Creative Writing Courses

[WuWei]

I'm reading Mark McGurl's recent book "The Program Era", about the impact creative writing schools have had on postwar American literature.

Since I don't live in the US and have never attendend any such lessons, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the role of these institutions in contemporary literature with someone who probably knows them better than I do. For starters, what do you think about the whole idea of teaching creative writing? In what (positive or negative) ways do you think the "Program" has changed the literary world since its appearence?

[PeterL]

I only took one such course, and it had no impact on me, so I doubt that such courses have any impact on anything. It was my impression that such programs exist to help people who be otherwise unemployable to get jobs teaching those courses.

[Modest Proposal]

I will certainly not defend all of CRWT, but sorry PeterL, just because you were not affected by one creative writing class doesn't mean they have no "impact on anything." Maybe your such a genius you have nothing to learn, or maybe your not a writer and nothing will help; really I don't know.

What I do know is that though CRWT is an easy target, it is only so because it is new. All of the so-called fine arts have had apprenticeships and such for years, and this is not all that different. Once you get past the initial knee-jerk reaction (how can someone be taught to write!? It must just be there or not!!!) then it is a matter of seeing what CRWT can offer and what it cannot. And more important, what problems does it raise in the field. I will try to answer these as far as I have been able to understand them being in and associated with several programs and many professor and students.

First off CRWT is not a means to literary genius. It is merely a class that provides students with a deadline to complete a work and then a means of peer and (supposed) master reviewing. This, in my estimation, is the only purpose. One of the most, admittedly, difficult things about writing is actually getting yourself to put in the time. CRWT MAKES you do this. Another difficulty is having no clue as you are going, how the work would come across to someone not intimately familiar with all of the background like the author. Again, this is what the peer review process is. Not only do you get a wealth of reactions from other people who like to read, but one from a professor who should have publishing history. This is the final boon, that the professor guides you to a manager, publisher or magazine suited to the work.

Now despite all of the varying philosophies of teaching--should you help the student just 'express themselves', or teach a rubric for writing, or help the student write the story they want to write...--all programs, in my mind, have a few innate flaws. James Woods--whom I respect--waxes greatly on this. One of the problems is that the students who review, know reviewing is an "assignment" and therefore look for problems that may not really be there, additionally it can be a means for certain types to show off their brains at the expense of the story. Also, there is a problem of taking all of the advice which is sometimes bad, sometimes contradictory and sometimes just not where you want to go. This can all lead to homogenized or bland storytelling, stories without souls.

But there are also many extra-classroom experiences that prove invaluable. I've worked with teachers who are winning major prizes and being published in great places and had much to pass on to us students. I've had friends publish work and get great jobs such as story border for HBO and Hollywood. This was their dream and it was realized by the work they did in CRWT.

Now nothing in CRWT cannot be done elsewhere. That is the main trouble. Really CRWT streamlines the process of getting you working, getting your work read and getting it sent out. And there is even a cost, in that you must defend your work from the dangers of CRWTing classes. But there is always a cost and the truth is many great writers need the deadlines and support. It is surely imperfect, but it is a valuable asset to most who want to write Fiction.

Here is a list of some of the 16 Pulitzer Prize winners who attended the CRWTing program at the school where I'm getting my doctorate, it is just the fiction writers:
Robert Penn Warren, 1947 Pulitzer for All the King's Men
Wallace Stegner, 1972 Pulitzer for Angle of Repose
James Alan McPherson, 1977 Pulitzer for Elbow Room
John Cheever, 1979 Pulitzer for The Stories of John Cheever
Jane Smiley, 1992 Pulitzer for A Thousand Acres
Philip Roth, 1998 Pulitzer for American Pastoral
Michael Cunningham, 1999 Pulitzer for The Hours,
Marilynne Robinson, 2005 Pulitzer for Gilead

Many have taught there as well and Robinson is still teaching.

[Niamh]

Members are reminded that any form of personal insults directed at other members are against forum rules. Any more similar posts shall be deleted and will result in the issuing of infraction points or banning.
Please read the forum rules.

[WuWei]

This is all very interesting Modest Proposal, thank you. Having had no experience of these classes (they simply don't exist here) I am quite curious about the possible effects of such teachings.

Would you say that American Literature (and in a broader sense, American writing as a whole) has been affected in any recognizable way by the diffusion of CRWT? As you may easily guess, the biggest doubt anyone outside of this environment is bound to have is about the possible enforcement of a commonly accepted writing standard, something of a "textbook approach" to fiction.

Again, I'm just asking, this may be completely wrong, but is there a connection between CRWT and the "correct" (and therefore common) writing style we see dominating TV scripts, movies and novels?

By the way, if you get a chance, you should definitely read McGurl's book, it's VERY interesting.

[Modest Proposal]

Wuwei, what you are talking about is skirting the very central issue with CRWT. Can it be taught? Is there a 'standard'? Does the program hurt or help?

First off, there is a general affect on the body of American letters, even though not all writers have been in workshop enough have that there is a recognizable alteration.

The bigger question and the one tied to those central questions, is whether the change is good or bad. I think the answer is both. As I see it there are three levels of writing. The first is the complete genre work, that only aiming to repeat the elements of an accepted type such as western, fantasy and romance. On the opposite end is the avant-gard or the work that is so experimental as to appeal mostly to people in the field of that art itself. The third type is often called general fiction or literary fiction, and it is the work that workshops most generally address.

For this third type of literature, workshops are in general a good thing. They usually focus on developing characters, digging into the deeper themes at hand and using expressive and artistic language. Now to an extent I believe these are recognizable and even teachable, or if not teachable, at least able to be sharpened. But this brings about another aspect, that the capability or artistic tendency should usually exist before the workshop. Really workshop is not to teach a layman to be a writer, but to help a writer develop.

I think either view is incorrect, that writers are born complete artists or that artists can be made from any individual. What I have seen in classes is both aspects, I've seen people who are naturally artistic use the program to produce magnificent work and I've seen people who want to write realize that they are not writers.

As far as the measurable aspect of the work itself, I think that too is mixed. From what I can tell workshops are in general very good at streamlining mid to high-level work. They can sharpen an otherwise 'ok' work into a 'good' work, or a 'good' work into a 'very good' work, but they rarely achieve in and of themselves, the kinds of work we would label a masterpiece. For that, I think something far more is required than a workshop.

So to sum up, the workshop is flawed but helps produce the vast majority of quality--if not brilliant--work the masses enjoy in television, movies, and general fiction.

[PeterL]

Would you say that American Literature (and in a broader sense, American writing as a whole) has been affected in any recognizable way by the diffusion of CRWT? As you may easily guess, the biggest doubt anyone outside of this environment is bound to have is about the possible enforcement of a commonly accepted writing standard, something of a "textbook approach" to fiction.

Again, I'm just asking, this may be completely wrong, but is there a connection between CRWT and the "correct" (and therefore common) writing style we see dominating TV scripts, movies and novels?


You have a point about there being styles, themes, etc. that are accepted. Saying that the creative writing programs created those may be putting the cart before the horse. Those programs were rare until fairly recently, so they had little influence, but they were set up to encourage the kind of writing that already existed.

There isn't a textbook to writing in those courses. They simply try to encourage people to think of more and better things to write about and to write better.

If there is an American standard style of writing, then it has been around for at least 150 years and has been used and polished by the best American writers.

[Modest Proposal]

You have a point about there being styles, themes, etc. that are accepted. Saying that the creative writing programs created those may be putting the cart before the horse. Those programs were rare until fairly recently, so they had little influence, but they were set up to encourage the kind of writing that already existed.

There isn't a textbook to writing in those courses. They simply try to encourage people to think of more and better things to write about and to write better.

If there is an American standard style of writing, then it has bee around for at least 150 years and has been used and polished by the best American writers.

This is a very good point though the programs are becoming enough of a powerhouse that it would be reasonable to expect that by this time they are creating trends almost as much as they are reinforcing them.

I'm surprised though that your, I think correct, estimation that courses "try to encourage people to think of more and better things to write and to write better" should follow your earlier condemnation of the program. Do you think this is not a worthy goal for a creative writing program? Is there any difference between this and say painting or English? And really even history, political science and psychology are just giving a context and asking the students to think of things in new and deeper ways.

[PeterL]

This is a very good point though the programs are becoming enough of a powerhouse that it would be reasonable to expect that by this time they are creating trends almost as much as they are reinforcing them.

I wonder if they would even notice whether the trends existed.


I'm surprised though that your, I think correct, estimation that courses "try to encourage people to think of more and better things to write and to write better" should follow your earlier condemnation of the program. Do you think this is not a worthy goal for a creative writing program? Is there any difference between this and say painting or English? And really even history, political science and psychology are just giving a context and asking the students to think of things in new and deeper ways.

I don't have any problems with the concepts of such courses, but from what I saw of the faculty of one of the top 10 MFA programs was that they were not especially good writers, and they didn't seem to be very bright. As with History or Political Science there can be a great idea for a course, but when the clown trying to teach it is incompetent the course is worthless. There may be creative writing programs that are very good and that impart something useful to the students; but I do not know.

[ktr]

I don't have any problems with the concepts of such courses, but from what I saw of the faculty of one of the top 10 MFA programs was that they were not especially good writers, and they didn't seem to be very bright. As with History or Political Science there can be a great idea for a course, but when the clown trying to teach it is incompetent the course is worthless. There may be creative writing programs that are very good and that impart something useful to the students; but I do not know.

I'd absolutely adore to hear which program you are referring to.

[Modest Proposal]

I wonder if they would even notice whether the trends existed.



I don't have any problems with the concepts of such courses, but from what I saw of the faculty of one of the top 10 MFA programs was that they were not especially good writers, and they didn't seem to be very bright. As with History or Political Science there can be a great idea for a course, but when the clown trying to teach it is incompetent the course is worthless. There may be creative writing programs that are very good and that impart something useful to the students; but I do not know.

Why would you wonder if people who make their living writing are aware of trends? Of course they are. That's their field, the writer living in a log cabin cut off from society who cares nothing for trends is maybe .01% of the author-body. Most want to make money and to write about relevant things.

Which faculty did you find with no especially good writers? Did you mean you didn't like them or that you hadn't heard of them? Or do you mean that you had read some of all of the faculty's work and knew in an objective way that none was good. How do you know how bright they are? It's so funny when you realize how competitive those jobs are for someone to make some sweeping judgement.

I'm sorry to be blunt with you but you are disrespecting a huge portion of the artistic community with no basis and no reason. I think you should just stick to the final clause of your last post. That really is the only thing true that you said.

[PeterL]

Why would you wonder if people who make their living writing are aware of trends? Of course they are. That's their field, the writer living in a log cabin cut off from society who cares nothing for trends is maybe .01% of the author-body. Most want to make money and to write about relevant things.

I understand why you would think that, but from the head of the program down to graduate students my experience was that they had very limited knowledge of what might have gone on. I was very surprised.


Which faculty did you find with no especially good writers? Did you mean you didn't like them or that you hadn't heard of them? Or do you mean that you had read some of all of the faculty's work and knew in an objective way that none was good. How do you know how bright they are? It's so funny when you realize how competitive those jobs are for someone to make some sweeping judgement.

There is no objective view of writing except for the market. They were only published by small presses, and it was rare when one could find their books in stores. I began to wonder whether there was a separate distribution system just for them. Oddly enough, there were people in other departments who are very noted and popular writers.


I'm sorry to be blunt with you but you are disrespecting a huge portion of the artistic community with no basis and no reason. I think you should just stick to the final clause of your last post. That really is the only thing true that you said.

I have not shown disrespect for "a huge portion of the artistic community;" although I have indicated disrespect for a small segment of writers.

Your opinions of truth are valid only for yourself, but I know a great many things. If you disagree, then remember that personal observations are valid evidence.

[Virgil]

I'm reading Mark McGurl's recent book "The Program Era", about the impact creative writing schools have had on postwar American literature.

Since I don't live in the US and have never attendend any such lessons, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the role of these institutions in contemporary literature with someone who probably knows them better than I do. For starters, what do you think about the whole idea of teaching creative writing? In what (positive or negative) ways do you think the "Program" has changed the literary world since its appearence?

I took several creating writing classes in college and I found them incredibly insightful. They are not going to make you a world class novelist or poet, but they get you to (1) focus on writing instead of reading, (2) understand the writing process, (3) provide critical feedback to your writing from your class mates and a professional and (4) get you to write, write, write.

In summary, they get you to think like a writer rather than a literature major. If you wish to write creatively, I highly recommend at least one class if not several, if not majoring in writing.

[Modest Proposal]

I understand why you would think that, but from the head of the program down to graduate students my experience was that they had very limited knowledge of what might have gone on. I was very surprised.



There is no objective view of writing except for the market. They were only published by small presses, and it was rare when one could find their books in stores. I began to wonder whether there was a separate distribution system just for them. Oddly enough, there were people in other departments who are very noted and popular writers.



I have not shown disrespect for "a huge portion of the artistic community;" although I have indicated disrespect for a small segment of writers.

Your opinions of truth are valid only for yourself, but I know a great many things. If you disagree, then remember that personal observations are valid evidence.

To address your last comments first, you are the one who told me that you'd only taken one class. You were the one who also ended a post by saying "I don't know." And the truth is you obviously don't. Creative writing, as I've said is deeply flawed and incomplete, but your statement that it serves merely to give a job to people who want one and that a top 10 program has no good writers and is filled with people who are not very bright is absurd. What about your statement in which you question whether "they"--as if the thousands involved in CRWT are all in the same boat--are aware of trends?

I'm sorry, you have time and again shown yourself to be unreasonable hostile and uninformed. Rather than insulting the writers who are publishing, why don't you list the writers at that top 10 CRWT program who aren't bright or talented? Or maybe, the academic community, the university system, the writing culture and creative world has a better idea of what constitutes worthiness then you do. Maybe. I can list dozens, hundreds if I didn't mind using so much time, of talented authors making their living teaching and involved in CRWT. There are thousands. How can you make the distinction: "Oh, I'm not insulting a huge portion of the artistic communities needlessly, I'm just insulting thousands of faculty and students I know nothing about needlessly."

And rather than ending your post with some sophomoric waxing on the nature of truth, why don't you take this thread and my posts for what they are. I have constantly been careful to admit the flawed nature of CRWT, but you have deemed yourself worthy of perjuring thousands.

You may indeed "know a great many things" but as you have admitted, CRWT is not one of them.

[ktr]

To address your last comments first, you are the one who told me that you'd only taken one class. You were the one who also ended a post by saying "I don't know." And the truth is you obviously don't. Creative writing, as I've said is deeply flawed and incomplete, but your statement that it serves merely to give a job to people who want one and that a top 10 program has no good writers and is filled with people who are not very bright is absurd. What about your statement in which you question whether "they"--as if the thousands involved in CRWT are all in the same boat--are aware of trends?

I'm sorry, you have time and again shown yourself to be unreasonable hostile and uninformed. Rather than insulting the writers who are publishing, why don't you list the writers at that top 10 CRWT program who aren't bright or talented? Or maybe, the academic community, the university system, the writing culture and creative world has a better idea of what constitutes worthiness then you do. Maybe. I can list dozens, hundreds if I didn't mind using so much time, of talented authors making their living teaching and involved in CRWT. There are thousands. How can you make the distinction: "Oh, I'm not insulting a huge portion of the artistic communities needlessly, I'm just insulting thousands of faculty and students I know nothing about needlessly."

And rather than ending your post with some sophomoric waxing on the nature of truth, why don't you take this thread and my posts for what they are. I have constantly been careful to admit the flawed nature of CRWT, but you have deemed yourself worthy of perjuring thousands.

You may indeed "know a great many things" but as you have admitted, CRWT is not one of them.

this is basically what i said, but my post was removed.

PeterL has a very limited understanding of that thing, what's it called... the real world?

not insulting, i'm just positing the question.

(google Boston University for example, the faculty there alone could make one poop themselves)

[Candide]

From personal experience, I find creative writing courses to be pretty helpful. They have allowed me to explore different genres of writing that I may have previously not been interested in. I find the deadlines to be helpful. I have plenty of unfinished works sitting on my shelf and hard drive (as I'm sure many people do), but the stories I am "forced" to finish for class are some of my more polished pieces. The classes I have taken have also taught me some literary techniques or tricks that I would have never learned. Also, having 20-30 other students, and your professor, giving feedback is often a great tool. These are just my personal observations from taking 2-3 creative writing classes in the past couple years.

[Selfsame]

Creative writing courses are crucial, if only because they're the only place w/in the university where you sit around with a bunch of other smart and interested people and try to work out the art of making careful aesthetic judgements. If I had only taken lit classes, I would be a much worse writer and reader.

[Alexander III]

To paraphrase Keats: If poetry does not come as leaves to a tree then it best not come at all.

[The Comedian]

To paraphrase Yeats: I worked damn hard to get those lines into verse.

[Virgil]

To paraphrase Yeats: I worked damn hard to get those lines into verse.

Absolutely. Keats worked very hard and made himself a talent. If you look at his earliest poetry, it's very banal.

[Wilde woman]

I won't claim to be any expert in creative writing, but one of my best friends and co-workers recently finished her MFA and is involved in publishing and promoting poetry in the area. She is one of the brightest, most thoughtful, and most student-friendly people I know. Of course, I'm sure not all MFA graduates are like her, but she represents the field very well.

I think there is a common misconception that creative writing students are starving wannabe artists who have no knowledge of literature (or much of anything else). But as I was applying to various English programs all over the country, I was impressed by how many of them have MFA programs. I'm talking about Ivy Leagues, elite private universities, and state flagship schools - some of the top universities in the country.

And personally, I've found the few creative writing courses I've taken to be incredibly helpful. I'm going the traditional English/Comp Lit route, but it is ineffably helpful to have courses where one is pushed to express oneself in media that one may not be useful, and then to receive constructive criticism from equally motivated and intelligent peers. As Modest Proposal said, it's not about teaching your average Joe on the street to become a great writer, but about giving a forum and feedback to writers who already have an idea of their craft and market, often under the guidance of a well-respected writer.


Would you say that American Literature (and in a broader sense, American writing as a whole) has been affected in any recognizable way by the diffusion of CRWT?

I don't know about trends in American literature, but in my opinion, the greatest contribution creative writing has made is in teaching. I'm constantly surprised by how many big name, extensively-published writers want to come back to university and share their ideas with up-and-comers. At my university, I had the opportunity to read a novel in one class and (the next semester) take a class with the novel's author! For budding writers, can you imagine how helpful it is to study one novel (and yes, creative writing students do take literary courses) and then be able to listen to that writer expound on his/her stylistic choices?

I have no idea what the situation is in European schools, but my feeling is that creative writing have been a hugely beneficial addition to your traditional English department.

[shortstoryfan]

I think you have to enter creative writing courses with a few things in mind.

1.) A lot of professors are there so they have more time to write their own work and feed their family while doing so. They do not care if you learn. Some really do, though.

2.) There are so many styles and preferences in writing, it's important to find artists and programs who are familiar with the kind of writing you want to do.

3.) You will learn more from your fellow students in workshop, and really, if you are in a good program, you are developing the "New Writing".

I definitely agree that a creative writer has to have vision and talent or creative writing courses won't work. Also, you have to realize that when you learn something in creative writing, it's not a huge piece of information, but often a small one.

At my poetry workshop, I've been given opinions of the other writers, and when they seem logical, I use them. If I don't like them, I ignore them. But I could not develop without them.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't know about trends in American literature, but in my opinion, the greatest contribution creative writing has made is in teaching. I'm constantly surprised by how many big name, extensively-published writers want to come back to university and share their ideas with up-and-comers. At my university, I had the opportunity to read a novel in one class and (the next semester) take a class with the novel's author! For budding writers, can you imagine how helpful it is to study one novel (and yes, creative writing students do take literary courses) and then be able to listen to that writer expound on his/her stylistic choices?

I have no idea what the situation is in European schools, but my feeling is that creative writing have been a hugely beneficial addition to your traditional English department.

Yes, but I would point out that big name, extensively-published writers don't necessarily take these positions out of the goodness of their heart, but because it offers them up extra cash. Those positions are there so they can make a living between books.

Hell, part of the reason many of people enter MFA programs is so they can teach. Period. So in many cases, they specifically get the degree so they can return to academia and have a permanent job while they write on the side. I'm NOT saying you can't use that time wisely or there is nothing to learn from the classes, however, I can't imagine too many people enter MFA programs for the purpose of honing their craft. You need to already be able to write at a certain level before they even let you into an MFA, and usually they prefer if you have publications. Having talked to a lot of MFA students, however, I can say that while some of them were glad to have had the time to write unbothered by the real world and did learn a few things in their classes, the majority goal was the degree itself and the possibility of being able to teach afterwards that brought them to seek the degree in the first place.

[Virgil]

I don't understand why it's a criticism for writers to teach. That is obviously their learning and skill. It is natural for them to pass it on and to make a living from it. Despite what people here seem to think, most writers, probably the overwhelming majority, do not make that much money from writing.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't understand why it's a criticism for writers to teach. That is obviously their learning and skill. It is natural for them to pass it on and to make a living from it. Despite what people here seem to think, most writers, probably the overwhelming majority, do not make that much money from writing.

Actually that was exactly my point!

[Jozanny]

Yes, but I would point out that big name, extensively-published writers don't necessarily take these positions out of the goodness of their heart, but because it offers them up extra cash. Those positions are there so they can make a living between books.

Hell, part of the reason many of people enter MFA programs is so they can teach. Period. So in many cases, they specifically get the degree so they can return to academia and have a permanent job while they write on the side. I'm NOT saying you can't use that time wisely or there is nothing to learn from the classes, however, I can't imagine too many people enter MFA programs for the purpose of honing their craft. You need to already be able to write at a certain level before they even let you into an MFA, and usually they prefer if you have publications. Having talked to a lot of MFA students, however, I can say that while some of them were glad to have had the time to write unbothered by the real world and did learn a few things in their classes, the majority goal was the degree itself and the possibility of being able to teach afterwards that brought them to seek the degree in the first place.

Up to this point, I have kept my nose out of this thread, one to avoid opening old wounds, and two, because I am not entirely sanguine about the MFA circuit, but when I was younger and healthier, this was, in fact, exactly my plan, to teach for money, write for love, and dream hazy soporifics of the literary life, whatever that was.

But the MFA is like anything else, a tool, and if I once resented the fact that it is hard to compete with this caste if you can no longer fully engage in it, maybe that just means some writers will never be good enough--but conformity to MFA norms can and probably does shut some voices out, and I am not thinking of myself actually, but of controversial novelists I was once lucky enough to find under the radar.

This all said, I know some programs are excellent, but can't speak for them all.