A recent graduate and classmate of mine, Nick Sweeney, sent me a message after following through my blog. He told me about an article in the Huffington Post that I may want to take a look at. Well, I followed Nick’s advice and this post will be a bit of commentary on this and where it left me feeling as a student considering an MFA program. Thanks, Nick! Everyone else, any suggestions, let me know!
Shivani begins by comparing the MFA programs to a guild system with apprentices and journeymen, focused on craft. His tone has a sarcastic feeling to it. He explains how modern creative writing began to really take off around 1960:
“Before the 1950s, the majority of literary writers were not part of the academy; writers might sometimes teach as well, but this was not an essential condition of their identity; it was still a minority affair. The ideal was to be free of the restraint the academy, or really any institution, imposes. In 2010, literary writers not attached to the academy are so rare as to be almost nonexistent.”
And while there was a lot of just accepting these new programs cropping up, there was a reason behind them. While many writers were still writing on their own, he explains how some were afraid to do that. “The choice was made to retreat behind the barricades as protection from the masses, and to create MFA programs all over the country, where those who were scared of the easy talk of nuclear Armageddon could take permanent refuge.” Writers wanted their own community, is what Shivani is trying to explain. The main “market”, they felt, wasn’t for them. And, as with a guild, the community imposes its own rules and regulations. Perfect for writers who desire freedom in their art.
Shivani comments on the mentors in the program. How it is their job to teach the students to follow in their footsteps. He also comments on how the students, if by some luck they gain success, are to say that it just happened to them. Instructors, in workshop, are meant to figure out the students who will cause problems by gaining any confidence in their writing. He makes the impression that everyone in the community is supposed to be virtually the same. So how are they then exercising their freedom if their own instructors pull them down if they feel they’re getting ahead?
He goes on to comment on the different programs - some are considered elite and others not so much. There’s contest entrants with their PhD’s . To be inducted to a “guild” of writers in the future, you need to have been a part of one of the elite. To have those recommendations grants you admittance. You cannot write across genres and all criticism is nonexistent (which I find kind of hard to believe, but I’m just posting what Shivani said). And then he goes into REVISION. The more revisions, the more adept a student is. “This is cause for bragging rights; the more drafts, the more committed the writer declares himself to execution of craft.”
He begins to close the article by talking about who gets published from these “guilds”. He feels that because of the imposed “house” style, many publishing companies don’t accept them. However, New York is starting to. And many of them are finding success. One example he provides is Wells Tower, but Shivani says that is because he keeps an audience in mind when writing. So it is possible. He also starts saying how the medieval guilds fell apart, collapsing under their own weight because of its exclusivity and control. He thinks digital publishing, however, will allow MFA’s to continue on strongly. It doesn’t mean he necessarily agrees with them. “Talent, in the modern writing guild, has been discounted; it is craft that counts.”
After reading it, I didn’t really like what he was saying. I still hold the feeling that everyone learns differently. And my experience in workshops is that you do get criticism and things to work on. The more workshops you take, the more drastic changes will occur to your writing. Yes, it’s about craft, but through craft, you can make your talent soar. I never forget what I want to write about or why. But being able to construct it in ways that make it appealing is another thing all together. All talent needs honing and I think the MFA programs work well for this. Keara Driscoll loved her poetry program and had some really interesting things to say. The programs are popular. They’re still on the upswing. Writing is one of those things that is a constant flux, based on society and the people engaging in it at certain times.
I thought Shivani, while making me think of MFAs in a new light, was a bit critical of some aspects. It was a good article to maybe make people re-think the programs a bit. And he had a perfect comparison to the guild system. Because that is essentially what it is. A group of writers working on their craft, led by a master. But I don’t see anything wrong with it. It didn’t change my opinion on wanting to apply.
Read for yourself. I only highlighted a few points from it that stuck out to me.
Link to the Article By Anis Shivani:
I'm going to post a short screenplay scene that I wrote. I'm making some headway in deciding about fiction/screenplay writing as well. It'll just be for some entertainment :)
No comments:
Post a Comment