I am going to write this assuming you have read her post.
I relate deeply to what Rice has written, yet I have a little different take on it. I am not at quite the same level of creativity as Rice is. Yes, in my experience there are different levels. This is not an outer judgement, it is not from me observing others but from observing myself. I have learned to go deeper into my creativity.
I was always an artistic child. Good at drawing, playing creative games with my sister. But it was actually my sister that had the more full-on creative life. She came up with the ideas for our games, what we would create, the greatest stuff. I would often jump off of her creativity. Or perhaps I learned from her. She is my older sister.
As I got older, I was always attracted to creative endeavours. I majored in the fine arts at university. I was only happy in creative jobs such as graphic arts and sign-writing. I had the soul of an artist, but I wasn't wildly original. I can see that there is a difference, though I haven't looked at it deeply enough to explain it. My art is beautiful but not wildly original. I am not one of the truly original creatives that others can barely understand. I am somewhere in between.
But the amazing thing is that my creativity is growing. I thought you had to be born that way, apparently not. I am finding that you can nourish it and it will grow.
I want my creativity to grow because I am finding that the bigger it gets, the happier I get. It is such a wonderful gift.
Rice related her creativity to a psychotic symbol of a charming man who becomes rabid killer. I understand where she is coming from (and you do get the sense that she has a lot of affection for this psychopathic character) but my experience relates more to creativity as soulwork. Which isn't necessarily a contradiction, just a different viewing platform, as soulwork can be done in the dark as well as the light.