Once getting past that (and understanding Gardner's focus on the theory of Multiple Intelligences) I could appreciate it from an educator's point of view.

His summaries of the creators Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi was phenomenal. While I understand his premise, I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions. Perhaps this was because my original hope was to use the book to inspire my own creative mind. As a reader who is 50 years of age, his conclusions came across rather discouraging since he focuses on successful creators making contributions in their twenties. ( )

Kuhn's book did indeed create its own paradigm shift. But curiously, Kuhn never seemed to realise that those who change paradigms are nearly always a completely different kind of scientist than those who extend existing ones. The paradigm breakers are those few who "can't be told anything", who automatically question everything, and who tend to either make a huge breakthrough or (more usually) to pass on without a ripple. They are the few who blew their stacks over the APS slogan "Science is Curiosity Satisfied" when it was accepted by a large majority of APS members - non-paradigm-breakers all.

When it comes to things like the Periodic Table, it's worth recalling that scientists clung on to Ptolemy's ideas for well over a thousand years. The paradigm shift initiated by the Copernican revolution didn't render obsolete the data built up over the previous millennia (indeed, it was used to support Copernicus's ideas), it just set it in a new light. Given the fact that scientists always change their minds, the same could happen here; the facts will remain the same, but they will be put in a new light. If the past is anything to go by, there is a very high probability this will happen. The Periodic Table is now understood in a vastly different way to Mendeleev, who invented it; Quantum Mechanics saw to that. Mendeleev knew nothing of electrons and protons, etc. [You can find the details in Eric Scerri's book on The Periodic Table.]

And, of course, Relativity Theory has meant that Geocentric models of the solar system are now no less scientific than Heliocentric models are -- the Equivalence Principle lies behind this shift (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-iframes/ and http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/10/03/does-the-earth-move-...

It's not a terribly sucessful take on the subject, but nevertheless read H.E.Gardner's "Creating Minds" to get a sense of those who kick science into progress. ( )

Interesting study, but too many diversions from the initial paradigm, ie pages spent on explaining Einstein's theories, seem more like Gardner showing off, as it is irrelevant to the thesis. The structural matrix of creativity — domain, field, person — is helpful. The book could have been much shorter and accessible and still made the same points. The opening and closing chapters are the most practical.

Like Malcolm Gladwell (who seems to be an evangelist for Gardner's ideas) after him, Gardner makes some poignant observations. And, like Gladwell, Gardner is a master of pointing out the obvious- ie long-term engagement in a discipline is necessary for success.

The Cliff Notes version would be great- with an outline of the matrix and the various tables of analysis.

Overall- a necessary if not desirable read on the subject of creative development. ( )