MUST READ: SHOW OR TELL

You will want to check out Louis Menand's fine New Yorker essay on the explosive growth of the MFA and its ramifications:

Creative-writing programs are designed on the theory that students who have never published a poem can teach other students who have never published a poem how to write a publishable poem. The fruit of the theory is the writing workshop, a combination of ritual scarring and twelve-on-one group therapy where aspiring writers offer their views of the efforts of other aspiring writers. People who take creative-writing workshops get course credit and can, ultimately, receive an academic degree in the subject; but a workshop is not a course in the normal sense—a scene of instruction in which some body of knowledge is transmitted by means of a curricular script. The workshop is a process, an unscripted performance space, a regime for forcing people to do two things that are fundamentally contrary to human nature: actually write stuff (as opposed to planning to write stuff very, very soon), and then sit there while strangers tear it apart. There is one person in the room, the instructor, who has (usually) published a poem. But workshop protocol requires the instructor to shepherd the discussion, not to lead it, and in any case the instructor is either a product of the same process—a person with an academic degree in creative writing—or a successful writer who has had no training as a teacher of anything, and who is probably grimly or jovially skeptical of the premise on which the whole enterprise is based: that creative writing is something that can be taught.

Comments

[chris]

I recently read an article on the MFA on a similar topic in, a very guilty pleasure of mine, The New Criterion.

https://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Deprogramming-the-MFA-4071

I enjoy your excellent blog despite living in london, keep up the good work

Regards,

Chris

[stephan]

Well, I suppose this at least keeps us from talking about other less divisive subjects, like Israel-Palestine or Obama-Cheney.

[Brooklyn Bibliophile]

Gee, I dunno, Mark: this feels like just the latest iteration in a debate that flares up with predictable regularity, like a sunspot cycle. There are many good reasons to knock MFA programs -- and Luke Menand highlights a few here, although it's revealing that he hedges with "can," "usually," "probably" -- but some terrific careers have emerged from the American writing mills since Paul Engel hung out his shingle at Iowa. That counts for something, yes? And how is the workshop method that different from the kind of highly charged back-and-forth conversation that unfolds between a contracted writer and an editor at a publishing house?

[LAReader]

This debate flares up with predictable regularity because it's a very valid debate. I've participated in creative writing workshops at a well-respected university and in a more informal environment in the instructor's living room, and in both cases it felt like the blind leading the blind.
I wonder if terrific writing careers emerge from MFA programs *despite* the workshop environment? I think there's a big difference between a highly charged back-and-forth conversation between two people who respect and understand each other VS. the sometimes random feedback one receives from various other fledgling writers at different points on the learning curve.

[Niall]

I don't think the charge against MFA programs is that they can never help people become better writers. Rather, the critique focuses on their prevalence, and their rise as the main conduit for aspiring writers to develop their craft. If we look at the second issue, I think we see cause for concern and critique.

For one thing, time spent in an MFA program is time not spent out in the real world, honing your imagination and sensibility against the whetstone of daily life. MFA programs can too easily become echo chambers, with writers talking about writing with writers and how to write better so that other writers will like their work more. This seems onanistic in its implications. If we look at the careers of brilliant writers, they are driven by obsession and scarred by circumstance. It's hard to see how either is catalyzed or nurtured in an MFA program.

Second, and stemming from the first point above, I think MFA programs make it harder for aspiring writers to discover a personal aesthetic. I think rather they enforce a standardized aesthetic around which the program is built. This was certainly David Foster Wallace's experience. Without a personal aesthetic, a writer really has nothing to draw on and no firm compass to guide her in her own writing, and in her evaluation of others.

[Jack Pendarvis]

I'm that second guy, the instructor without a degree who grimly and jovially sits around scoffing at everything or whatever it was. Anyway, it works great! We get some nice stories. I'm always going into the classroom all, "Hey, today I better enforce a standardized aesthetic around which the program is built, if I wasn't so busy honing my imagination and sensibility against the whetstone of daily life because I'm so driven by obsession and scarred by circumstance." (I don't mean to pick on that guy, his just happens to be the comment right above mine, so it's easy to copy.) But usually we end up talking about somebody's story-in-progress and figuring out how to help one another if we can and having a good time unless I have one of my famous "headaches."

[Doug Matus]

What never gets mentioned is that, unless one enters into a creative writing program, a young writer is very unlikely to find a social environment where other writers are willing to read and respond to their work. Even a genius needs feedback, lest their writing remain insular and uninteresting.

[Jack Pendarvis]

As I review my happy-go-lucky blather (above), I believe my tone seems excessively rude to the gentleman commenter from whom I joshingly cribbed. That was not my intent! That is a problem between me and the internet. I only meant to say that abstractions and generalities fly out the window when you get into a room with a bunch of particular individuals who want to write. Some of them want to be Cormac McCarthy and some Edith Wharton, and some of them want to write about unicorns and some are just still upset by their high school reunions. It's pleasantly volatile being among all these weird people! And so far - in my very limited experience - it's different every time in shocking and enjoyable ways.

[Brooklyn Bibliophile]

I graduated from a MFA program twenty years ago and then came to New York, where I worked as a book editor. My program wasn't one of the flashy ones but was rather animated by a particular philosophy that aimed to craft each student into the best writer that he or she could be, no matter the level of talent. I've gotta say that my workshop background made me a more efficient and engaged editor, whether I was pencil-crawling, page by page, through a manuscript or handling easily-bruised egos or advocating for the author in-house. I could relate to each aspect of the writer's life because in my own naive student days I'd lived that life, I'd seen myself as a part of a community of writers.

All of the concerns expressed here are valid, if a bit cynical. There are more positive facets to the MFA experience as well, though, even if they tend to get buried in a typical anti-MFA screed. It's vital to explore them and not to simply take as an article of faith that writing programs are formulaic, dull and mediocre.

[Lincoln]

It is interesting to see how varied people's experiences are in something as seemingly common as a workshop.

Whatever problems I found in my workshop experiences I absolutely did find standardizing of aesthetics. To the contrary, in the workshops I was in people had a wide diversity of writing styles and concerns and the goal was as much to push them to utilize their individual strengths as to learn any kind of "rules" or standardizing tricks.

I also had very qualified teachers who were publishing acclaimed works during the time I was there and at a good amount of the students had published somewhere and were starting to publish elsewhere.

I do agree that the focus in some MFA programs on the workshop is stifling. I learned more from the craft seminars and lectures I attended in my MFA program than from the workshops, ultimately. Still, the workshops are necessarily in as much as they force you to write and force you to learn to critique other people. The last part is important and something these kind of screeds miss: even if you don't learn a lot from the feedback you get from an individual story in class, you can learn a ton from trying to critique others.

[Niall]

Doug -

Responding to your point that without the MFA experience, aspiring writers are left without the social networking and critical feedback necessary to succeed. I'd just make two points...

First, if the MFA phenomenon has so monopolized the professional ladder that lifts new writers into the public eye, isn't this in fact one more thing to critique about the rise of MFA programs? Is the MFA system becoming like the Hollywood studio system? And if so perhaps the best response to that would be to start an indie movement outside of the MFA factory?

Second, I know lots of writers who have never participated in MFAs who have managed to find critical audiences and networking within the industry. It's something writers were able to do long before MFA programs came into existence, and many are doing just fine without help from the MFA universe.

Once again, not to hate on people who've had positive experiences in MFA programs. Just to point out there maybe aspects to the MFA phenomenon that are less than optimal for writing as a whole.

[Lincoln]

I wonder if terrific writing careers emerge from MFA programs *despite* the workshop environment? I think there's a big difference between a highly charged back-and-forth conversation between two people who respect and understand each other VS. the sometimes random feedback one receives from various other fledgling writers at different points on the learning curve.

This seems like the wrong way to look at it for me. If you go to an MFA program (or do workshops or writing groups outside of an MFA program) you will likely find a lot of peopel who don't understand your work and can't help you much. But you will also likely find a few people who do understand your work and do know how to help you.

As Doug said above, it is often hard to find a group of writers to get feedback from in "the real world" (whatever that means). It is also hard to find time to write when working a full time job. The MFA world mainly provides a space where you set aside the time to pursue writing and provides you with a community where hopefully you can find a few common souls.

I'm not really sure what the first sentence says though. Perhaps the people who succeed without MFA did so IN SPITE of not having them either. I've certainly seen people drastically improve their writing in MFA programs. I've seen others who were already great/not so great and didn't get noticeably better/worse. I imagine the same is true for almost any type of schooling.

[Lincoln]

Niall, I don't believe Doug said anything about "networking" with publishing insiders or on the professional ladder. He said it is often hard to find a social network of people who will read and edit your work and do so well.

It is certainly possible to find people to read your work outside of an MFA program and to find a social environment where you feel encouraged, but it ins't always there.

[Niall]

Lincoln -

Point taken. I would just say I don't know anything about the structure of an MFA program all by itself that would provide greater certainty of finding the circle of readers you need to become a better writer.

[Lincoln]

Naill,

Well, let me first say I definitely understand your criticism of the huge number of MFA programs and how they might be too common of a path for people. I just disagree that they can't be a good path for people or that they standardize aesthetics or anything like that.

That said, I think what gives you a greater chance of finding a circle of readers/editors is that you are immersed in a community of people who take writing seriously. Obviously some people may find these elsewhere, but a bunch of serious writers and readers of contemporary fiction aren't always laying around.

For me, when I graduated undergrad I went home and made a lot of friends but none of them were writers. My few undergraduate writer friends quickly moved on to other careers and stopped writing. I couldn't really bother them to read my work. I didn't live in a big city, so dont' really know where I would have found writers to share work with who I trusted. In fact, I didn't really know anyone who read work even remotely similar to what I read, loved and wanted to write in a similar vein to.

When I went to an MFA program, OTOH, while most of the students didn't write like me, most at least knew the writers I liked or had an idea what I was going for. And it wasn't hard to find a few readers who were good editors for my work.

None of that's a sad story nor did I go to an MFA program because I didn't have any writer friends, just an anecdote about sharing work with people.

[Niall]

Lincoln -

In re the standardization of aesthetics in MFA programs...there's enough anecdotal evidence that this is so to take it seriously. After all, why should the MFA be different from any other graduate degree program, where ultimately you have to please your advisor and at least pay lip service to his/her preferred theories. How else to explain the cult of Raymond Carver in MFA programs all through the 90s?

But there's an elephant in the room that we're pretending not to see. That elephant is the claim to authority, to "certification", that MFA programs assume and promote and which the largely informal networks of writers reading other writers in the past never claimed or offered. This authority effect, a product of the MFA's academic origins and the programs' need to market themselves successfully, introduces a fairly radical difference that colors every aspect of the experience. It's an effect that I think is quite pernicious.

This is the real difference between finding sharp, critical like-minded writers to read your work down at the local hangout and finding them in an MFA program, and it's a difference that I think speaks in the former's favor. Because, at the end of the day, isn't the authoritative nature of the MFA degree entirely bogus and spurious? An MFA graduate is no more likely to be a better writer, or reader, than another writer who never got an MFA.

It's also the economic interests behind MFA programs that make it almost inevitable that they will sell themselves as the only practical way to become a good writer. Marketing spin that I can hear being repeated on this very comment thread. Perhaps MFA's are just the literary equivalent of DeVry Institute of Technology, and should be taken with the same degree of seriousness?

Just a thought.

[Scott Martelle]

This is an old debate, and obviously one that can't be resolved. As long as people have dreams and ambitions of being writers and lack the confidence to strike it out on their own, there will be institutions rising that, for a fee, will serve as the training ground -- with successes and failures. I look at MFA programs like any other academic program -- just because you get a master's in history doesn't mean you'll be a historian. An MFA doesn't mean you'll be a writer. At the same time, it's not a bad trial by fire, and pretty fast way to vet your strengths and weaknesses.

[Jacob Silverman]

Niall,

A few comments in response to your posts (which are well thought out, though I disagree with you in some respects): 1) I don't think ass-kissing and total obeisance to professors/advisors is as prevalent as you think in graduate programs. As for the Carver rip-offs of decades past, couldn't they also be attributed to fashion -- i.e. people trying to imitate success -- as much as anything else? Also, I'm very skeptical of claims that are reliant on "anecdotal evidence," even an abundance of it.

Secondly, not all MFA programs claim to be as authoritative or imperious as one might think. Check out Iowa's "Philosophy," which is hedged with a fair amount of honesty, self-examination, and doubt:

The Program in Creative Writing is known informally as the Iowa Writers' Workshop, and these two titles suggest the duality of our purpose and function. As a "program" we offer the Master of Fine Arts in English, a terminal degree qualifying the holder to teach creative writing at the college level. As a "workshop" we provide an opportunity for the talented writer to work and learn with established poets and prose writers. Though we agree in part with the popular insistence that writing cannot be taught, we exist and proceed on the assumption that talent can be developed, and we see our possibilities and limitations as a school in that light. If one can "learn" to play the violin or to paint, one can "learn" to write, though no processes of externally induced training can ensure that one will do it well. Accordingly, the fact that the Workshop can claim as alumni nationally and internationally prominent poets, novelists, and short story writers is, we believe, more the result of what they brought here than of what they gained from us. We continue to look for the most promising talent in the country, in our conviction that writing cannot be taught but that writers can be encouraged.

-----

In any case, good debate here. Carry on.

[Niall]

Jacob -

I wasn't talking about ass-kissing and total obeisance, but rather about the inherent tendency in academia to create a party line that must be followed, otherwise you will not feel "part of the program". The subtle pressure to conform to what "the program" considers to be the ideal of honest, good writing. This was certainly the case at the University of Chicago, where I got my Masters. Also, my father is an academic and I was raised on campuses, so I know a thing or two about that culture.

As for anecdotal evidence: What other evidence could we possibly have about the atmosphere within an MFA program other than testimonial (i.e., anecdotal) evidence? Please advise.

MFA programs don't have to claim to be authoritative. The authority claim is both implicit and ineluctable in the very fact you're being asked to pay some considerable coin and spend a considerable piece of your life to get a degree that says you're a writer. WOuld people actually go to all that trouble unless they thought getting an MFA conferred expertise and authentication they could not otherwise acquire? Such credentialed programs automatically create the distinction between those that do and those that don't have the necessary credentials. It snowballs from there. You inadvertently indulge in this when you reference the illustrious literary alumni of your program whose success casts a warming glow on your modest program.

I have no doubt that you are quite sincere in your desire to encourage young writers and help them develop a talent they possessed before they passed through your doors. On the other hand, the sociological consequences of the academicization of creative writing exist independently of your, or my, sincerity.

I would also challenge the fundamental assumption of all MFA programs: that writers are best taught (nurtured? midwifed?) by other writers in a one-on-one setting. History gives almost no evidence of this occurring. Writers have always been inspired by the *works* of other writers, but only rarely by having seminars with them. Indeed, I believe I would learn far more from Thomas Pynchon by reading Gravity's Rainbow with care than I would by talking with him in person.

Writers are taught by life. Not by talking about writing with other writers. This is the sense in which writing cannot be taught, in the academic sense. Since this is so, the basic premise of the MFA effort is self-defeating for both teacher and student, and enervating to the art itself.

[L.]

Niall,

I'd have to respectful disagree with much of what you have said. I don't know what anecdotal evidence you refer to, but my personal anecdotal experience would say the opposite is true. You are as least as likely to see diversity in literary fiction emerging from MFA programs than not. Every weird niche of experimental (good or bad) fiction seems far more likely to be populated by MFA grads than not. In fact, this is often a critique of MFA programs, that they breed writers writing "experimental" or niche fiction that "real poeple" don't care to read. I think a more generous view is that MFA programs force you to read widely and learn about different styles.

I find the carver example to be an odd one because, if anything, he is still the main imitated form by non-mfa literary writers while the MFA students have moved on to Johnson or Saunders as rip-off models. This is to say, there is plenty of boring writing, hegemony and imitation going on in MFA programs but that hardly means the same thing doesn't go on in writing world in general.

As for the claim that mfa writers are no likely to be better than non, I have to take it you have never read a slush pile. Of course an average MFA writer is better, because they have at least met a minimum level of filtering and at least studied the craft for some legnth of time. This isn't much of a comparison though, since "non-mfa" means every single writer in the world, no matter how serious, attempting to write, no? I take it you mean more that the best 10 MFA grads are no better than the best 10 non-MFA grads, which I'd certainly agree with, but I'm not sure what the argument is at that point.

I would also challenge the fundamental assumption of all MFA programs: that writers are best taught (nurtured? midwifed?) by other writers in a one-on-one setting. History gives almost no evidence of this occurring.

Really? I would have to disagree once again. History is full of writers who were molded and advanced by individual editors. Think of all the writers Lish alone had a hand in shaping? Isn't a workshop teacher like a personal editor to some extent?

Writers are taught by life. Not by talking about writing with other writers.

I'd likewise say history is full of writers who advanced their craft by discussing it each other in groups, whehter in a university setting, a New York bar or a Paris salon.

[Niall]

You do realize that you are only agreeing with me when you point out that MFA's tend to predominantly turn out one kind of writer - that of experimental fiction. Doesn't that support the claim of uniformity that I am making?

"Of course an average MFA writer is better, because they have at least met a minimum level of filtering and at least studied the craft for some legnth of time."

But this is a circular argument, assuming what you're trying to prove. Since what is in question is precisely the effectiveness of the "education" provided by MFA programs. As such, it doesn't really advance the discussion.

"History is full of writers who were molded and advanced by individual editors. Think of all the writers Lish alone had a hand in shaping? Isn't a workshop teacher like a personal editor to some extent?"

No, not at all. On the contrary, a Gordon Lish or an Ezra Pound are doing the opposite of what I hope an instructor in an MFA program is trying to do: They are actually rewriting the work at hand to suit their own literary tastes. This is what Pound did to "The Wasteland" and it's what Lish has done in many instances. This is not teaching. This is expropriation.

"I'd likewise say history is full of writers who advanced their craft by discussing it each other in groups, whehter in a university setting, a New York bar or a Paris salon."

But you're missing my point entirely. Which is that there is something fundamentally different about writers interacting with "instructors" in an artificially constructed academic program that claims to bestow expertise unobtainable elsewhere, and writers outside of the academic/marketing context supporting other writers in the context of real life. To confuse the two is to not understand the difference between authority and experience.

[L.]

Surely we can think of writers who didn't have mentors or groups of fellow writers as well. But there is a difference between arguing that a certain path is the only path towards being a writer and arguing that no one can benefit from certain path. Workshops and one-on-one mentoring may not work for everyone, but they certainly work for some people.

I guess it just seems odd to me to know writers who swear their careers are due to seminars with some great teacher, for example Lish, and then hear you say there is no evidence of anyone ever being helped by a seminar.

[L.]

"You do realize that you are only agreeing with me when you point out that MFA's tend to predominantly turn out one kind of writer - that of experimental fiction. "

But that isn't what I argued at all, nor would I deem all "experimental" writers to be of the same style by any stretch of the imagination.

"This is not teaching. This is expropriation."

You seem to making some huge assumptions here. Yes, Lish was known to sometimes really re-write people's work. That hardly means that every lish student had their work carved by Lish or, more importantly, that these students didn't learn lessons from his editing that carried over into their writing post-Lish.

But you're missing my point entirely.

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding where to punt the ball, as the goal posts seem to be jumping around and multiplying at will....

[L.]

Like, let us look at this specifically:

I would also challenge the fundamental assumption of all MFA programs: that writers are best taught (nurtured? midwifed?) by other writers in a one-on-one setting. History gives almost no evidence of this occurring.

---

there is something fundamentally different about writers interacting with "instructors" in an artificially constructed academic program that claims to bestow expertise unobtainable elsewhere, and writers outside of the academic/marketing context supporting other writers in the context of real life.

You are essentially saying there is no way to compare any kind of writing mentorship, instruction or group dynamic in the "real world" to one in the artificial confines of a MFA program.

That would be fine except your original argument hinged on this same comparison.

You said history has no examples of the kinds of instruction MFA programs provide producing good writers.... but you discount every good writer produced from an MFA program as being one who would have been great anyway and claim any non-MFA example of MFA-style instruction to be inadmissable, not able to be compared.

You have simply defined the terms to the point that it is impossible to ever prove you wrong. Any example outside of an MFA programs does not count. Any example from an MFA program doesn't count.

[DenverScribe]

After reading Francine Prose's "Reading Like a Writer," I immediately replay in my mind the ridiculous catchwords that are used during workshops (i.e., "Whose story is this?" and the like). Like many things in academics, one probably gets out of a program what one puts in. Chekhov corresponded with his "community" that now is found in workshops, and that community included Maxim Gorgy among others. He was a doctor by training, and lived in a repressive system that probably gave him material o'plenty. Hemingway was not part of a program, but was taught, or polished, by Sherwood Anderson and Gertrude Stein in the same way as Michael Chabon at UC-Irvine.

[Drew]

Well, I have to admit, this is a first for me. I check 4 literary weblogs daily: TEV (of course!), The Literary Saloon, Conversational Reading, and The Millions. This is the first time in five or more years of reading them that ALL FOUR have had the same article/topic as the primary (or, tertiary in the case of the Lit Saloon) post (not even deaths get this much harmonic coverage).

This must be one helluva of book.

Once I saw it at the Lit Saloon, I knew there would be a vibrant commentary on it here at TEV - and lo and behold :)

Congrats Mark, daughters are most excellent. I have two and wouldn't trade them for anything.

[Matt]

Having endured an MFA program myself, I have mixed feelings when it comes to their usefulness. One doesn't have to read many biographies of writers, though, to see that just because a path works for one writer doesn't mean it's THE path. For instance, I went to a program with twenty-two year olds who'd been in school their whole lives, thirty year olds who'd been in the "real world" for almost a decade, and fifty year olds who had been writing on the side for decades but waited until their kids' tuition bills were paid to make the leap, hardly a group with uniform tastes. And the faculty were much the same--short story writers up on the latest trends, novelists published by obscure presses I'd never heard of, language poets, etc. Looking back on it, the lack of one dominant aesthetic was one of the hallmarks of the program I attended. Ultimately, I subscribe to the bumper sticker slogan: Against MFAs? Don't get one.

On a broader level, though, I think we should at least credit universities for dedicating space to reading and writing, two skills our society currently discounts.

[Niall]

L:

Let me provide a gesamt reply to your serial posts in response to me...

"But that isn't what I argued at all, nor would I deem all "experimental" writers to be of the same style by any stretch of the imagination."

Actually, that's exactly what you said. I quote:

"Every weird niche of experimental (good or bad) fiction seems far more likely to be populated by MFA grads than not. In fact, this is often a critique of MFA programs, that they breed writers writing "experimental" or niche fiction that "real poeple" don't care to read."

Self-contradiction is no excuse for mendacity.

"That hardly means that every lish student had their work carved by Lish or, more importantly, that these students didn't learn lessons from his editing that carried over into their writing post-Lish."

I don't need to claim that Lish carved up every writer's work that came his way. I just need to point out the fact that he achieved his major influence over writers as an editor, not as an MFA teacher. Which supports my point, not yours.

"I guess it just seems odd to me to know writers who swear their careers are due to seminars with some great teacher, for example Lish, and then hear you say there is no evidence of anyone ever being helped by a seminar."

Lish's seminars bear no resemblance to MFA programs. And, as I've pointed out above, his influence is mostly due to his editing work. Nor have I ever stated that no one has ever been helped by a seminar. My claims is that the MFA model does not provide anything unique or special or superior when compared to the ways writers have traditionally developed their talent, and that MFA programs have no evidence that their students are better writers. Points you have never responded to.

"You are essentially saying there is no way to compare any kind of writing mentorship, instruction or group dynamic in the "real world" to one in the artificial confines of a MFA program. "

If I were saying this I would be obviously contradicting myself. What I'm claiming is precisely that one can make this comparison, and that MFA programs do not fare well in it. Please respond to what I actually say, not what you wanted me to have said.

"You said history has no examples of the kinds of instruction MFA programs provide producing good writers."

This is becoming tedious. I'm making two points: That the MFA model is a radical departure from how writers have historically developed their talents rather successfully. Therefore the claim that MFA programs reproduce the "only" way writers can improve their craft is demonstrably false and ahistorical. Secondly, let me repeat one more time since apparently this point is obscure beyond comprehension for you: My claim is not that the products of MFA programs may not turn out to be good writers, but that they are no better than writers not exposed to MFA programs.

It is YOU on the other hand who rather arrogantly claimed that *of course* writers produced by MFA programs will be superior to those who don't submit to them. The sweeping claim to superiority - unsubstantiated in any way - comes from you, not from me.

"You have simply defined the terms to the point that it is impossible to ever prove you wrong."

No. On the contrary, as I've demonstrated, I've defined my terms very precisely. A precision you have chosen to ignore and wish away. If you can't prove me wrong, it's because you can't.

[Hank Z.]

It seems so easy to bunch all MFA programs together, to think they all operate the same way - and in general terms, this is true to some degree. And how many of us actually have first-hand experience in more than one program, if any at all, to make that comparison?

But I think in this age of well-disseminated information, it's easier to realize not all MFA programs are alike. I can reflect on my MFA experience and realize: most writers were not particularly good writers (even, sometimes, on the simple sentence level or in terms of being able to use proper grammar!); there was little effort or success in being published in literary journals; there were NO connections being made outside our little insulated writing community; and there was little actual teaching going on in the classroom setting (or in work on theses).

And not to say that everyone at other programs has a different (or satisfying) experience, but I think many of us have seen writers talk about experiences at places such as Iowa or Michigan or even less-acclaimed programs where the situation is different. You can look at program websites and see that different places have different theories on how much teaching of writing should be done. And you can simply read the acknowledgments page of books to see the role connections play for some writers.

These are different times for writers; I think it's safe to say that the literary community is different than it was eighty years ago, and so is the way the publishing industry operates. MFA programs feel sort of necessary (necessary evil, for some) for many who love writing. But that doesn't mean they can all be held up as the same experience for all MFA students and grads throughout the country.

[L.]

Neill, we seem to not be understanding each other but I'll just reply to a few things.

What I was saying is that you can pick any "style" of American fiction and find MFA grades who are big names in them. Name a bunch of subgenres or styles and we can find. Hell, name every style in contemporary literary fiction really and you can find MFA grads who write that way. Thus, the claim that MFA programs pump out identical writers doesn't seem to hold much water.

I pointed out that there is a complaint that MFA programs pump out weird experimentalists that no one want to read to show that that is an equally common yet totally contradictory complaint to the one that says MFA programs pump out identical Carver-clone safe realists.

In short, the complaints leveled at MFA programs are often contradictory.

I just need to point out the fact that he achieved his major influence over writers as an editor, not as an MFA teacher. Which supports my point, not yours.

What I was responding to from you was this comment:

I would also challenge the fundamental assumption of all MFA programs: that writers are best taught (nurtured? midwifed?) by other writers in a one-on-one setting. History gives almost no evidence of this occurring. Writers have always been inspired by the *works* of other writers, but only rarely by having seminars with them.

You claim that history has no evidence of one-on-one instruction helping writers and that "only rarely" are seminars every helpful.

These are your words. I believe they are completely contradicted by literary history, which is full of writers being taught in one-on-one or semiar type settings, thus the Lish example who did both seminars and one-on-one instruction.

I was making an argument against a specific claim, but in response you just backpeddled and shifted the goal posts to the point it is impossible to tell what you are actually arguing.

Do you believe that seminars, one-on-one instruction and writers discussing writing with each other ("Writers are taught by life. Not by talking about writing with other writers. ")?

If so, contrary to what you said before, then we can move on to the question of whether MFA programs for some reason can't provide any of the above because of their setting.

Therefore the claim that MFA programs reproduce the "only" way writers can improve their craft is demonstrably false and ahistorical.

I don't believe a single person has ever, in the history of literary world, claimed that MFA programs are the "only" way to help writers improve their craft. Certainly no one has said that in this thread. And no one who reads fiction would ever think that.

The only thing that I have argued is that MFA programs can be helpful to some writers.

You are arguing with a complete straw man, in which case I'll step aside and let you pound you fists against the hay.

[L.]

Sorry.

Do you believe that seminars, one-on-one instruction and writers discussing writing with each other ("Writers are taught by life. Not by talking about writing with other writers.") can ever be helpful to writers?

-

Anyway, I have plenty of gripes with the current state of American fiction and with the MFA world. But I just disagree with many of your specific claims (MFA grads all write the same way, writers talking about writing is never helpful, seminars and one-on-one instruction are never helpful, etc.)

It isn't hard to find writers who say they have been helped by these things and it isn't hard to find diversity in MFA grads. There are legitimate critiques to be made about the over abundance of MFA programs, but there is no need to overstate the case and act like MFA programs can't possibly provide anything positive ever to anyone.

[Niall]

L:

The fact remains that you yourself pointed out that MFA writers have a reputation for all writing in one kind of style. Your words, not mine. If anyone is "backpedalling" here, it's you.

My point about the fundamental flaw in the MFA program is that writers normally have very little to offer other writers in a one-on-one setting. Writers inspire one another through their work, as they have always done, but not necessarily through academic seminars. Lish does not fit the MFA mold at all because (a) he is primarily an editor, not a writer, and (b) his writing sessions bear zero resemblance to what goes in MFA "workshops". They are more like cultic experiences, as more than one participant has pointed out. So Lish really can't count as an example of the success of the MFA model, since he's not following it.

"I don't believe a single person has ever, in the history of literary world, claimed that MFA programs are the "only" way to help writers improve their craft."

Actually, a couple people in this thread have in fact claimed that only in the MFA environment will writers find the support and expertise they need to develop. I was responding to that POV. You yourself, as I have pointed out, also made the sweeping claim that products of MFA programs will, by definition, be better than those that don't come from MFA programs. So, really, you're backpedalling again on this one.

"The only thing that I have argued is that MFA programs can be helpful to some writers."

Pure mendacity. You in fact claimed, rather baldly, that MFA writers were "of course" superior to non-MFA writers. Stop pretending otherwise. It's embarrassing to watch you falsify your own position like this.

[L.]

You yourself, as I have pointed out, also made the sweeping claim that products of MFA programs will, by definition, be better than those that don't come from MFA programs. So, really, you're backpedalling again on this one.

Ooof... this seems like a very willful misreading of what I said. I said that your average MFA student is likely a better writer than your average non-MFA student, because your average non-MFA student can't write at all. Which is to say, most people can barely write and having been to an MFA program at least means you are more likely to copy edit your work.

I don't think there is anything radical about this claim. Read a slush pile sometimes, most submissions are very very bad.

But, as I pointed out, this says little about the good MFA writers versus the good non-MFA students. In that case, I don't really know how to compare. What is the cut-off? It is certainly true that there are tons of great MFA grads and tons of great non-MFA grads. I doubt anyone would ever suggest differently.

George Saunders makes an argument for MFA programs in a Believer interview where he claims that MFA programs, when the experience is good, provides a "speeding up" of a writer's arc. Which is to say, the talented MFA grad and the talented non-MFA grad are not better or worse than each other... but the talented MFA grad might realize his craft a few years sooner than the non-MFA grad. He may be helped along.

I think that makes sense.

[grackyfrogg]

So, as I read through the above comments, it seems to me the real issue at the heart of this ongoing debate is not whether MFA programs are helpful/not helpful to writers in the development of their craft, but whether the MFA is valid on its own as an advanced academic degree, on a par with typical master's programs. And I think the answer to this question should have less to do with the effects on the students than with an evaluation of the actual academic requirements (generally) specified by an MFA course. Perhaps we can profitably redirect the discussion in this way, if others have any thoughts on this?

[Mark]

It would be interesting to get an accounting of how many New Yorker short-story writers have been through—or taught at—MFA programs (ie, like George Saunders, TC Boyle, Tobias Wolff, Lorrie Moore, Denis Johnson, on and on, even going back to Cheever). This debate is such a tired old saw and rests on the extremely antique notion of "genius" that I thought we'd all thrown out about 50 years ago. There's no difference in a studio class for training writers than, say, the studio classes that train architects or sculptors. No one ever seems to have a problem with those.

One word of advice for prospective MFA candidates: Go somewhere that's a known pipeline for book houses and magazines. Who you know is as important as how good you are.

[TEV]

Mark, I might respectfully turn your post on its head and argue that there's an MFA sameness to New Yorker fiction that has made it - for this reader, at least - not especially interesting for many years now.

I also would submit that the reason this argument continues is, frankly, that MFA programs have not convincingly justified their existence, and I do think the burden of proof is on them - after all, you cite the 50 year mark, and I would argue (to paraphrase what I think Niall is getting at) that nothing written from Cervantes to this noted 50 year mark was the result of an MFA program. That - to me - is that one riposte these programs can't convincingly rebut.

Obviously, I write this as a non-MFA. I've sat in on workshops and find them generally less than useful for the reasons the detractors cite. I've always felt the real benefit MFA programs offer is the opportunity to read - to read closely, with guidance, and to think about how the things they read are built. I am, however, generally more sympathetic (in the end) to the argument that a writer will be more vital and more valuable with a lived life behind them, as opposed to college to MFA to teaching post to et alia ...

OK, outta here. Diapers to change. Thanks all for the stimulating discussion.

[L.]

TEV:

I guess my question is what leads you to believe that the MFA-sameness of short stories is actually due to MFAs. What I mean here is are we certain that the prevalent, imitative style of any given era is composed of MFA writers while the radical new writers are non-MFA students?

In my experience, as many non-MFA students are following the literary winds as MFA students. I think as many non-MFA students have ripped off Carver, for example.

Or to put it another way, the sameness of short stories in any given time period seems to me to be due more to literary magazines, edtiors and critics.

I do agree that graduating college, going directly to a masters program, then going directly to a PhD program while finally getting a teaching post at a college is probably a bad idea for a writer. Or for a philosopher, historian or anything really.

[tod goldberg]

The general profile of MFA students has changed, however. Most are not 22 year olds fresh out of undergrad, they're usually in their 30s and have lived a bit (in low residency programs, the median age is 35) because what does a 22 year old, generally, have to say about anything? Or anything that the professors would be moved by when reading applications? Sure, there are a few who come out of undergrad with great skill, but it's not the norm.

As someone who directs an MFA program, but who published 6 books prior to ever having an MFA myself, i can tell you with certainty you don't need an MFA to publish or write well. Having gone to get my MFA in the middle of my career, I understand well the need to do so for professional purposes -- it is exceptionally difficult to get a job without one, even with many books in print. And having a job is important. You can't eat acclaim, people, and you frequently can't eat on your book's advances, either, and at some point having health insurance is nice, too. So maybe you do that by working in a bank or in advertising or you're a hooker, but if you love books and writing and teaching, being a professor is a pretty great job. I think the issue here is not whether or not MFA program turn out slick and similar work, but why. Personally, I preach individuality, so that students don't try to write like me or anyone else on the faculty -- that's probably not the case in some places, especially if all of the faculty are derived from the same academic family tree. I feel it's an issue of abject laziness on professors parts -- they decide this is what they like and that's that. It's stifling for the students and it creates this void of creativity where you can spot an Iowa story.

But look: creative writing programs are no different than any other graduate program. There will be some who leave with a great career ahead of them, who have taken the most they can from their professors and peers and have, you know, a lot of talent. And then there will be others who do the work and pass and they'll never be professionals in their field. And I assure you, they are not going away, as everyone who lost their job last year is now applying to grad school, determined to finally write that novel...

[Niall]

L:

You openly stated that MFA writers will be better than non-MFA writers. Bizarrely, you attempt to refute this charge by...repeating it. You state:

"Ooof... this seems like a very willful misreading of what I said. I said that your average MFA student is likely a better writer than your average non-MFA student, because your average non-MFA student can't write at all. "

Now you're just being amusing. Really.

Anyway, thanks for agreeing with me. Though you don't seem to realize you are.

[L.]

TEV: To give an example here, I looked at the last 10 fiction pieces on the New Yorker's website: 2 with MFAs, 8 writers without MFAs.

Going back 20 it was 8 with MFAs (one had an MA), 12 without.

So TNY is made up with at least as much non-MFA work, in fact much of their work isn't even american. I would also think that many of the authors who seem most out of place stylitically, Saunders and Foster Wallace for example, are actually MFA grads.

So is the sameness due to MFA programs or to editorial tastes?

[L.]

Naill:

The thing you keep missing is the word "average." To say that the average MFA writer is better than the average non-MFA writer, which again includes every single person who pens stories and submits them, is not to say that MFA writers are always better than non-MFA writers.

I'm not really sure what to tell you. If I say your average Dane is taller than your average Italian this does not mean that every Danish person is taller than every Italian.

My point in bringing it up is that your original statement was fairly meaningless. You can't make any general comparisons between MFA students (writers who have dedicated at least a few years to studying the craft and have met some minimum level of filtering) and non-MFA students (every single writer in the world, no matter how skilled, well-read or seious).

Your original statement just strikes me as meaningless. It would be like comparing graduates of cooking school to everyone who likes to call themselves a cook.

For your comments to make sense, I think you'd have to qualify them. Say, MFA grads with a book out on a major press are no better than non-MFA writers with a book out on a major press or something along those lines where we could actual have something to compare.

[Niall]

"The thing you keep missing is the word "average." To say that the average MFA writer is better than the average non-MFA writer, which again includes every single person who pens stories and submits them, is not to say that MFA writers are always better than non-MFA writers."

Sure. And what is the meaning of "is", Mr. Clinton?

[L.]

"A square is a rectangle."
"Not all rectangles are squares!"
"Um..."

Not sure what else to say. I guess I would think a writer would pay more attention to words and syntax. But as I say that, my posts have had a shameful amount of typos so perhaps we should just call it a day and let the debate get back to more interesting matters.

[Niall]

L, you stated that writers not in MFA programs "can't write at all". At. All. Whereas even the average writer coming out of an MFA program will be better.

I'm sorry logic isn't your strong point, but that doesn't mean it has to be my weak point.

But let's try out your, um, "reasoning" in other applications.

"The average white person is superior to the average black person." Which of course in no way implies that white people are superior to black people. Only a moron or a hater could conclude that from my statement!

"The average man is smarter than the average woman." This, too, is in no way to say that men are smarter than women. Please, let's try to be rational here!

"The average non-MFA writer will be better than the average MFA writer, who, in any case cannot write at all". I'll be with your imp of satan mentality you are going to construe that as my saying that MFA writers can't write at all! Only the average ones! So there! Totally different! Totes obvs!

QED.

[L.]

Holy jebus.

Can we please just stop it. It is clear that you aren't even remotely attempting to understand what I'm saying.

I said your average "writer" can't write at all. I stand by this. Most people are not good writers. Most MFA grads are not good writers either. This is why most don't publish. Is this really surprising news?

The number of people who are talented at a given artistic field are fairly small in number and are much smaller than the the total population attempting said artistic field.

Really, I shudder to imagine how torn up your knuckles are from sucker punching all that straw.

[Niall]

So now you're saying that there's no difference in quality between the average MFA writer and the average non-MFA writer. The exactly opposite of what you were just saying a few hours ago.

You're backpedalling so fast, you're going to break the sound barrier in reverse!

[L.]

Sigh. I'm saying your average "writer" is not good at all. Your average MFA grad writer is a little bit better, but still not good. The number of great writers from MFAs or not from MFAs are small.

The reason the average MFA writer is a little better is that a) as I think you noted, MFAs are common as dirt these days and a large percentage of good writers go that route, whether it helps them or not. b) the pool of MFA students is smaller than the total pool of wanna be writers, which includes tons of people who haven't studied or practiced the craft seriously.

Do you think graduates of culinary school are generally better cooks than anyone whose ever tossed some pasta in a pot? Do you think your average art school graduate is likely a little better than your average person who paints now and then as a hobby?

Is any of this actually controversial?

Obviously our bookshelves are full of fantastic writers who never went to grad school. No one is suggesting differently. No one is suggesting the MFA is the only route, only stating the fact that it IS a common route in 2009 America.

Why you've misconstrued a rather banal statement not even really related to the real discussion into some kind of crusade is beyond me.

What you should be saying is "Ah, but it is a good thing that so many talented writers feel they need MFAs? Maybe it would be better if our culture didn't make them feel they did, because of X, Y and Z."

That might actually be an interesting discussion.

[L.]

What I honestly find more interesting to this discussion is your initial statements that never or only very rarely have writers been helped by one-on-one instruction, seminars or talking about writing with other writers.

It seems like you've modified this to say that only in MFA settings are those three things unable to help people.

Maybe you could elaborate on why one-on-one instruction (such as a great editor), seminars (such as a Gordon Lish class) or writers discussing writing (such as a Paris salon) have helped writers historically yet seemingly similar methods are rendered impotent in an MFA environment?

Why do these historically fruitful methods fall apart in a university setting, in your view?

What evidence, what reasons, what differences, etc.

[None]

Niall, the average MFA student is a college graduate who has had to meet some minimum of institutional literary training (grammar school, high school, college, and now graduate school). As L has pointed out, the "average writer" - which doesn't mean published writer, just every human being in the world who drafts stories and submits them - does not, by definition, have to be a college graduate. Included in the pool of "average writers" are ten-year-old children, who sometimes do submit stories to magazines. Like ten-year-old children, MFA writers need not be published (or publishable) to be considered (or to consider themselves) "writers," but unlike ten-year-old children they can probably spell correctly and juggle complex clauses. Hence the "average MFA student" (MFA students composing a very small group of [comparatively] highly educated individuals) can write "better" than the average non-MFA writer (non-MFA writers composing a very large group of educated and uneducated individuals alike). The asymmetry between the two sets renders comparisons fairly useless, and it renders the claim that "average MFA > average non-MFA" (equivalent, remember, to "average college-educated individual > average individual from all humanity") fairly anodyne. To begin to compare usefully (again as L has pointed out!), you would have to limit the non-MFA set with some clause about education level or publication credits.

I wouldn't have even intervened in this debate had not your persistent misreadings of L's point - misreadings made more appalling by the fact that you brag of having been a graduate student at U. Chicago and the scion of an academic family and so should know something about the critical reasoning and logic that you keep invoking - struck me as the kind of misreading that L himself could never convince you you were maligning him with. So, as an impartial observer, I do hereby declare that L is not just being a willful and stubborn and inertial Internet opponent when he accuses you again and again of misreading him; you are, in fact, misreading him.

[Niall]

L:

My position is that to the extent that writers have helped each other through one on one contact, it's been largely through encouraging one another to continue writing, and to share discussions of literary works that inspire them. This is very different from the MFA model, which takes academia as its model and uses the classroom discussion model as its heuristic philosophy. This is an innovation, and one that has not shown itself to be in any way better than what preceded it. Though its adherents claim (as you do) that it produces superior output.

My deeper point is that the MFA ideal is based on an academic model which historically has not been necessary for writers to become great, or even good writers. Therefore its claim to be able to provide a unique level of expertise is clearly bogus.

I think as well the MFA philosophy confuses the teaching of basic English literacy with teaching people how to become good or better writers of fiction. Those are two very different things. I laughed when I read descriptions of the kinds of exercises that one goes through in MFA programs, because those are the exercises I had to do in high school English in Anchorage Alaska in the 70s. And that was hardly and MFA program. I was just being taught to write, period.

[Niall]

Dear None:

You are, very much like L, attempting to argue for the superiority of "average" MFA writers on the basis of a conflation of assumptions that are obviously false.

First, to say that "average" MFA writers will be better than all non-MFA writers because they have college educations is simply laughable. FOr the simple reason that illiterate people don't write, by definition. Anyone who writes has had training in literacy, otherwise they wouldn't be writing.

The other problem with this logic is that anyone who has worked with college graduates knows that they don't necessarily know how to write worth shit, and that goes for English majors as well. I hire college graduates all the time, and I can guarantee you their writing schools are not demonstrably better.

Another problem with your argument is that you are conflating knowledge of English grammar and composition - English 101, basically - with literary talent. Which is ridiculous. If that were so, Kate Turabian would have won the Nobel Prize for literature. You are stealthily conflating what can be taught - English grammar and syntax - with what can't be taught - how to be an engaging, illuminating story teller in English. In doing so you're trying to paper over the gaping implausibility of the MFA concept itself.

Then there's the fact the L has ceased to even defend his/her original claim to MFA superiority "on average" that you are still defending. Probably because s/he now realizes how ludicrous it is. So your charge that I have "misread" L's point is irrelevant, since it's a point that apprently L misread as well.

Lastly, I didn't "brag" about going to the U of C. I don't consider that anything to be proud of or happy about. Ditto for being the "scion" of an academic. I only refer to that background to demonstrate how I can know how academia works, and how its culture cultivates a feline conformity that harms creative writing itself.

[L.]

No, everything None said is exactly what I meant and should be pretty clear to anyone else reading. I haven't backed away from anything, but let's please move on as this is a point you clearly don't want to understand.

[L.]

Just a few comments on your other post.

I'd disagree a bit with your characterization of how writers help each other. It isn't just encouragement, it is editing. Showing work to other writers and editing each other is something writers have done since probably the dawn of literature and it is something incorporated into the workshop model. The workshop is hardly the only way to do this, it is just one way.

I completely agree with your next paragraph. But as I've said I don't believe anyone actually claims MFAs are the only way to be a writer.

Although I do think a good MFA program with good faculty and strong students will help your writing there are two main reasons to get an MFA, neither of which have anything to do with it being the only way to be a writer.

1) It forces you to write and study for 2-3 years in an encouraging environment. Most programs fund you to do this as well.

2) It qualifies you to teach.

You can force yourself to write and study without an MFA, but for some people it is a good route, a way to get out of your day job routine. For 2), I agree it is sad that so many writers are forced to teach to survive. This is a critique of the entire culture though.

[Niall]

L:

It all depends on what you mean by "edit". There are two types of advice one writer can give to another about their work. The first is advice about the general approach, sensibility, aesthetic. The second is specific advice about style and structure.

The first type of advice is usually pointless, since it's difficult to think of a general aesthetic approach that is fundamentally invalid. Which leaves the second. This may be very helpful, but it's never going to define an author's sensibility or subject matter.

Some writing advice I've heard of is just silly. Like, "Always include 'So and so said or replied' after quoted dialogue." Or "Show don't tell!" Nonsense like that.

The problem with both kinds of advice is that it doesn't present the other writer with something to inspire them. That's why, usually, if another writer asks me for advice on their work, I just recommend another author for them to read who I think will give them an example of how they want to be writing.

I really don't see how academicizing this informal practice of encouragement and critique improves it.

[Matt]

Sorry to respond to something so far back in the debate, but I just now caught up with the discussion, and something TEV wrote jumped out at me. How can we blame MFA programs for not being as successful, historically, at cultivating writers when they didn't exist until recently? Obviously, we all have our favorite writers and influences from Cervantes through the last fifty years, but it seems disingenuous to cite this as proof that MFAs don't work just because they weren't offered. For most of that time, what we consider to be a college education wasn't offered either, so should we get rid of that and go back to the apprenticeship or guild model just because it was around for so long? Regardless of its efficacy, isn't it possible to consider MFA programs part of historical progress?

[Kerry]

Niall,

Just one more objective voice:

L won on logic, style, and decorum. You took belligerence.

At least it wasn't a shut out.

[MJ]

Non-MFA here who has 3 other post graduate degrees - MFAs might teach craft, which can be learned on one's own anyway, but wouldn't we have more interesting writers if we looked to the students of math, science, anthropology etc. I mean, how many stories about MFAs or English Professors examining their navel lint to we need? I'd rather hear from the guy who writes AND studies tax policy or tree worms.

[Niall]

Kerry -

It's difficult to see how I could lose on logic, when L had to abandon his own "logic" and revert to the very position had had been denying for most of the discussion. He was also unable to respond to my demonstration that the qualification of "average" in statements of superiority don't really qualify those statements at all, though L, at least for a time, seemed to think they did.

And of course L wins on style. I've never been through an MFA program, so of course I'm inferior on that front.

It's nice to see that L has so many friends who will logroll for him/her on this forum. One of the advantages of MFA networking, I'm certain.

[Topher]

Wow. While I would tend to agree with Niall's main thesis in this argument, the fact that he keeps twisting L's words and shifting the goalposts is almost making me reconsider.

[Niall]

Topher:

How have I shifted L's words, and how have I changed goalposts? All I've ever done is quote L back to himself, and correct his obvious misreadings of my own arguments, which have remained unchanged throughout.

It's L who started out by saying the "average" MFA would "of course" be a better writer than the "average" non-MFA writer, then stated all he was saying that MFA programs might help some writers (a very different claim). He finally ended up stating that there would really be no difference in quality between the two. That's shifting the goals, my friends.

I also pointed out many confusions and obfuscations in the MFA-superiority argument, non of which has been responded to. I'm inclined to believe this is so because my criticisms are correct.

[L.]

Naill:

Please, I promise you I have zero idea who these posters are. I do not recruit my friends to anonymous online debates.

It seems quite clear you aren't interested in discussions or the meaning of other people's words, only with twisting of things to fit your assumed position . Let's just drop it and move on. I'm confident anyone else reading will understand what I've said. Presumably you feel the same way, so let's just let the comments stand and move on.

Anyhoo.

Something I've been rolling around in my head from this discussion is the role of class. I don't' want to overstate the case, but there have been a lot of comments above about how writers write by living and writers have never needed programs in the past, etc.

Part of what I've been suggesting though is that for some, not all, people MFA programs are great because they provide time, space and often money to write.

It is true that most writers in the past didn't go to MFA programs (as they didn't' exist), but most writers were also from wealthy backgrounds. We might find exceptions here and there, but the history of literature is completely dominated by writers from the upper classes. There are various reasons, but the main one, I think, is that they had the time and money to write.

This is the Virginia Woolf Room of Her Own idea, that a writer needs space, time and money to write (something lacking for so many women historically).

I don't believe it is merely coincidence that American fiction has broadened to include more writers from different socio-economic groups at the same time that MFA programs have exploded.

[L.]

Non-MFA here who has 3 other post graduate degrees - MFAs might teach craft, which can be learned on one's own anyway, but wouldn't we have more interesting writers if we looked to the students of math, science, anthropology etc. I mean, how many stories about MFAs or English Professors examining their navel lint to we need? I'd rather hear from the guy who writes AND studies tax policy or tree worms.

Is this an argument against MFAs or just against young writers?

I agree that having writers from diverse backgrounds and other interests is great for literature, but I don't see MFAs as incompatible with that. What is the average MFA age? 30? Many of the people in my program were in their 30s or 40s and had already had whole other careers. Is a biologist who goes to an MFA program for 2 years less interesting than a biologist who doesn't?

Now, I will fully admit that there are a lot of young writers who leap from school to grad school to professorships will little time in "the real world." But there are many young writers who go to PhD programs or live in their parents basement or do something else equally encapsulated from "the real world" and still try to write novels. The lack of life experience seems more like a question of the age of writers to me.

[Niall]

"It seems quite clear you aren't interested in discussions or the meaning of other people's words, only with twisting of things to fit your assumed position ."

Totally false. It is rather you who have been adopting different position after different position (as I have documented) in a feckless attempt to make sense. I also provided very clear examples of how your claim that the qualifier "average" exempts you from criticism doesn't hold water. Something you've never responded to.

"Part of what I've been suggesting though is that for some, not all, people MFA programs are great because they provide time, space and often money to write. "

So does Starbucks. As many a young barrista can attest. I would never say on that account that writers who work at Starbucks are "on average" better than those who don't.

"but most writers were also from wealthy backgrounds."

Umm...what? Was Jim Thompson from a wealthy background? Was Zola? Was Bruno Schulz? Was Edgar Allan Poe? Was James Baldwin? For every great writer who came from wealth, I can show you one who came from poverty. This is a ridiculous generalization.

[L.]

Do you realize that probably close to 30% of this thread is you ranting about a clearly dishonest interpretation of a very banal side comment that doesn't even relate to the heart of this discussion? Even after multiple people have painstakingly laid out your error?

I know the volume tactic is commonly employed by people on the losing ends of internet arguments, but I must say I've never found it effective.

*

Starbucks provides young writers with a funded two year period to do nothing but write and read books? Do you have an online link to this Starbucks fellowship? I am interested in applying.

*

Of the people you named I think James Baldwin is the only one who truly grew up in poverty. I mean, Poe was the child of actors taken into the home of a well-off mearchant. People like Poe weren't the sons of Rockefellar, but they hardly living in poverty.

Try this exercise: Go to the Modern liberary's list of the best english language novels of the 20th century. How many of the authors came from middle or upper class backgrounds and how many came from lower class or poverty?

[Niall]

I'm not ranting. And I'm not being dishonest. I'm just responding to you.

And no one has laid out my error. That is a figment of your apparently fertile imagination.

Starbucks provides a decent wage, medical benefits, flexible hours and work that requires exactly zero mindshare, leaving you free to write at your convenience, unafraid of getting sick or not being able to make rent or having to work 60 hours a week in a maniacal office that leaves you too tired to write when you get home. And much, much cheaper than an MFA.

All of the people I mention grew up in poverty. Do your homework. I did.

I notice you provide no proof that most writers were born to wealth. WHich is typical.

[L.]

You are correct, Sir. My posts and None's and all the others questioning your increasingly bizarre posting do not exist. Pure figments of my imagination. And the army of straw men you have slain has been quite impressive.

Is there anyone else left reading this?
What do you think, was Virginia Woolf crazy? Is providing time, space and money not helpful to a writer who doesn't already have that conveniently provided for them?

[Patti]

I do have to finally say that L and Niall had you reserved your commenting energy you could have each written a novel by now.

[Niall]

L:

Another good example of your disingenuousness. A lot of people have boasted *claiming* that I have misinterpreted you (but which version of your ever chaninging argument?), but none has been able to show that I actually have. They just make the claim and disappear.

I have no idea whether Virginia Woolf was crazy. Perhaps she just needed swimming lessons. In any case, the question is entirely irrelvant to this discussion.

Writers can find many ways to create the time and security they need to write. Many of our greatest writers had neither. And doing so outside of an enervating academic context is certainly the best way to meet that need.

[Niall]

Patti -

Perhaps we could have. But it wouldn't have been an MFA novel, and so wouldn't have been worth writing.

[Susan @ 2KoP]

I had any number of profs in college who were subject matter experts, but who had absolutely no skill or training in how to teach. I don't think this is unique to the MFA programs of the world.

[Theo]

I find it humorous that so much effort is going into understanding MFA programs from a student perspective, as if such programs existed to create excellent writing. This is a basic misunderstanding of the system. The intended beneficiaries of MFA programs are the nonsuccessful writers (or at least not successful enough, and yes, of course there are exceptions) who populate their faculties and perpetuate their blessed station in life.

The MFA system continues the pursuit of pure writing that until such programs existed could only be found among the aristocracy or the beneficiaries of their patronage. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Ill]

Bring back the patronage system!

/I think it is a little unfair to call MFA teachers "unsuccessful" writers. They write literary fiction, and almost no one who writes literary fiction is successful by that narrow definition. Almost all of them have to do something on the side to make a living.

//If you aren't teaching at an MFA you are at least probably writing screenplays or dumb articles for Rolling Stone