Historical attitudes to literary creativity often focus on it as a genetic or innate characteristic. Ericsson's notion of ‘deliberate practice’ and Simon & Chase's ‘ten‐year rule’, however, have shown the importance of sustained practice to achieve high‐level performance. The iceberg illusion of elite performance leaves observers marvelling at the end product without an appreciation of the hours of work beneath the surface. This case study considers how attitudes to student creative writing may be altered by emphasising creative process. Students engaged in creative writing which literalised the iceberg metaphor, placing greater focused on the ‘submerged’ planning, drafting and revision alongside the ‘visible’ end product. Utilising the extended mind hypothesis, student responses demonstrate the importance of planning to order and develop their ideas. The benefits of encouraging an approach to creativity that negates innatist explanations in favour of a growth mindset or deliberate practice approach are evidenced.