Discussion → The Writer's Education
-
Oh, damn, I mean Roxane. Sorry.
-
Hi Stephen. Technical communication encompasses lots of things but broadly, it is using rhetorical awareness to communicate complex information. In more specific ways tech comm includes technical writing, technical editing, technical presentations, etc etc etc.
My particular research focuses on how teachers construct students as writers and how, if at all, those constructions influence student writing. I'm looking closely at engineering students because so often we hear the statement that "engineers can't write," or that "students can't write," and we don't qualify those statements. What do we mean when we say students can't write and aren't there more productive conversations we should be having?
Anyway. I won't go on. Does that answer your question?
-
I have to agree with those who said that a formal education in writing -- such as an MFA -- is only as valuable as the writer makes it out to be. A writer could go to the best MFA program, study under the best instructors, graduate with the highest honors, but if that writer doesn't have the drive to keep writing day after day (not to mention the creativity and talent), then what's the use?
Roxane brings up a good point that many writers believe their degree -- and where they obtained that degree -- defines them. That's just silly.
I've been writing since middle school. I have a BSE in English. In college, I never once took a creative writing class. Why? Looking back, I can't say. I was writing nonstop (short stories and novels) but the idea of attending a class that would give me credit for such things never crossed my mind. Then I graduated and substituted for awhile and kept writing. The idea of going to graduate school didn't cross my mind at all either until just a few years ago. It was something I brought up to both my first agent and my current agent, and they pretty much had the same answer: having a master's in creative writing is nice if you have the time and money, but it's not necessary. (My current agent suggested it best to just have a solid group of writer friends to bounce work off of and talk about books and publishing and whatever else.) Then again, they're coming from a business standpoint, because even though you attended a graduate program, that doesn't mean you can write a sellable manuscript. And besides, the average reader doesn't care where an author went to school or who they were taught by -- they just want read a great book.
For me, the best education I had was working as an editor on a magazine for two years. Reading slush, communicating with writers, helping with the layout and copy editing, even brainstorming ideas to help promote the magazine -- that helped me grow so much as a writer, and it didn't cost me a penny. In fact, I even got paid a little for my troubles.
-
About the whole MFA thing: I say, it can't hurt, unless you allow it to, and it will inevitably open worlds to you, if you allow that instead-- people, time, information, excitement, parties, lectures, etc. Even the disgruntled professor who has the shakes and regrets his life choices will teach you something that will change your life. If you can get in and out without being a cash cow, then why would you pass it up? If you are going to pay for the rest of your life, then run screaming and go to a cabin in Montana instead and write on your own. I have more to say, but I'm late for work. Cheers!
-
Wow, great discussion. I don't know if I have much to add. I have an MA in writing, but not in creative writing. I've debated about going back for an MFA, but I think there are so many outlets that can be just as useful--writing groups, reading series, networking with independent publishers and editors. Programs also vary so much in their theory--most of the folks in my writing group have MAs from a respected program in the area where I live, and I find myself continually at odds with their approach to writing--craft above all else--which they seemed to learn from the program. I agree with Joe that there's a lot of well-written material getting published that lacks passion, excitement.
But I think that programs can be good for people with different goals, such as Molly. I'm just not sure a program would be good for me at this point in my life. I agree with Scott's assertion that "Education doesn't hurt you as a writer, I don't think, unless you really expect it to help you." The only reason I might go back for an MFA would be for networking opportunities. But then my decision becomes more about the tangible results of my writing and less about my growth as a writer.
My philosophy is pretty simple nowadays: to read a lot, to write a lot, to be understand why people express themselves the way they do, what stories they tell, and to also understand these things in myself. To make sure I'm writing as honestly and passionately as possible about what I want to write about. And to let that writing be the goal, the reward. Anything in addition is a lovely surprise.
-
My education while in the UMass MFA has felt pretty loose and often self-directed. The gift of time allowed me to try things out pretty frivolously as a writer and reader, following paths that might lead nowhere, editing like crazy, getting feedback and using it or not. It's been a real joy and a lot of work, but anything but formal. This time next year, I hope to be doing a lot of the same things I'm doing now, just not in school anymore.
-
So many great points--to which I can only add a personal note.
I don't have any formal English or writing degrees, but I do have a formal education. My MS in Ecology taught me critical thinking skills, research skills, precision in writing, the need for networking with other professionals, and the value of noticing and recording minute details.
I would not be able to teach myself what I need to know about the craft of writing if I had not been equipped by my previous graduate school experience. However, I do know others who are driven and equipped enough to study and practice craft without any formal degrees whatever. I am continually awed by them.
-
so many wonderful points but i'm way behind on jmww subs so i'll be brief -
ravi, that story about you and your sister fascinates me. all of my great friends who were far more read than me growing up and better writers...none does a thing with writing.
joe, that is such an interesting point -
"but i think it gives writers w/o a lot of passion or vision the tools to make very competent stories." in college, a lot of creative writing classmates crafted much better sentences than me but they were such uninteresting, uninspired stories. the students just seemed bored with the whole process, sort of like writing essays about their summer or crafting equations in math classes.i read stories now sometimes that are superbly crafted and devoid of any fallacies...but just don't move me/interest me/change me. tim jones-yelvington on htmlgiant was making a related point about writing stories that don't "push" the reader/writer ... and he asked something like..."why are doing any of this anyway?" at this point in my middle-age life, i need to push myself/any readers i may find. otherwise, yeah, i'll just spend my free time doing other stuff.
-
Edward, to answer the question directly, I'm not sure. Take me for example, I'm not even sure that my formal education - college and law school - have allowed me to answer a straightforward question without getting myopic and egocentric.
I wouldn't trade my BA in English. Helped me a lot. I do think when I'm done being a lawyer in 20 years, I'll get my MFA so that I'll be out of the house enough.
-
I think one of the key benefits is community immersion. It's both the writers/feedback, and the networking opportunities. The intense focus on writing itself, the craft, the exposure to stories, is an aspect of immersion as well.
-
Anna, I absolutely agree about community immersion. There are things you get from that sort of exposure that are invaluable.
-
I still like the idea of the immersion of a formal writing program. I will say that the feedback of my peers during my two short fiction workshops on college didn't really do the trick. Having a writing coach to start you out, fluff you up, tear you down--it's nice. I'm sure some MFA programs are great that way. The benefit of my writing classes is that I am lazy, but I wanted to do some writing, and therefore I was forced to write. It seems to me though that lot of writing instruction is homogenizing.
For me, formal education--college, etc--I think has an immeasurable effect on the kind of life tempo that is crucial for my creative drive.
-
A community of talented and energetic writers +/- nurturing faculty. That would really be something.
-
i forgot to compliment Stephen Stark on two things - the P Diddy reference and the fucktuiviteness. Both got me laughing.
-
I benefited from my MFA experience. What was most useful? The literature courses taught by MFA faculty, in which we studied books that I had not read before, had not known about before. Studying these books, under the guidance of a talented writer, approaching them with an eye not just for scholarship but for writerly craft, figuring out how these books were built...these experiences altered my experience of reading fiction, in a good way, a good way for my writing.
Luckily, my MFA program didn't try to teach me "how to read" or "how to write", but it did expand my ideas about what those phrases meant.
-
I'm with Roxane & Molly & others. Any education is good for a writer, and a "formal" education is as good as any, often better as it can offer a more focused version of what the writer may want to learn. But, of course, nothing can ever replace actual work (writing).
Mark McGurl's recent book from HUP "The Program Era"--which I am in the middle of--is an excellent resource on this conversation: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGPRO.html
-Travis
-
I don't have an MFA, so I can't comment on the value of one. But I think a formal education of whatever sort can be immensely valuable--forcing you to study things you wouldn't have dipped into on your own (as someone above said), forcing your mind to consider things in a new way (if only to keep a professor happy with your essays), discussing whatever the topic is (my MA is in ancient history) with teachers and fellow students, the challenge of new things. The potential drawbacks are, I suppose, burn-out and rigidity: letting the new ways of thought become forms which can't be broken. But there are likewise advantages to be 'naive', self-taught, untrained--being able to see things within a field of study as an outsider. Like most things, some kind of balance is probably best.
-
A few notes about my teachers:
Lorrie Moore (age 28 then): amazing literary exegesis (spontaneous, it seemed) on assigned readings (short stories). Generous with office time, editing revisions, and guidance toward graduate school.
Larry Woiwode: Brilliant workshop environment. Taught only novel workshop in the country (then) besides Kesey's in collaborative novel. Line-edited second drafts of our first novels.
Gayle Whittier: instinctive about men and women. Generous with office time. Outside readings valuable, including Alice Miller and Lewis Hyde.
Rosellen Brown: solid, warm, astute, wise.
James Robison: Many years after workshop (four semesters/four years, incl. thesis director) I realized that Jim was/is an experimental fiction teacher, meaning his teaching was experimental/environmental. We were a demanding group: there was talent at U of Houston (careers in the offing), there was grief at Donald Barthelme's death, and the times themselves were challenging (first Gulf War). Jim taught with these elements in the room. Experimental style: pacing, striding, off-the-cuffing, and always valuing fiction itself. So much of what he said in passing or in written comments came back later as lived remark covering decades. What he said, in other words, came truer as I went ahead in age.
I wrote an essay called "Hoss Men" that covers a tenth of my experience in writing school(s). I write that there was a paranoid waiting that took place regarding s/elections, as if for a ride from the secret service. I thought pagers were for doctors at the symphony, but pagers were for drug salesmen in our undergraduate classes. It's a 90s piece, and I think it's the best thing I wrote in 2008. Harold Jaffe turned it down for the War Issue of Fiction International because the ways it is about war are a little hard to guess at: Gulf War in the background and drug war in the foreground, including pharmaceutical drugs, and (experimental fiction) publishing: how to. Do it. I submitted to the Belladonna conference in NY, and the panel turned it down, enthusiastic about the essay but unable to see its focus. Definitely an essay but with story elements.
-
That is, I might rewrite it with an eye toward "focus," give it a pair of (reading?) glasses, so to speak. I do want to publish it, but if the reason to publish it is to get one inch closer to reentering the teaching market, then (that's not the reason). The reason is: I like it, "Hoss Men"
-
"Hoss Men" appears in the print version of my weblog, Ana Verse, 362 pp., published by Blurb, Inc. The essay (& 49 other entries of the first 300) is off the weblog. Another essay-letters-sequence there called "Cool Report" covers topics I glance at in "Hoss Men." The b-l-o-o-k is very expensive to purchase: $75 paper, $95 hardcover. I use the print version myself to cross-reference three years of writing, but by publishing standards, it is "un-" or "self-published." depending. It has sold no copies.
Group Description
We're an online literary journal that publishes works of short, indeterminate prose and accompanying criticism. We feature one author every posting period (every two weeks). Every so often a question related to the form and function of fiction will be posted here for discussion.
http://www.matchbooklitmag.comThis is a public group.
Anyone can see it and join.