MA Creative Writing course recommendations (UEA?)
Charles Fox
writing course, before or during writing a novel? Are they any use?
Could you recommend any good ones in the UK?
I'd be especially interested to hear from anyone who has been through
the University of Easty Anglia (UEA) MA course as opinion on it seems
somewhat divided. (Is this just due to sour grapes from applicants
who didn't get accepted?)
Or is it better to sit in a room with a laptop for a year and just
write the thing?
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Don't do it. Just my opinion, of course, but if you're good enough to
write professionally, as opposed to dabbling for his own amusement,
you don't need the course, and if you take it your style will likely
be heavily influenced by the academic preferences of your teachers.
Josh
PButler111
>From: Joshua P. Hill josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS
>Date: 5/15/2003 7:46 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f427cvoucm8rgecbi...@4ax.com>
>
>On 15 May 2003 01:45:40 -0700, charle...@hotmail.com (Charles Fox)
>wrote:
>
>>What are your opinions on taking a year out to attend a MA creative
>>writing course, before or during writing a novel? Are they any use?
>> Could you recommend any good ones in the UK?
>>
>>I'd be especially interested to hear from anyone who has been through
>>the University of Easty Anglia (UEA) MA course as opinion on it seems
>>somewhat divided. (Is this just due to sour grapes from applicants
>>who didn't get accepted?)
>>
>>Or is it better to sit in a room with a laptop for a year and just
>>write the thing?
What's the harm? Taking a course doesn't mean you stop writing (or at least it
shouldn't mean that). Education never hurt anyone. It might help or it might
not, but it certainly couldn't hurt.
Alan Hope
Goodness knows it didn't do Ishiguro or McEwan any good. Whatever
became of them?
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
Probably forgotten, just like the writers who didn't have MA degrees
-- Shakespeare, Dickens, one or two others.
Josh
David M. Harris
>>
>>Goodness knows it didn't do Ishiguro or McEwan any good. Whatever
>>became of them?
>
>
> Probably forgotten, just like the writers who didn't have MA degrees
> -- Shakespeare, Dickens, one or two others.
>
that the degree is useless for everyone? That no one can benefit from it?
dmh
--
author of Democracy and Other Problems, an essay chapbook from SRM,
Publishers, available at http://www.korval.com/srmcat1.htm
Joshua P. Hill
<jake...@localnet.com.invalid> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>Goodness knows it didn't do Ishiguro or McEwan any good. Whatever
>>>became of them?
>>
>>
>> Probably forgotten, just like the writers who didn't have MA degrees
>> -- Shakespeare, Dickens, one or two others.
>>
>Some people don't need advanced degrees, or any degrees. Does that mean
>that the degree is useless for everyone? That no one can benefit from it?
I tend to think that anyone capable of learning to write commercially
or artistically successful fiction can learn the craft on his or her
own. (In a discussion on another newgroup, someone mentioned a writing
program that turns away prospective students judged to have too much
talent. At least they're honest.) Those who do need formal instruction
may benefit from writing programs, but they won't give them what they
need to succeed on a broad scale. Furthermore, some well-known writers
claim that writing programs turn out graduates who mimic the style of
their teachers, not a good thing if it impairs the more talented.
Either way, do we really need more
impeccably-crafted-but-not-exactly-sparkling stuff of the sort that
gets published in journals that have more contributors than readers?
Josh
Charles Fox
own? I was thinking of the MA in the same way as art college, music
college or schools for film directors... it's very rare to get artists
or musicians who are self-taught, and there are definately certain
techniques that are useful and can be taught more quickly by
professionals than by leaving students to work them out for
themselves. Is this not the case for writing also? Is learning the
technical aspects of portraying motion in a novel such a different
process from learning to cut camera angles at film school? Though I
suppose similar criticisms could apply art school (eg Goldsmiths) and
writing courses (UEA) about churning out graduates in the same
mediocre style as their teachers.
Is there anyone out there who has actually been on the UEA course who
would care to share their views? Anyone who looked at it and decided
not to go?
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>So is writing the only artform left that you have to learn on your
>own? I was thinking of the MA in the same way as art college, music
>college or schools for film directors... it's very rare to get artists
>or musicians who are self-taught, and there are definately certain
>techniques that are useful and can be taught more quickly by
>professionals than by leaving students to work them out for
>themselves. Is this not the case for writing also? Is learning the
>technical aspects of portraying motion in a novel such a different
>process from learning to cut camera angles at film school? Though I
>suppose similar criticisms could apply art school (eg Goldsmiths) and
>writing courses (UEA) about churning out graduates in the same
>mediocre style as their teachers.
The main difference, I think, is that students are universally
schooled in writing and literature, whereas they receive as part of
the standard curriculum only the most cursory instruction in music,
art, and film. I tend to think too, on the basis of observation, that
advanced programs in these arts suffer from the same limitations as
writing programs. Few great directors, composers, and artists followed
such programs. What good would it have done? Genius learns too rapidly
for group learning, geared as it is to the merely talented, to be of
much use. And just as writing programs tend to turn out people with
too much craft and too little independence, academic programs in the
arts tend to turn out School-of-David clones for whom technique and
expectations have become crippling limitations. Some, having a great
enough gift and an independent spirit, may learn to run again once the
hobbles have been removed, but given that those souls probably don't
need the instruction in the first place, should we place them at risk?
Josh
PButler111
>schooled in writing and literature, whereas they receive as part of
>the standard curriculum only the most cursory instruction in music,
>art, and film. I tend to think too, on the basis of observation, that
>advanced programs in these arts suffer from the same limitations as
>writing programs. Few great directors, composers, and artists followed
>such programs. What good would it have done? Genius learns too rapidly
>for group learning, geared as it is to the merely talented, to be of
>much use. And just as writing programs tend to turn out people with
>too much craft and too little independence, academic programs in the
>arts tend to turn out School-of-David clones for whom technique and
>expectations have become crippling limitations. Some, having a great
>enough gift and an independent spirit, may learn to run again once the
>hobbles have been removed, but given that those souls probably don't
>need the instruction in the first place, should we place them at risk?
>
Josh, that's such bullshit. For one thing, most "great directors, composers
and artists" have gone through formal instruction, including graduate degrees.
Have you ever been through a graduate writing course? Have you ever been
published? You're always dishing out all kinds of (genuinely bad) "advice" on
things you've never even come close to experiencing yourself.
David M. Harris
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
> The main difference, I think, is that students are universally
> schooled in writing and literature,
Ah. I see. You clearly don't live in the United States.
William Kunka
Re: MA Creative Writing course recommendations (UEA?)
josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS (Joshua P. Hill)
I notice that successful genre writers are usually unencumbered with
lots of formal courses on writing. Basic writing skills are acquired by
the end of grammar school. Even,occasionally,in the US! Bill
Joshua P. Hill
>>The main difference, I think, is that students are universally
>>schooled in writing and literature, whereas they receive as part of
>>the standard curriculum only the most cursory instruction in music,
>>art, and film. I tend to think too, on the basis of observation, that
>>advanced programs in these arts suffer from the same limitations as
>>writing programs. Few great directors, composers, and artists followed
>>such programs. What good would it have done? Genius learns too rapidly
>>for group learning, geared as it is to the merely talented, to be of
>>much use. And just as writing programs tend to turn out people with
>>too much craft and too little independence, academic programs in the
>>arts tend to turn out School-of-David clones for whom technique and
>>expectations have become crippling limitations. Some, having a great
>>enough gift and an independent spirit, may learn to run again once the
>>hobbles have been removed, but given that those souls probably don't
>>need the instruction in the first place, should we place them at risk?
>>
>
>Josh, that's such bullshit. For one thing, most "great directors, composers
>and artists" have gone through formal instruction, including graduate degrees.
That is manifestly untrue. The great composers received formal
instruction, to be sure, but for the most part they received it from
tutors. Most of the great directors received little or no formal
training -- film school is a relatively recent innovation. The great
painters frequently received their training as apprentices. Few among
the three groups had graduate degrees, and many, maybe even most,
didn't attend college.
"The question about Blake the man is the question of the circumstances
that concurred to permit this honesty in his work, and what
circumstances define its limitations. The favouring conditions
probably include these two: that, being early apprenticed to a manual
occupation, he was not compelled to acquire any other education in
literature than he wanted, or to acquire it for any other reason than
that he wanted it; and that, being a humble engraver, he had no
journalistic-social career open to him." -- T S Eliot
>Have you ever been through a graduate writing course? Have you ever been
>published? You're always dishing out all kinds of (genuinely bad) "advice" on
>things you've never even come close to experiencing yourself.
No, and yes. In any case, it would have been more than ridiculous for
me to reach my conclusions on the basis of my own experience. Sample
size of one and all that. What I say I say because I've observed
others, and listened to what others had to say.
Did Shakespeare have a degree? Dickens? Nah. They had basic schooling
-- and talent.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<jake...@localnet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>> The main difference, I think, is that students are universally
>> schooled in writing and literature,
>
>Ah. I see. You clearly don't live in the United States.
Well, there is that.
Josh
Alan Hope
>I tend to think that anyone capable of learning to write commercially
>or artistically successful fiction can learn the craft on his or her
>own.
I think even you will be able to see the circular logic in that
statement, Joshua.
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
Nope. So point it out, or you're Zen for a day.
Josh
Alan Hope
The fallacy sometimes called No True Scotsman. Goes like this:
"No true Scotsman hates whisky."
"But I hate whisky."
"Well then, you're not a true Scotsman."
The premise begs the question, see? As when you said:
"I tend to think that anyone capable of learning to write commercially
or artistically successful fiction can learn the craft on his or her
own," which may more simply be stated as:
"anyone capable of learning to write commercially
or artistically successful fiction can learn the craft on his or her
own," which merely defines "capable" as "can learn the craft etc". The
statement refers only to itself.
Who can learn the craft on his own? Anyone capable of learning.
What if he can't learn on his own? Then he's not capable of learning.
And thus, he's No True Scotsman.
QED
HTH
--
AH
Scribbler
in such courses are the primary benefit.
Joshua P. Hill
That could well be
Josh
Towse
re USAn programs, this article (registration required) from the
NYTimes.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/17/arts/17WRIT.html>
More Students in Writing Programs Expect (and Get) Hollywood
Offers
by Gregory Jordan
"Once upon a time, students in graduate fiction writing programs
dreamed of publishing stories in obscure Midwestern literary
quarterlies with readerships that could all fit into a
Volkswagen. Then, with a lot of hard work and a lot of luck,
someday, maybe, they might have something published in Harper's
or even The New Yorker. But today these students and their
increasingly preprofessional programs have much grander
ambitions, aiming for a published novel or a Hollywood contract.
"What's more, they are getting them. In the last five years, for
example, recent graduates of the fiction writing program at the
University of California at Irvine have published 10 first
novels, two short-story collections and one memoir, and have had
six screenplays optioned by Hollywood studios.
"'The growth of these programs is a function of the amazing
number of first-book contracts and film options that are making
some young writers rich,' said Tamara Strauss, editor of
Zoetrope: All-Story, a magazine owned by Francis Ford Coppola
that publishes stories with the goal of turning them into films.
'About 40 percent of the 600 to 1,000 manuscripts we receive each
quarter come from students in these programs.'
"While Ms. Strauss said that there were too many programs and
that they produced too many predictable first-person narratives,
she added that some universities, like Iowa, Columbia and
Stanford, had become 'a priority read.'"
[...]
Not much help with your East Anglia angle, but might help with
some of the discussion re USAn programs amongst other denizens.
Sal
--
Ye olde swarm of links: 3K+ useful links for writers, researchers
and the terminally curious
<http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Joshua P. Hill
Yes, just saw this. It's an interesting read.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
OK, I think I see your mistake -- you've confused the propositions
being tested with the assertion.
Propositions being tested:
A., All those who are capable of learning the craft are capable of
learning it on their own; none require writing programs.
B. Not all those who are capable of learning the craft are capable of
learning it on their own; some require writing programs.
Assertion: Proposition A is correct.
There is nothing circular about it.
Josh
Alan Hope
>OK, I think I see your mistake -- you've confused the propositions
>being tested with the assertion.
>Propositions being tested:
>A., All those who are capable of learning the craft are capable of
>learning it on their own; none require writing programs.
This proposition cannot be tested. Explain how you would determine
whether someone who had shown he had learned the craft *after* taking
a writing course had or had not done so *as a result* of the writing
course.
>B. Not all those who are capable of learning the craft are capable of
>learning it on their own; some require writing programs.
This also cannot be tested. Someone who appeared to require a writing
programme may in fact have learned independently.
>Assertion: Proposition A is correct.
You cannot conclude that.
>There is nothing circular about it.
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
Not with certainty. I present it merely as a likely hypothesis, based
on a number of observations:
-- Few if any great writers took writing courses. Few very successful
but not great writers took writing courses.
- The increased popularity of writing courses has not resulted in an
increase in the number of great writers; if anything, there are fewer
great writers today than there were before the advent of writing
courses.
- From what I've seen, writing courses tend to produce graduates who
have an excellent command of craft, but are no more creative than
their untrained compatriots -- or less so by virtue of being
overtrained in the style of their teachers.
- I've never heard anyone claim that a writing course can produce a
great writer or even a Stephen King; the general consensus seems to be
that writing courses can make people into good writers, but not
spectacular ones.
- The general consensus among writers is that most of what one learns
about writing one learns to write by a) reading a lot and b) writing a
lot.
- In general, advanced academic training in the arts seems to produce
results that are inferior to a system of apprenticeship or
autodidacticism. In part, that may be because students who are
overtrained fail to develop their own style because they're swamped
with existing tropes.
Whether on Ida's shady brow,
Or in the chambers of the East,
The chambers of the sun, that now
From ancient melody have ceas'd;
Whether in Heav'n ye wander fair,
Or the green corners of the earth,
Or the blue regions of the air,
Where the melodious winds have birth;
Whether on crystal rocks ye rove,
Beneath the bosom of the sea
Wand'ring in many a coral grove,
Fair Nine, forsaking Poetry!
How have you left the ancient love
That bards of old enjoy'd in you!
The languid strings do scarcely move!
The sound is forc'd, the notes are few!
-- Blake, Age 14
Helen, thy beauty is to me
Like those Nicean barks of yore,
That gently, o'er a perfumed sea,
The weary, wayworn wanderer bore
To his own native shore.
On desperate seas long wont to roam,
Thy hyacinth hair, thy classic face,
Thy Naiad airs have brought me home
To the glory that was Greece
And the grandeur that was Rome.
Lo! in yon brilliant window-niche
How statue-like I see thee stand,
The agate lamp within thy hand!
Ah, Psyche, from the regions which
Are Holy Land!
-- Poe, Age 14
Josh
PButler111
>but not great writers took writing courses.
Bullshit
Joshua P. Hill
So, Patty, why don't you give us a list of all the great writers from
Homer to Hemingway who took writing courses.
What, can't think of any? My, my.
Well, why don't you give us a list of all the
very-successful-but-not-great writers who took writing courses?
What, they amount to only a tiny fraction of very successful but not
great writers? My, my.
The glory that was geese, and the gander that was Rome.
Josh
PButler111
>From: Joshua P. Hill josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS
>Message-id: <vephcvctnpke7cr7n...@4ax.com>
Why don't you first give us a list of all the "great writers" (a subjective
classification to be sure) who never took any writing instruction?
Joshua P. Hill
And why don't you give me a list of all the large mammals that don't
have six legs? Prior to the 20th century, I don't think that /any/
writers took creative writing courses, for the simple reason that they
didn't exist.
Josh
PButler111
>have six legs? Prior to the 20th century, I don't think that /any/
>writers took creative writing courses, for the simple reason that they
>didn't exist.
>
>Josh
While I don't believe that to be true, are you then saying that there have been
no great writers since the 19th century?
Joshua P. Hill
Not at all. But the centuries before the 20th probably account for
more than half of the world's great writers, don't you think? And even
within the 20th century, the popularity of writing schools is a
relatively recent phenomenon.
Josh
PButler111
I often wonder if you ever stop to read what you've written before you post it.
You've divided the world into two parts: from the beginning of time until the
end of the 19th century, and from the beginning of the 20th century until now.
Do you honestly feel that's a sensible division? And you keep ricocheting
between referring to MA courses, writing courses in general, writing
instuction, and now writing schools. Which is it? Pick one, because each
changes the nature of the discussion.
Neil Martin
I rather thought he had when he said Homer to Hemingway? Or did you
want a complete list?
Frank ess
--
'The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the ocean searching for a
suitable rock to cling to and make its home for life. When it finds
its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain any more...so it
eats it. Sounds rather like becoming a Usenet poster, to me.'
PButler111
>want a complete list?
And you know so much about every writer from Homer to Hemingway that you know
that none of them ever took writing related classes?
Joshua P. Hill
>>
>>On 19 May 2003 17:33:34 GMT, pbutl...@aol.com (PButler111) wrote:
>>
>>>>And why don't you give me a list of all the large mammals that don't
>>>>have six legs? Prior to the 20th century, I don't think that /any/
>>>>writers took creative writing courses, for the simple reason that they
>>>>didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>>Josh
>>>
>>>While I don't believe that to be true, are you then saying that there have
>>been
>>>no great writers since the 19th century?
>>
>>Not at all. But the centuries before the 20th probably account for
>>more than half of the world's great writers, don't you think? And even
>>within the 20th century, the popularity of writing schools is a
>>relatively recent phenomenon.
>>
>>Josh
>
>I often wonder if you ever stop to read what you've written before you post it.
> You've divided the world into two parts: from the beginning of time until the
>end of the 19th century, and from the beginning of the 20th century until now.
>Do you honestly feel that's a sensible division?
Yes, of course. It's a simplifying statement, not a defining one.
>And you keep ricocheting
>between referring to MA courses, writing courses in general, writing
>instuction, and now writing schools. Which is it? Pick one, because each
>changes the nature of the discussion.
Not in the context in which I use them. I'm referring to programs that
teach creative writing.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
One doesn't have to be familiar with the biography of every great
writer to know that a) there were few if any classes in creative
writing back then and b) the great writers about whom one knows many
of the biographical details didn't take creative writing classes.
Except for Homer, of course, who attended the Acme School of Blind
Bardery and Refrigerator Repair.
Josh
Neil Martin
I think Josh's point is that Creative writing classes are a new
phenomenon and very few writers prior to say the last 30 years would
even have heard of them, mainly because they did not exist. I think
we can safely assume that homer and Chaucer and Shakespeare probably
missed out. Hemingway would probably have been expelled by a creative
writing course, as would Ezra Pound and James Joyce. I mean do we
really need to list them all?
PButler111
>phenomenon and very few writers prior to say the last 30 years would
>even have heard of them, mainly because they did not exist. I think
>we can safely assume that homer and Chaucer and Shakespeare probably
>missed out. Hemingway would probably have been expelled by a creative
>writing course, as would Ezra Pound and James Joyce. I mean do we
>really need to list them all?
Once again, Josh has used several very different terms in these discussions.
We started out talking about an MA course. He's been talking in
generalizations that seem to include everything from writing seminars to
graduate programs at specialized colleges. He's working so hard to back up
what was already a pretty weak point to begin with that he seems to have
completely lost track of what it was he was trying to say in the first place.
Joshua P. Hill
>Once again, Josh has used several very different terms in these discussions.
>We started out talking about an MA course. He's been talking in
>generalizations that seem to include everything from writing seminars to
>graduate programs at specialized colleges. He's working so hard to back up
>what was already a pretty weak point to begin with that he seems to have
>completely lost track of what it was he was trying to say in the first place.
Funny, it seems clear enough to everybody else. Something about
consistency and hobgoblins, I think . . .
Josh
Neil Martin
Not at all, you are just being obtuse.
PButler111
>Date: 5/19/2003 3:36 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <mvficvc47kr3u1oqn...@4ax.com>
Gee, coming from you that's nothing short of a stunning blow. You and Josh
pretty much deserve each other.
Neil Martin
I have no emotional attachment to Josh. I merely felt you were being
quite argumentative, for no logical reason. I see I was correct.
PButler111
>quite argumentative, for no logical reason. I see I was correct.
>
No, you simply have no concept of logic.
Joshua P. Hill
And here we go again! Repeat after me: not everything is the fault of
others . . . not everything is the fault of others . . .
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
And why is that? Patty, you have presented /no evidence/ here. You
have pointed to no flaw in logic, offered no interpretation that might
contradict what I said. You've simply proclaimed yourself right. And
not even Zen can get away with that.
Josh
PButler111
>have pointed to no flaw in logic, offered no interpretation that might
>contradict what I said. You've simply proclaimed yourself right. And
>not even Zen can get away with that.
>
>
>Josh
>
Josh, you said something stupid. In fact, you said several stupid things in
this thread, none of which you were able to back up, though asked to more than
once. I wasn't the only one who pointed out how convoluted your logic is, but
you brushed them off as well. It's not that I and others haven't pointed to
the flaws in your logic, it's simply that you -- as always -- shut your eyes
tight, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell LA LA LA LA LA LA LA! until we
all go away and leave you alone. Well, dear -- wish granted. I've done the
baby rearing thing once, and I have no desire for a recap.
Joshua P. Hill
Oh? And what, exactly, did I say that was stupid? In fact, what did I
say that was even slightly wrong? And just who were all these people
who pointed these things out? You don't mean Alan, do you, who made a
straightforward logical error? Frank, who made no point at all?
Tell us what it is, genius girl. I'm waiting.
Didn't think so.
Josh
Neil Martin
Yes, that is why I don't assume that all the writers who lived before
the previous century went to some creative writing classes before
writing their masterpieces. Silly me!
Alan Hope
>On Mon, 19 May 2003 09:25:20 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>Joshua P. Hill goes:
>>>OK, I think I see your mistake -- you've confused the propositions
>>>being tested with the assertion.
>>>Propositions being tested:
>>>A., All those who are capable of learning the craft are capable of
>>>learning it on their own; none require writing programs.
>>This proposition cannot be tested. Explain how you would determine
>>whether someone who had shown he had learned the craft *after* taking
>>a writing course had or had not done so *as a result* of the writing
>>course.
>>>B. Not all those who are capable of learning the craft are capable of
>>>learning it on their own; some require writing programs.
>>This also cannot be tested. Someone who appeared to require a writing
>>programme may in fact have learned independently.
>>>Assertion: Proposition A is correct.
>>You cannot conclude that.
>Not with certainty.
And yet you describe your proposition as "correct". Wrongly, as you
now admit.
[the rest snipped as flannel designed to mask a failed argument]
--
AH
PButler111
>
>
>
>Yes, that is why I don't assume that all the writers who lived before
>the previous century went to some creative writing classes before
>writing their masterpieces. Silly me!
No, that's why you assume none of them did.
Neil Martin
So your university has a creative writing programme going back
centuries does it?
PButler111
>centuries does it?
>
So in your tiny little world the only way to take writing instruction is to pop
down to the local uni and enroll in a class called Creative Writing 101? No
wonder you're having so much trouble here.
Joshua P. Hill
Oh, and what were all these other creative writing classes called? Who
gave them?
I didn't think so.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Alan, that's total bullshit. Here's what I said in my original post:
"Just my opinion, of course, but if you're good enough to
write professionally, as opposed to dabbling for his own amusement,
you don't need the course, and if you take it your style will likely
be heavily influenced by the academic preferences of your teachers."
Which part of "Just my opinion, of course" didn't you understand? I
have never asserted that my statement could be /proved/ or /disproved/
-- there is obviously no way to make a completely controlled study of
the matter. However, I note that I have seen /no/ arguments* here,
from you or anybody else. that support of the contrary position, which
seems to be based on "well, they wouldn't /have/ these programs if
they weren't necessary." Heh. Tell that to Shakespeare or Blake.
(Such arguments could be of various kinds. We all know that, prior to
a few years ago, few prospective writers attended creative writing
programs, and that virtually no great ones and few famous ones did. We
also know that many writers showed evidence of genius at an age before
people even take MFA courses. OTOH, one could provide the testimony of
writing teachers that they take ordinary students, and make them
important (rather than just good) writers, or from people who have
become prominent writers in that way and believe they wouldn't have
been able to do it on their own, or from prominent writers who have
observed the good done by writing classes to students that they know.
But, of course, you won't find that. What you will find is a pretty
widespread consensus that a course can turn a mediocre writer into a
good one, but cannot make an important or great one. And when you read
the works of people MFA's, you'll likely observe as I have that it has
craft up the wazoo, but little import. It reminds me of the French
academic painters of the School of David.)
Josh
Alan Hope
>You don't mean Alan, do you, who made a
>straightforward logical error?
You can assert it, but you cannot demonstrate it. If you think you
can, feel free to do so.
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
?
I already did. But, to reiterate, you said:
"anyone capable of learning to write commercially
or artistically successful fiction can learn the craft on his or her
own," [= statement A] which merely defines "capable" as "can learn the
craft etc". The statement refers only to itself.
"Who can learn the craft on his own? Anyone capable of learning."
But Statement A is not a definition, as you suggest -- it is rather a
proposition which is being tested against its contrary, Not A, or "at
least some people who are capable of learning to write commercially or
artistically successful fiction are incapable of learning the craft on
their own, but require additional training of the sort provided by an
MFA."
Josh
gekko
følgende fornøyelige frase:
> Frank, who made no point at all?
>
sea squirts
--
gekko
Destiny is not a matter of change, it is a matter of choice; it is not
a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved. - William
Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)
Neil Martin
No, your point was that the Great Writers of the past must have had
some attendance at Creative Writing courses somewhere. That being the
case, there must be a university somewhere that has a creative writing
course going back centuries. I didn't actually think they did, but it
was implied by your asinine statement.
PButler111
>From: Neil Martin neil...@btinternet.com
>Message-id: <cudncvg2a8saokq74...@4ax.com>
Kindly don't tell me what my point was, especially since I never said or
implied any such thing. Josh's sweeping generalization was that no writer in
the history of the world until the 20th century had ever taken any formal
instruction in his or her craft. I took exception to that. If you want to
support Josh's ludicrous claim with some proof, by all means, do so.
Joshua P. Hill
>Josh's sweeping generalization was that no writer in
>the history of the world until the 20th century had ever taken any formal
>instruction in his or her craft. I took exception to that. If you want to
>support Josh's ludicrous claim with some proof, by all means, do so.
And where, exactly, did I say that?
I didn't think so.
Patty, you really are a loss.
Josh
Neil Martin
You really do disappear up your own fundamental orifice in your
attempts to be argumentative don't you?
gekko
> Josh's sweeping generalization was that no writer in
> the history of the world until the 20th century had ever taken any
> formal instruction in his or her craft.
Need 24W stretch pants with YARDS of elastic to get around that one.
--
gekko
Having been turned down by several publishers he decided to write for
posterity -- Thucidides
PButler111
>>implied any such thing. Josh's sweeping generalization was that no writer
>in
>>the history of the world until the 20th century had ever taken any formal
>>instruction in his or her craft. I took exception to that. If you want to
>>support Josh's ludicrous claim with some proof, by all means, do so.
>
>
>
>You really do disappear up your own fundamental orifice in your
>attempts to be argumentative don't you?
>
Translation: You can't.
Alan Hope
>>>>>Propositions being tested:
>>>>You cannot conclude that.
>>>Not with certainty.
What part of "Proposition A is correct" strikes you as retaining the
necessary caution or ambiguity?
>I
>have never asserted that my statement could be /proved/ or /disproved/
>-- there is obviously no way to make a completely controlled study of
>the matter. However, I note that I have seen /no/ arguments* here,
>from you or anybody else. that support of the contrary position, which
>seems to be based on "well, they wouldn't /have/ these programs if
>they weren't necessary." Heh. Tell that to Shakespeare or Blake.
Shakespeare and Blake didn't have the benefits of the telephone.
You're surely not using that as an argument that the telephone is of
no use to anyone now.
You've seen no argument that writing courses are necessary because
no-one thinks that. What people have said, however, is that they may
be of some use to some people.
>(Such arguments could be of various kinds. We all know that, prior to
>a few years ago, few prospective writers attended creative writing
>programs, and that virtually no great ones and few famous ones did. We
>also know that many writers showed evidence of genius at an age before
>people even take MFA courses. OTOH, one could provide the testimony of
>writing teachers that they take ordinary students, and make them
>important (rather than just good) writers, or from people who have
>become prominent writers in that way and believe they wouldn't have
>been able to do it on their own, or from prominent writers who have
>observed the good done by writing classes to students that they know.
>But, of course, you won't find that. What you will find is a pretty
>widespread consensus that a course can turn a mediocre writer into a
>good one, but cannot make an important or great one. And when you read
>the works of people MFA's, you'll likely observe as I have that it has
>craft up the wazoo, but little import. It reminds me of the French
>academic painters of the School of David.)
You're basing your whole argument on a false dichotomy: that such a
course is only of value is it can be shown to produce a "great" or
"important" writer. Of course, that's not necessary in order to
display utility in such courses. The vast majority of aspiring writers
will be satisfied at being turned into "better" writers, let alone
"good" ones.
Your terms, incidentally, are slippery and elastic, as well as
subjective, and there's nothing in them on which to base any argument
or admit of any discussion.
You should be aware that the vast majority of writers, past and
present, have been neither great nor important. Of those who have at
some time qualified, some are no longer considered so. Even
Shakespeare mouldered neglected for a time.
You're very naughtily placing an intolerable burden of proof on
writing education by holding it to such a standard. Only by doing so
does you argument stand up.
In fact, it should be quite enough for you -- it is for me -- that
these courses produce good writers, and if possible better writers
than would have been without them. I'm aware of the existence of
brilliant, great and important surgeons. However when I go in on a
gurney to have my appendix out, I'll be quite happy, thanks, to
receive the attention of a merely good one. You won't be telling me, I
hope, that the relative paucity of brilliant surgeons coming out of
the medical schools is an argument for the scrapping of medical
education.
Writing courses can improve the performance of some writers, and in
doing so they fulfil the only requirement we can legitimately demand
of them. And if they fail to turn out a Dickens or a Blake (who like
Shakespeare was not a writer in the sense being discussed) well then,
neither does anything else. Is there a Dickens or a Proust being
produced by any other method, including no methods at all?
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> sine fingre fremførte
>følgende fornøyelige frase:
>
>
>> Frank, who made no point at all?
>>
>
>sea squirts
Ocean life everywhere applauds him
Josh
grackle
pbutl...@aol.com (PButler111) cracked knuckles, set fingers to
keyboard and thought, "the denizens of alt.writing will REALLY be
impressed when they read this!"
No one could. But then, that wasn't Josh's claim, so you're sucking
off a man of straw.
--
gekko
LOVE: two vowels, two consonants, two fools.
gekko
<ah...@skynet.be> cracked knuckles, set fingers to keyboard and
they read this!"
> AH
what is it they say is the soul of wit?
Frank ess
At last!
Sloshing Josh shubmits hish occupashun for shcrutiny.
What's it like, attached to that rock?
PButler111
>off a man of straw.
>
>--
>gekko
>
Actually, it was. Go back and actually read this time instead of just admiring
the pretty patterns the letters make on the screen.
Joshua P. Hill
>Joshua P. Hill goes:
>
>>On Tue, 20 May 2003 21:27:18 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>"Just my opinion, of course, but if you're good enough to
>>write professionally, as opposed to dabbling for his own amusement,
>>you don't need the course, and if you take it your style will likely
>>be heavily influenced by the academic preferences of your teachers."
>
>>Which part of "Just my opinion, of course" didn't you understand?
>
>What part of "Proposition A is correct" strikes you as retaining the
>necessary caution or ambiguity?
What "necessary caution or ambiguity"? It's a proposition, which I can
neither prove nor disprove.
>>I
>>have never asserted that my statement could be /proved/ or /disproved/
>>-- there is obviously no way to make a completely controlled study of
>>the matter. However, I note that I have seen /no/ arguments* here,
>>from you or anybody else. that support of the contrary position, which
>>seems to be based on "well, they wouldn't /have/ these programs if
>>they weren't necessary." Heh. Tell that to Shakespeare or Blake.
>
>Shakespeare and Blake didn't have the benefits of the telephone.
>You're surely not using that as an argument that the telephone is of
>no use to anyone now.
No, of course not. Which is one of the reasons why the information I
have isn't adequate to prove my proposition beyond a reasonable doubt.
Shakespeare and Blake tell us is that some people don't need courses
in creative writing. That isn't insignificant, but it establishes only
part of the case.
>You've seen no argument that writing courses are necessary because
>no-one thinks that. What people have said, however, is that they may
>be of some use to some people.
But I have never denied that. What I suggested was that writing
courses aren't necessary to those who are good enough to write
commercially. The original poster stated that he was about to sit down
and write a novel, and asked whether he should get an MA in creative
writing first. I said, in effect, just write the damn thing, rather
than spending a small fortune and several years in a program that in
my estimation is unlikely to have an effect on whether he has a
successful career as a novelist.
>You're basing your whole argument on a false dichotomy: that such a
>course is only of value is it can be shown to produce a "great" or
>"important" writer. Of course, that's not necessary in order to
>display utility in such courses. The vast majority of aspiring writers
>will be satisfied at being turned into "better" writers, let alone
>"good" ones.
I just don't happen to believe that someone who can make a successful
career out of writing fiction will gain anything from the course that
he couldn't gain on his own. Does that make such courses undesirable
for everybody? No, of course not. There seems to be fairly widespread
agreement that such courses can make a mediocre, though not a bad,
writer a good one. Unfortunately, as things now stand, being good
isn't enough to achieve even commercial success in the fiction market.
If someone doesn't have that as a goal but wants to become a better
writer for other reasons -- or just wants to hang out for a couple of
years -- or would rather learn craft in a structured setting rather
than on their own -- all power to them.
>Your terms, incidentally, are slippery and elastic, as well as
>subjective, and there's nothing in them on which to base any argument
>or admit of any discussion.
Subjective terms are no bar to discussion:
"George Bush is dishonest."
"Fat people are sexy."
"War is a terrible thing."
However, in this particular discussion, there are implied
delineations. For example, the gulf between good and great writing is
so vast, the talent of the great artist so unusual, that one is
probably justified in suggesting that creative writing courses cannot
make the difference between writing good and great works.
>You should be aware that the vast majority of writers, past and
>present, have been neither great nor important. Of those who have at
>some time qualified, some are no longer considered so. Even
>Shakespeare mouldered neglected for a time.
Clearly, though posterity is fairly good at making that determination.
Nevertheless, it exists, in several closely-related variants. And it
/always/ requires great talent -- talent so extraordinary that from
its perspective a course in creative writing would be a sorry joke.
>You're very naughtily placing an intolerable burden of proof on
>writing education by holding it to such a standard. Only by doing so
>does you argument stand up.
>
>In fact, it should be quite enough for you -- it is for me -- that
>these courses produce good writers, and if possible better writers
>than would have been without them. I'm aware of the existence of
>brilliant, great and important surgeons. However when I go in on a
>gurney to have my appendix out, I'll be quite happy, thanks, to
>receive the attention of a merely good one. You won't be telling me, I
>hope, that the relative paucity of brilliant surgeons coming out of
>the medical schools is an argument for the scrapping of medical
>education.
Your analogy breaks down in several places.
First of all, you imply that those who don't take specific courses in
creative writing receive no training in writing. But nothing could be
farther from the truth: all students receive fairly intensive training
in reading and writing from the time they're five or six years old. If
students studied and practiced surgery for an hour a day from the time
they were five or six until they had graduated college, and if in
addition to that they were apt to curl up in the evening with a good
surgical journal, they would probably be pretty well qualified to
master the latest surgical techniques on their own, just as an
experienced, board-certified surgeon is.
Then, too, creative writing is much more competitive than doctoring.
The vast majority of surgeons who come out of medical school are at
least competent, and, as the supply of surgeons never overwhelms
demand, all find employment. But commercial publishing requires the
work of only a relative handful of novelists. It is, as I said, no
longer enough to be good.
Finally, writing is a creative endeavor, as surgery -- for the most
part -- is not. Both require craft. But anyone with reasonable
intelligence, a steady hand, and good work habits can learn to be a
surgeon, not of the first rank, perhaps, but with skill adequate for
most tasks.
>Writing courses can improve the performance of some writers, and in
>doing so they fulfil the only requirement we can legitimately demand
>of them. And if they fail to turn out a Dickens or a Blake (who like
>Shakespeare was not a writer in the sense being discussed) well then,
>neither does anything else. Is there a Dickens or a Proust being
>produced by any other method, including no methods at all?
But that is precisely my point. I'm not sure that anything is being
produced by writing schools. What's more, I suspect that writing
schools have a /negative/ effect on creativity, an effect of the sort
the French Academy had on painting 150 years ago. It is a commonplace
on groups such as this one that one can't have too much craft. But is
that so? Art, by its nature, makes and remakes itself as the
generations progress. Some of the last style's craft is discarded, and
replaced with invention which becomes, eventually, the new style's
craft. One can't, perhaps, have too much craft, but one /can/ be so
influenced that one becomes locked into a style, forgets to listen to
one's own muse.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
As I said, Patty, we're waiting for your evidence to that effect.
Not, you understand, that any of us have canceled any engagements to
watch the screen . . .
Josh
grekko
we need is alt.writing, where we can read
news:20030521203905...@mb-m10.aol.com from
pbutl...@aol.com (PButler111), which says:
Wherein PButler asserts that "most "great directors, composers
and artists" have gone through formal instruction, including
graduate degrees."
And Josh asserts "The great composers received formal
instruction, to be sure, but for the most part they received it from
tutors. Most of the great directors received little or no formal
training -- film school is a relatively recent innovation. The great
painters frequently received their training as apprentices. Few
among the three groups had graduate degrees, and many, maybe even
most, didn't attend college."
Wherein PButler asks "are you then saying that there have been
no great writers since the 19th century?"
and Josh responds, "Not at all. But the centuries before the 20th
probably account for more than half of the world's great writers,
don't you think? And even within the 20th century, the popularity of
writing schools is a relatively recent phenomenon."
And, finally (because I'm tired of looking up and posting proof
after proof of your idiocy)
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl579645136d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=gfcicvs4g7tkv1jdjq6n2eajslem0ed59h%404ax.com >
Wherein PButler tries to pin Josh down by willfully restating his
comments: "And you know so much about every writer from Homer to
Hemingway that you know that none of them ever took writing related
classes?"
And Josh responds, "there were few if any classes in creative
writing back then"
Which is, as we all know, quite a different thing than saying
"no writer in the history of the world until the 20th century
had ever taken any formal instruction in his or her craft." PButler
indulged in that "interpretation" immediately after admonishing
someone to "Kindly don't tell me what my point was, especially
since I never said or implied any such thing."
Isn't irony a wonderful thing?
Of course it is.
--
gekko
The only time the world beats a path to your door is if you're in
the bathroom.
PButler111
>"no writer in the history of the world until the 20th century
>had ever taken any formal instruction in his or her craft." PButler
>indulged in that "interpretation" immediately after admonishing
>someone to "Kindly don't tell me what my point was, especially
>since I never said or implied any such thing."
>
>Isn't irony a wonderful thing?
>
>Of course it is.
>
>
>--
>gekko
Thanks for posting proof that I was right and you were wrong. Saved me a lot
of time. As will putting you back in my killfile where you belong.
Alan Hope
>?
My post was merely to demonstrate that you were in fact wrong on both
counts. The validity of a proposition is not proven by the invalidity
of its antithesis, Joshua. Both A and Not-A are invalid. No logical
error is involved.
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
That depends entirely on the nature of the propositions. If the
propositions are of the sort that one of them /must/ be true, then
disproof of one proposition proves the other. And there are many such
propositions. For example, if I put forth the following proposition:
For a non-zero set A of integers >1,
Some numbers in Set A are prime
And its contrary,
No numbers in Set A are prime
Disproving one either proposition proves the other, because any number
in a non-zero set of integers >1 must be either prime or not prime. I
took care to draft my contrary proposition so that it would fulfill
this requirement.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
I dunno, what's it like out in space?
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Weenie.
Josh
gekko
guys, rescued the hostage, phoned Mom on her birthday and then
posted to alt.writing:
Yes. And when you do it, you are JUST LIKE HER!
Bwahahahahahaha! :-) :-) :-)
--
gekko (is this the "no emoticons" thread?)
Men have become the tools of their tools. - Henry David Thoreau
(1817-1862)
Alan Hope
>In news:q8oncv82s9pbvgj6r...@4ax.com, Alan Hope
><ah...@skynet.be> cracked knuckles, set fingers to keyboard and
>thought, "the denizens of alt.writing will REALLY be impressed when
>they read this!"
>> AH
>what is it they say is the soul of wit?
I don't know what they're saying to you, but whatever it is, it's not
working.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>On Thu, 22 May 2003 00:59:38 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>Joshua P. Hill goes:
>>>On Tue, 20 May 2003 21:27:18 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>"Just my opinion, of course, but if you're good enough to
>>>write professionally, as opposed to dabbling for his own amusement,
>>>you don't need the course, and if you take it your style will likely
>>>be heavily influenced by the academic preferences of your teachers."
>>>Which part of "Just my opinion, of course" didn't you understand?
>>What part of "Proposition A is correct" strikes you as retaining the
>>necessary caution or ambiguity?
>What "necessary caution or ambiguity"? It's a proposition, which I can
>neither prove nor disprove.
In what sense, in that case, can it be described as "correct"?
>>>I
>>>have never asserted that my statement could be /proved/ or /disproved/
>>>-- there is obviously no way to make a completely controlled study of
>>>the matter. However, I note that I have seen /no/ arguments* here,
>>>from you or anybody else. that support of the contrary position, which
>>>seems to be based on "well, they wouldn't /have/ these programs if
>>>they weren't necessary." Heh. Tell that to Shakespeare or Blake.
>>Shakespeare and Blake didn't have the benefits of the telephone.
>>You're surely not using that as an argument that the telephone is of
>>no use to anyone now.
>No, of course not. Which is one of the reasons why the information I
>have isn't adequate to prove my proposition beyond a reasonable doubt.
>Shakespeare and Blake tell us is that some people don't need courses
>in creative writing. That isn't insignificant, but it establishes only
>part of the case.
It is indeed insignificant. All that Shakespeare and Blake tell us is
that S&B did not require courses. From that, we are able to conclude
nothing at all about other writers. And it may be that although S&B
did not require courses, they might still have found some benefit in
one, which is all I have ever argued they are good for. As I mention
below, you are applying a ridiculously high standard: "Well, they
don't turn out Shakespeares or Blakes, so they're no good for
anything."
>>You've seen no argument that writing courses are necessary because
>>no-one thinks that. What people have said, however, is that they may
>>be of some use to some people.
>But I have never denied that. What I suggested was that writing
>courses aren't necessary to those who are good enough to write
>commercially. The original poster stated that he was about to sit down
>and write a novel, and asked whether he should get an MA in creative
>writing first. I said, in effect, just write the damn thing, rather
>than spending a small fortune and several years in a program that in
>my estimation is unlikely to have an effect on whether he has a
>successful career as a novelist.
Your estimation in this matter is of no consequence. You have no idea
whether the OP might benefit. You make your judgement on no basis at
all, since you haven't seen examples of his writing, we weren't
offered a description of his planned novel, and you have no idea what
makes a successful novelist. Even if you were a published writer, you
opinion would be of limited value. And of course you're not.
It is certainly true that he could "write the damn thing" without
tuition. There is, however, no way to tell whether that would in
itself lead to a "career as a successful novelist". If we are to judge
from the evidence of our eyes, which tell us that most "damn things"
do not go on to be published, and that most published novelists do not
write novels as a successful career. The reverse is probably true.
>>You're basing your whole argument on a false dichotomy: that such a
>>course is only of value is it can be shown to produce a "great" or
>>"important" writer. Of course, that's not necessary in order to
>>display utility in such courses. The vast majority of aspiring writers
>>will be satisfied at being turned into "better" writers, let alone
>>"good" ones.
>I just don't happen to believe that someone who can make a successful
>career out of writing fiction will gain anything from the course that
>he couldn't gain on his own.
Again with your circular logic, and your untestable hypotheses. This
statement, while I've no doubt it's a sincerely held belief, is
nonsense. It makes no sense. It cannot be falsified, and therefore has
no value.
>Does that make such courses undesirable
>for everybody? No, of course not. There seems to be fairly widespread
>agreement that such courses can make a mediocre, though not a bad,
>writer a good one. Unfortunately, as things now stand, being good
>isn't enough to achieve even commercial success in the fiction market.
That's demonstrably untrue, and quite laughably so. Are you suggesting
that Barbara Cartland is something better than "good"? Jeffrey Archer?
Ken Follett?
>If someone doesn't have that as a goal but wants to become a better
>writer for other reasons -- or just wants to hang out for a couple of
>years -- or would rather learn craft in a structured setting rather
>than on their own -- all power to them.
So you're agreeing that such courses could be valuable to a great many
people?
>>Your terms, incidentally, are slippery and elastic, as well as
>>subjective, and there's nothing in them on which to base any argument
>>or admit of any discussion.
>Subjective terms are no bar to discussion:
>"George Bush is dishonest."
>"Fat people are sexy."
>"War is a terrible thing."
>However, in this particular discussion, there are implied
>delineations. For example, the gulf between good and great writing is
>so vast, the talent of the great artist so unusual, that one is
>probably justified in suggesting that creative writing courses cannot
>make the difference between writing good and great works.
There's also no way to determine the validity of that statement. I can
easily imagine a situation where a writer who possesses great gifts is
brought, by the application of the structure you talk about above, to
put his talent into practice, which he might otherwise not have done.
That makes the difference between a great writer and a great writer
who never puts pen to paper. And I suggest that difference is
substantial.
>>You should be aware that the vast majority of writers, past and
>>present, have been neither great nor important. Of those who have at
>>some time qualified, some are no longer considered so. Even
>>Shakespeare mouldered neglected for a time.
>Clearly, though posterity is fairly good at making that determination.
Posterity made the opposite determination in Shakespeare's case, and
in that of Bach, before a later posterity reversed the decision. Do
you mean only that "our" posterity is good at such decisions? Is the
roll of great writers of the past now fixed in stone?
>Nevertheless, it exists, in several closely-related variants. And it
>/always/ requires great talent -- talent so extraordinary that from
>its perspective a course in creative writing would be a sorry joke.
You presume to speak from the perspective of extraordinary talent,
Joshua? Surely not.
But again you set the bar implausibly high. Why must we determine the
utility of writing courses from their production of extraordinary
talents? We don't do that with any other form of instruction. We don't
close the engineering schools simply because they're not putting out
Brunels or Telfords.
>>You're very naughtily placing an intolerable burden of proof on
>>writing education by holding it to such a standard. Only by doing so
>>does you argument stand up.
>>In fact, it should be quite enough for you -- it is for me -- that
>>these courses produce good writers, and if possible better writers
>>than would have been without them. I'm aware of the existence of
>>brilliant, great and important surgeons. However when I go in on a
>>gurney to have my appendix out, I'll be quite happy, thanks, to
>>receive the attention of a merely good one. You won't be telling me, I
>>hope, that the relative paucity of brilliant surgeons coming out of
>>the medical schools is an argument for the scrapping of medical
>>education.
>Your analogy breaks down in several places.
>First of all, you imply that those who don't take specific courses in
>creative writing receive no training in writing.
No, you've been doing that, by your insistence that great or important
writers took no formal training. It could be argued that the study of
English literature, or perhaps even classics, was a form of training
for the practice of literature. And you would be able to find
important writers who had so studied.
>But nothing could be
>farther from the truth: all students receive fairly intensive training
>in reading and writing from the time they're five or six years old. If
>students studied and practiced surgery for an hour a day from the time
>they were five or six until they had graduated college, and if in
>addition to that they were apt to curl up in the evening with a good
>surgical journal, they would probably be pretty well qualified to
>master the latest surgical techniques on their own, just as an
>experienced, board-certified surgeon is.
Hardly. What a ludicrous statement.
>Then, too, creative writing is much more competitive than doctoring.
>The vast majority of surgeons who come out of medical school are at
>least competent, and, as the supply of surgeons never overwhelms
>demand, all find employment.
Well, no they don't. Many of them are forced to find other specialties
because they are not good enough, and because competition for places
is much more fierce than you seem to think.
>But commercial publishing requires the
>work of only a relative handful of novelists. It is, as I said, no
>longer enough to be good.
Commercial success is not a measure of quality. And unfortunately for
your position here, such things as marketing one's work are ideally
suited to being taught in writing schools as opposed to being picked
up along the way. A recent news story posted to MW claimed that
graduates of writing schools were increasingly successful in obtaining
publishing or screenwriting deals. I'm sure you can imagine for
yourself the advantages of affiliation with a known school in terms of
contacts and networking. The number of published graduates of the UEA
programme, about which the OP asked, is impressive. If their
connection with the school helped in any way to bring them to the
industry's notice, then they have been given a competitive advantage.
Since you've chosen to use commercial success as an indicator, you
have to admit that's not negligible.
>Finally, writing is a creative endeavor, as surgery -- for the most
>part -- is not.
Many surgeons would disagree.
>Both require craft. But anyone with reasonable
>intelligence, a steady hand, and good work habits can learn to be a
>surgeon, not of the first rank, perhaps, but with skill adequate for
>most tasks.
Most, if not all, surgeons would disagree. They're not barbers any
more, Joshua.
>>Writing courses can improve the performance of some writers, and in
>>doing so they fulfil the only requirement we can legitimately demand
>>of them. And if they fail to turn out a Dickens or a Blake (who like
>>Shakespeare was not a writer in the sense being discussed) well then,
>>neither does anything else. Is there a Dickens or a Proust being
>>produced by any other method, including no methods at all?
>But that is precisely my point. I'm not sure that anything is being
>produced by writing schools.
Published writers are being produced.
>What's more, I suspect that writing
>schools have a /negative/ effect on creativity, an effect of the sort
>the French Academy had on painting 150 years ago. It is a commonplace
>on groups such as this one that one can't have too much craft. But is
>that so? Art, by its nature, makes and remakes itself as the
>generations progress. Some of the last style's craft is discarded, and
>replaced with invention which becomes, eventually, the new style's
>craft. One can't, perhaps, have too much craft, but one /can/ be so
>influenced that one becomes locked into a style, forgets to listen to
>one's own muse.
You have to make your mind up about that cake: have, or eat? On the
one hand you hold up commercial success as an indicator of the worth
of writing tuition. On the other you claim art is. But you neglect to
remember that one can only discard elements of a craft one has
mastered, unless you think there's a future for the school of naif
literature. Art without craft is nothing. Art and craft united is
literature. But even craft alone can get you through a long plane
journey, and bring commercial success. Look at some commercially
successful novelists, for heaven's sake, and tell me which of the
attributes they display.
--
AH
Frank ess
>> On Thu, 22 May 2003 00:01:42 GMT, "Frank ess"
<fshe...@sandotrr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2003 03:51:29 GMT, gekko
>>>>> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> sine fingre
>>>>>> fremførte følgende fornøyelige frase:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frank, who made no point at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sea squirts
>>>>>
>>>>> Ocean life everywhere applauds him
>>>>>
>>>>> Josh
>>>
>>> At last!
>>>
>>> Sloshing Josh shubmits hish occupashun for shcrutiny.
>>>
>>> What's it like, attached to that rock?
>>
>> I dunno, what's it like out in space?
>>
>> Josh
Oddly enough it affords an excellent perspective on underwater life.
That reminds me: thanks for your applause, Josh. I hate to appear
ungrateful, even for such insignificant, insincere, dishonest
approbation. I mean, how could you possibly know the opinion or
reaction of so many other squirmers and squirts? Of course everyone has
learned that's what can be expected of you: shoot from the hip, then
wiggle around like a worm, or pretend you made a joke, or act as if you
didn't notice a question, or answer a question that wasn't asked; but
most likely all those squirmy, dishonest, insincere things and a few
more you very creatively slip out from under your pod.
I might be wrong: it could be you are not smart enough or perceptive
enough or sane enough to recognize and admit your own presentation and
thinking flaws. I prefer to believe you are just playing a game you
aren't very good at.
--
Frank ess
"It is easier to tolerate a whole fool
than a half-fool -- that is a fool
who tries to act clever."
--The medieval sage Ibn Gabirol
Alan Hope
>>>?
I'm dealing solely with the propositions put forward by you in this
thread. HTH. Before I snip your bullshit, I'll deal with this:
>If the
>propositions are of the sort that one of them /must/ be true, then
>disproof of one proposition proves the other.
No, it doesn't. We must first establish that one must be true.
Whatever proof its required to do that will validate one or other of
the competing propositions. There is nothing in A which renders not-A
valid.
Your example was utter ignorant retard bollocks. A number may not be
described as "prime" *unless* it is a member of the set of integers
>1.
You seem to have a gift for circular logic.
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> fought off the bad
>guys, rescued the hostage, phoned Mom on her birthday and then
>posted to alt.writing:
>
>
>> On 22 May 2003 03:17:07 GMT, pbutl...@aol.com (PButler111)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Which is, as we all know, quite a different thing than saying
>>>>"no writer in the history of the world until the 20th century
>>>>had ever taken any formal instruction in his or her craft."
>>>>PButler indulged in that "interpretation" immediately after
>>>>admonishing someone to "Kindly don't tell me what my point was,
>>>>especially since I never said or implied any such thing."
>>>>
>>>>Isn't irony a wonderful thing?
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>gekko
>>>
>>>Thanks for posting proof that I was right and you were wrong.
>>>Saved me a lot of time. As will putting you back in my killfile
>>>where you belong.
>>
>> Weenie.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>
>Yes. And when you do it, you are JUST LIKE HER!
>
>Bwahahahahahaha! :-) :-) :-)
But that's my ambition in life, to be like Patty!
"Hello, I was wondering if . . . ."
"Away, pusillanimous creature! What laughable villain would dare ask
such a question in the presence of a /Writer?/ Drag your inferior hide
back under the dank and miserable rock whence it emerged, and
contemplate in your jealous agony the Infinite Glories of One Who Has
Published Two Books."
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
This is confused nonsense of the worst sort. Your second sentence,
"Whatever proof . . . ", isn't grammatically valid, and if there were
more possible meanings of "There is nothing . . . " one would need a
dictionary to hold 'em. Which makes it virtually impossible to
ascertain what you are saying. I won't attempt to read tea leaves.
>Your example was utter ignorant retard bollocks. A number may not be
>described as "prime" *unless* it is a member of the set of integers
>>1.
Er, uh, like, duh. You have a rather remarkable tendency to trot out
the known and obvious, without realizing that you've demonstrated
absolutely nothing except that you missed the argument.
>You seem to have a gift for circular logic.
No: you have a "gift" for making byzantine extrapolations that mean
absolutely nothing. I confess that I find intriguing the relationship
between your inability to follow simple logic and your tendency to
create bizarre and elaborate explanations on the basis of inadequate
evidence, e.g., your assertion that the failure eof fighters to
scramble in a timely way demonstrates that the United States blew up
the World Trade Center. I'm reminded, curiously, of those aphasics
who, unable to find straightforward words for the objects they're
trying to describe, are forced to substitute elaborate
circumlocutions. It is as if something in your mental constitution
precludes you from seeing the obvious implications, and forces you to
contrive unwieldy ones. It is certainly not stupidity, as it is in
Patty's case. But despite your obvious intelligence, you can't see
your way to the essence of a problem the way, forex, Gekko did here,
and you seem curiously unable to grasp that. Some sort of MBD?
Psychodynamic? As I said, intriguing.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Heh, no. As you've given no examples of my supposed sins, I can't be
sure of what they are, and if I were to do what I often do in such
cases and hazard a guess, you would likely accuse me of answering a
question that wasn't asked. Suffice it to say that I can't think of a
single instance in which I've been disingenuous here, and that your
speculation regarding my intellectual abilities and sanity, while good
for a chuckle, isn't precisely worthy of Newton.
Josh
Frank ess
Queue Ee Dee
Joshua P. Hill
>Joshua P. Hill goes:
>
>>On Thu, 22 May 2003 00:59:38 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>Joshua P. Hill goes:
>>>>On Tue, 20 May 2003 21:27:18 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>>"Just my opinion, of course, but if you're good enough to
>>>>write professionally, as opposed to dabbling for his own amusement,
>>>>you don't need the course, and if you take it your style will likely
>>>>be heavily influenced by the academic preferences of your teachers."
>
>>>>Which part of "Just my opinion, of course" didn't you understand?
>
>>>What part of "Proposition A is correct" strikes you as retaining the
>>>necessary caution or ambiguity?
>
>>What "necessary caution or ambiguity"? It's a proposition, which I can
>>neither prove nor disprove.
>
>In what sense, in that case, can it be described as "correct"?
It can't be. It can only be described as "I think it's probably
correct." It's no different than a case brought in a civil court,
where it's decided on the basis of a preponderance of evidence.
>>>>I
>>>>have never asserted that my statement could be /proved/ or /disproved/
>>>>-- there is obviously no way to make a completely controlled study of
>>>>the matter. However, I note that I have seen /no/ arguments* here,
>>>>from you or anybody else. that support of the contrary position, which
>>>>seems to be based on "well, they wouldn't /have/ these programs if
>>>>they weren't necessary." Heh. Tell that to Shakespeare or Blake.
>
>>>Shakespeare and Blake didn't have the benefits of the telephone.
>>>You're surely not using that as an argument that the telephone is of
>>>no use to anyone now.
>
>>No, of course not. Which is one of the reasons why the information I
>>have isn't adequate to prove my proposition beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>Shakespeare and Blake tell us is that some people don't need courses
>>in creative writing. That isn't insignificant, but it establishes only
>>part of the case.
>
>It is indeed insignificant. All that Shakespeare and Blake tell us is
>that S&B did not require courses. From that, we are able to conclude
>nothing at all about other writers. And it may be that although S&B
>did not require courses, they might still have found some benefit in
>one, which is all I have ever argued they are good for. As I mention
>below, you are applying a ridiculously high standard: "Well, they
>don't turn out Shakespeares or Blakes, so they're no good for
>anything."
What we are able to conclude -- logically -- is that some great
writers do not require writing courses to be great. That, as I believe
I've said on several occasions, makes merely part of my case. There
may be great writers who did take writing courses -- although if there
are, they're few. And of course that doesn't cover the case of the
many writers who are commercially successful but probably not great.
But I never implied that it did; I'm merely trying to martial the
evidence. In effect I'm saying "Proposition A can be divided into
Propositions a, b, and c. This evidence proves that Proposition a is
correct. That frees us up to consider b and c." When we have dispensed
with the possibility that the great writers of the past /needed/
courses in creative writing courses, we can move on to consider other
possibilities, such as the ones you mentioned, that creative writers
might have benefitted from creative writing courses, that some writers
who were not great would have been great if they had taken creative
writing courses, and so forth.
>>>You've seen no argument that writing courses are necessary because
>>>no-one thinks that. What people have said, however, is that they may
>>>be of some use to some people.
>
>>But I have never denied that. What I suggested was that writing
>>courses aren't necessary to those who are good enough to write
>>commercially. The original poster stated that he was about to sit down
>>and write a novel, and asked whether he should get an MA in creative
>>writing first. I said, in effect, just write the damn thing, rather
>>than spending a small fortune and several years in a program that in
>>my estimation is unlikely to have an effect on whether he has a
>>successful career as a novelist.
>
>Your estimation in this matter is of no consequence. You have no idea
>whether the OP might benefit. You make your judgement on no basis at
>all, since you haven't seen examples of his writing, we weren't
>offered a description of his planned novel, and you have no idea what
>makes a successful novelist. Even if you were a published writer, you
>opinion would be of limited value. And of course you're not.
No. I reiterate what I said. It is my opinion, to be sure, as I made
abundantly clear, but it is hardly an uninformed one. Rather, it is
based on a fair amount of knowledge and consideration, which in turn
comes from a fair amount of involvement with beginning writers,
writing teachers, MFA's, and critiquing groups, a pretty good
knowledge of the sort of stuff that's being published in my areas of
interest and the backgrounds of those who publish it, a reasonable
academic background in literary criticism, and many other factors,
including my own writing experience, the opinions of important writers
and critics, and articles such as the one that someone posted here.
I might add that much of what I said is very similar to what has been
said by the aforesaid well-known writers and critics. Often in pithier
form, e.g., MFA's all end up sounding like their teachers.
Anyway, if others disagree with me, they're free to express their own
views to the original poster. He's a grownup, and can no doubt make
his own decision.
Oh, and, as I've noted before, I am /not/ an unpublished writer.
Unlike some, however, I am not so crass as to want to lord it over
others on the basis of an accomplishment that I find no more
impressive than earning a certificate in dishwasher repair. It is easy
to get published: doing good work is the hard part.
>It is certainly true that he could "write the damn thing" without
>tuition. There is, however, no way to tell whether that would in
>itself lead to a "career as a successful novelist". If we are to judge
>from the evidence of our eyes, which tell us that most "damn things"
>do not go on to be published, and that most published novelists do not
>write novels as a successful career. The reverse is probably true.
Well, yes. One of the reasons I think he should be skeptical of that
MA.
Look, Alan, you've pointed out -- correctly -- that most of the people
who post here are never going to be successful authors. One can see
that right away -- not with certainty, but as a matter of likelihood
-- because they flop around like caught fish. And when we argued about
that, I argued that people can improve markedly if they apply
themselves, whether in school or on their own. I've seen people on
crit groups make spectacular progress after a few years of study and
effort, progress that I wouldn't have believed possible. But that is
not sufficient to make them successful writers, as the game is
currently played. If they have what that takes by way of talent,
dedication, and uniqueness, they will be able to learn on their own.
>>>You're basing your whole argument on a false dichotomy: that such a
>>>course is only of value is it can be shown to produce a "great" or
>>>"important" writer. Of course, that's not necessary in order to
>>>display utility in such courses. The vast majority of aspiring writers
>>>will be satisfied at being turned into "better" writers, let alone
>>>"good" ones.
>
>>I just don't happen to believe that someone who can make a successful
>>career out of writing fiction will gain anything from the course that
>>he couldn't gain on his own.
>
>Again with your circular logic, and your untestable hypotheses. This
>statement, while I've no doubt it's a sincerely held belief, is
>nonsense. It makes no sense. It cannot be falsified, and therefore has
>no value.
Circular logic? Untestable/unfalsifiable hypothesis?
"Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
You seem completely unable to grasp a thought that is only slightly
complex. Ah, well, I'll try one last time.
There is nothing circular about my proposition. It is analogous to
"anyone who is strong enough to hike up a 500' high hill can gain on
his own the endurance to hike up a 500' high hill without needing to
go through a formal program of training." Get it? It's no more
difficult than one of the easy questions on a Mensa test.
A simplified way of putting it that may be easier for you to grasp: if
you have the talent, you don't need the course.
As to its being untestable, well, yes, not in principle, but in
practice. Most things are, outside of math and the hard sciences.
And it is, of course, falsifiable. A single case of a writer who spent
several years trying unsuccessfully to learn the craft on his own,
took a course in creative writing, and then used what he learned from
the writing course to write a wonderful novel which went on to be
successful would be sufficient. But, really, one doesn't hear such
stories, from MFA's or anyone else.
>>Does that make such courses undesirable
>>for everybody? No, of course not. There seems to be fairly widespread
>>agreement that such courses can make a mediocre, though not a bad,
>>writer a good one. Unfortunately, as things now stand, being good
>>isn't enough to achieve even commercial success in the fiction market.
>
>That's demonstrably untrue, and quite laughably so. Are you suggesting
>that Barbara Cartland is something better than "good"? Jeffrey Archer?
>Ken Follett?
Ironically enough, you've perpetrated precisely what you accused me of
the other day -- a No True Scotsman fallacy. I said being "good" isn't
enough to be a successful writer. That does /not/ imply that to be a
successful writer one must be "good."
Keep this up, and I'm going to borrow Zen's dog.
>>If someone doesn't have that as a goal but wants to become a better
>>writer for other reasons -- or just wants to hang out for a couple of
>>years -- or would rather learn craft in a structured setting rather
>>than on their own -- all power to them.
>
>So you're agreeing that such courses could be valuable to a great many
>people?
Sure.
>>>Your terms, incidentally, are slippery and elastic, as well as
>>>subjective, and there's nothing in them on which to base any argument
>>>or admit of any discussion.
>
>>Subjective terms are no bar to discussion:
>
>>"George Bush is dishonest."
>
>>"Fat people are sexy."
>
>>"War is a terrible thing."
>
>>However, in this particular discussion, there are implied
>>delineations. For example, the gulf between good and great writing is
>>so vast, the talent of the great artist so unusual, that one is
>>probably justified in suggesting that creative writing courses cannot
>>make the difference between writing good and great works.
>
>There's also no way to determine the validity of that statement. I can
>easily imagine a situation where a writer who possesses great gifts is
>brought, by the application of the structure you talk about above, to
>put his talent into practice, which he might otherwise not have done.
>That makes the difference between a great writer and a great writer
>who never puts pen to paper. And I suggest that difference is
>substantial.
I tend to think that an unlikely scenario. Why would someone who had
no inclination to put a pen to paper take a writing course of the sort
we've been discussing?
Still, I've no doubt that you're correct. There may be, somewhere, a
potentially great writer who would not have been a great writer, or
even as good a great writer, had (s)he not taken a writing course
through one or another modality I haven't imagined or have
inaccurately assessed.
But I think one has to reckon the probability of that against the
downside. $30,000 a year (in the US, anyway), two or three years of
courses, the nagging suspicion that people tend to come out of
master's programs in writing too apt to write in certain styles and
for a certain audience.
And, this guy said, "Hey, I'm about to write the novel."
For God's sake, why not just /do/ it? If there's abundant talent
there, there's a good chance he'll recognize that himself, or the
people he shows his first chapters to will. Or perhaps he'll hate
writing it, or he and his friends will decide that he doesn't have any
talent.
Perhaps he'll discover, as many of us have, that he enjoys it, has a
flair for it, and has about a million questions that he never thought
about before. And then he'll have to consider what he wants to do --
take a writing course, join a crit group, read books on writing,
reread good books with a new eye, what have you. But, at the very
least, he'll be in a much better position to know.
But telling someone that they should get a master's degree because
they think they want to try writing a novel makes about as much sense
as telling someone they should attend Julliard because they want to
learn Chopsticks.
>>>You should be aware that the vast majority of writers, past and
>>>present, have been neither great nor important. Of those who have at
>>>some time qualified, some are no longer considered so. Even
>>>Shakespeare mouldered neglected for a time.
>
>>Clearly, though posterity is fairly good at making that determination.
>
>Posterity made the opposite determination in Shakespeare's case, and
>in that of Bach, before a later posterity reversed the decision. Do
>you mean only that "our" posterity is good at such decisions? Is the
>roll of great writers of the past now fixed in stone?
No, Shakespeare was never forgotten, but his relative eclipse happened
in the near rather than the far term. So too Bach, even more so:
posterity rescued him from relative neglect after 75 years or so, if
one uses as a benchmark Mendelssohn's performance of the St. Matthew
Passion, less if one takes the publication of Spitta's biography or
the initial abortive attempt to publish his complete works.
Which is to say that posterity /does/ have a way of sorting these
things out, because a few in every generation have the sensibility to
appreciate great works, and with time, their repeated appreciation of
those works begins to register on the broader public.
And no, I don't think that the list is fixed in stone -- it doesn't
have to be to be valid.
>>Nevertheless, it exists, in several closely-related variants. And it
>>/always/ requires great talent -- talent so extraordinary that from
>>its perspective a course in creative writing would be a sorry joke.
>
>You presume to speak from the perspective of extraordinary talent,
>Joshua? Surely not.
Where have I ever suggested, here or anywhere else, that I have
sufficient talent to create great art?
I didn't think so.
>But again you set the bar implausibly high. Why must we determine the
>utility of writing courses from their production of extraordinary
>talents? We don't do that with any other form of instruction. We don't
>close the engineering schools simply because they're not putting out
>Brunels or Telfords.
But remember, even though you keep refusing to see it, I've made a
slightly subtle proposition here. I'm /not/ saying that writing
courses can't offer training that a successful writer will find
useful. I'm /not/ saying that writing courses can't offer training
that a less successful writer will find useful and that he couldn't
have mastered on his or her own. I am saying that those who have
sufficient talent to be successful writers don't need to take courses
in creative writing.
>>>You're very naughtily placing an intolerable burden of proof on
>>>writing education by holding it to such a standard. Only by doing so
>>>does you argument stand up.
>
>>>In fact, it should be quite enough for you -- it is for me -- that
>>>these courses produce good writers, and if possible better writers
>>>than would have been without them. I'm aware of the existence of
>>>brilliant, great and important surgeons. However when I go in on a
>>>gurney to have my appendix out, I'll be quite happy, thanks, to
>>>receive the attention of a merely good one. You won't be telling me, I
>>>hope, that the relative paucity of brilliant surgeons coming out of
>>>the medical schools is an argument for the scrapping of medical
>>>education.
>
>>Your analogy breaks down in several places.
>
>>First of all, you imply that those who don't take specific courses in
>>creative writing receive no training in writing.
>
>No, you've been doing that, by your insistence that great or important
>writers took no formal training. It could be argued that the study of
>English literature, or perhaps even classics, was a form of training
>for the practice of literature. And you would be able to find
>important writers who had so studied.
Of course it was. But that, of course, is part of my argument.
>>But nothing could be
>>farther from the truth: all students receive fairly intensive training
>>in reading and writing from the time they're five or six years old. If
>>students studied and practiced surgery for an hour a day from the time
>>they were five or six until they had graduated college, and if in
>>addition to that they were apt to curl up in the evening with a good
>>surgical journal, they would probably be pretty well qualified to
>>master the latest surgical techniques on their own, just as an
>>experienced, board-certified surgeon is.
>
>Hardly. What a ludicrous statement.
Nonsense. Compare the number of hours spent in training and you will
find the comparison favorable to the students trained in surgery from
the time they're five or six. You will also find that the students who
were trained at a very young age tend to achieve far greater facility
than those who trained in medical school, because they learned basic
skills during the optimal window.
If I may hazard a guess, you are unable to accept this possibility
simply because it's so far from your own experience.
>>Then, too, creative writing is much more competitive than doctoring.
>>The vast majority of surgeons who come out of medical school are at
>>least competent, and, as the supply of surgeons never overwhelms
>>demand, all find employment.
>
>Well, no they don't. Many of them are forced to find other specialties
>because they are not good enough, and because competition for places
>is much more fierce than you seem to think.
I have never heard of that occurring here in the US.
>>But commercial publishing requires the
>>work of only a relative handful of novelists. It is, as I said, no
>>longer enough to be good.
>
>Commercial success is not a measure of quality.
No, but I've made an effort to discuss two broad classes of writers,
those who write "good" work and those who write commercially
successful work, because these seem to me the two main groups to which
an aspiring novelist would seek to belong. And here's the thing. Lots
of people who come out of MFA programs have learned to write "good"
work, in the literary sense. I am genuinely impressed by it when I
read it. But it is not good enough. It does not achieve the stature of
major work -- that of an Eliot, or even an Auden, or even even a
Heaney. And while in previous ages it might still have found an
appreciative audience (and by comparing it unfavorably to a few
superstars, I don't mean to imply that it isn't deserving of such
attention), today it's unlikely to. Not enough people read "serious"
work anymore. Too many people write, and too many of them are
talented, and /too many of them have MFA's/ and have mastered much the
same set of enviable but interchangeable skills.
As to the popular artists, their gift is not particularly dependent on
the craft taught in writing courses. The general public doesn't seem
to know the difference between a mediocre stylist or a good one. Hell,
I can and have enjoyed novels by Clancy or Rowling or Asimov, even
though their styles make me cringe. They each bring something special
to the mix, something that appeals to people, and even if writing
courses tried to teach it, they wouldn't be able to, because once the
surgeon has given every girl in town a perfect nose, a perfect nose is
no longer of particular interest.
> And unfortunately for
>your position here, such things as marketing one's work are ideally
>suited to being taught in writing schools as opposed to being picked
>up along the way. A recent news story posted to MW claimed that
>graduates of writing schools were increasingly successful in obtaining
>publishing or screenwriting deals. I'm sure you can imagine for
>yourself the advantages of affiliation with a known school in terms of
>contacts and networking. The number of published graduates of the UEA
>programme, about which the OP asked, is impressive. If their
>connection with the school helped in any way to bring them to the
>industry's notice, then they have been given a competitive advantage.
>Since you've chosen to use commercial success as an indicator, you
>have to admit that's not negligible.
I'm of two minds about it. On one hand, I've no doubt that such
contacts are useful. On the other, I'm not sure that they're
necessary, or worth the price of admission. If work has a chance of
success -- literary or commercial -- it will eventually be published.
At least, I can think of no applicable case in which it hasn't been,
within the author's working life -- the few famous exceptions seem to
have occurred because the writer didn't bother to submit or jumped off
a bridge or something.
>>Finally, writing is a creative endeavor, as surgery -- for the most
>>part -- is not.
>
>Many surgeons would disagree.
They'd be wrong.
>>Both require craft. But anyone with reasonable
>>intelligence, a steady hand, and good work habits can learn to be a
>>surgeon, not of the first rank, perhaps, but with skill adequate for
>>most tasks.
>
>Most, if not all, surgeons would disagree. They're not barbers any
>more, Joshua.
>
>>>Writing courses can improve the performance of some writers, and in
>>>doing so they fulfil the only requirement we can legitimately demand
>>>of them. And if they fail to turn out a Dickens or a Blake (who like
>>>Shakespeare was not a writer in the sense being discussed) well then,
>>>neither does anything else. Is there a Dickens or a Proust being
>>>produced by any other method, including no methods at all?
>
>>But that is precisely my point. I'm not sure that anything is being
>>produced by writing schools.
>
>Published writers are being produced.
Nah, they're going through the schools and being published. Whether
they're being published /because/ of the schools is something about
which I'm more than a little skeptical.
>>What's more, I suspect that writing
>>schools have a /negative/ effect on creativity, an effect of the sort
>>the French Academy had on painting 150 years ago. It is a commonplace
>>on groups such as this one that one can't have too much craft. But is
>>that so? Art, by its nature, makes and remakes itself as the
>>generations progress. Some of the last style's craft is discarded, and
>>replaced with invention which becomes, eventually, the new style's
>>craft. One can't, perhaps, have too much craft, but one /can/ be so
>>influenced that one becomes locked into a style, forgets to listen to
>>one's own muse.
>
>You have to make your mind up about that cake: have, or eat? On the
>one hand you hold up commercial success as an indicator of the worth
>of writing tuition. On the other you claim art is. But you neglect to
>remember that one can only discard elements of a craft one has
>mastered, unless you think there's a future for the school of naif
>literature. Art without craft is nothing. Art and craft united is
>literature. But even craft alone can get you through a long plane
>journey, and bring commercial success. Look at some commercially
>successful novelists, for heaven's sake, and tell me which of the
>attributes they display.
Again, I mention these two (not always mutually exclusive) areas --
commercial and artistic success -- because I think they're the ones
that are apt to be of concern to a beginning novelist.
As to the matter of art and craft, keep in mind what I said about
never having too much craft. I'm not arguing that one can have too
much. I /am/ arguing that one can have more than one needs, and,
worse, that one can become so entrenched in the style of one's
teachers that creativity is stunted. I've mentioned, I think, the
School of David, a particularly famous example that has the advantage
of being widely known. By way of contrast, some of the greatest
Impressionists /were/ naifs, from the perspective of a
classically-trained artist.
As to those commercially-successful novelists, I don't believe that
any can attribute their success solely to craft of the sort that is
learned in writing courses. No writing course could possibly have
taught A. J. Rowling to write the Potter books. They were her own
vision, assembled in large part from pre-existing elements, to be
sure, but assembled by her unique gift.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Simon
sent off to UEA for information about the course, and was rather
disappointed by the naked way in which they were trying to establish
their own canon. Applicants were adivsed to read the work of previous
course members and if the applicant's work was of a similar style then
they would stand a better chance. So bang goes the creative part of
the course description. On the other hand, a pal who did the course
said that he got a lot of motivation from the pressure to write so
regularly. He also got to make some useful connections. So it's really
a question of knowing what you want from the course. In the end I
didn't bother with it and just got on with my writing and found an
agent (pretty much a sine qua non these days) and a publisher and it's
all going well enough without any UEA input.
Dr Zen
If you can get on the UEA course, get on it. It churns out authors
with the same dreary style and, more importantly, contacts that
practically guarantee getting published. It has fuck all to do with
creative writing.
Zen
Alan Hope
>But remember, even though you keep refusing to see it, I've made a
>slightly subtle proposition here. I'm /not/ saying that writing
>courses can't offer training that a successful writer will find
>useful. I'm /not/ saying that writing courses can't offer training
>that a less successful writer will find useful and that he couldn't
>have mastered on his or her own. I am saying that those who have
>sufficient talent to be successful writers don't need to take courses
>in creative writing.
Had that been your position at the outset, Joshua, I shouldn't have
bothered you with my comments. But it plainly wasn't, and it's very
shifty of you now to claim it was. You in fact stated to a complete
unknown that he ought to forget about writing courses and get down to
writing his novel. You further opined that writing courses were
worthless for people of talent, and might possibly even have a
deleterious effect.
And you persist in your romantic view that talent will out, in your
ars gratia artis way. Hang around and wait for a visit from the Muse,
in other words, rather than take steps to learn the craft. If only
Kasuo Ishiguro had listened to you before enrolling in the UEA course.
He might have made something of himself by now.
--
AH
Alan Hope
When I said:
>>You seem to have a gift for circular logic.
Joshua said:
>No: you have a "gift" for making byzantine extrapolations that mean
>absolutely nothing. I confess that I find intriguing the relationship
>between your inability to follow simple logic and your tendency to
>create bizarre and elaborate explanations on the basis of inadequate
>evidence, e.g., your assertion that the failure eof fighters to
>scramble in a timely way demonstrates that the United States blew up
>the World Trade Center. I'm reminded, curiously, of those aphasics
>who, unable to find straightforward words for the objects they're
>trying to describe, are forced to substitute elaborate
>circumlocutions. It is as if something in your mental constitution
>precludes you from seeing the obvious implications, and forces you to
>contrive unwieldy ones. It is certainly not stupidity, as it is in
>Patty's case. But despite your obvious intelligence, you can't see
>your way to the essence of a problem the way, forex, Gekko did here,
>and you seem curiously unable to grasp that. Some sort of MBD?
>Psychodynamic? As I said, intriguing.
Which passage, for those who didn't bring a machete to hack through
the sentences, includes the sweet nut:
>I'm reminded, curiously, of those aphasics
>who, unable to find straightforward words for the objects they're
>trying to describe, are forced to substitute elaborate
>circumlocutions.
Demonstrating how to criticise something by becoming its epitome. I
have called this the Chameleon Syndrome.
Your inability to discern when you're making an arse of yourself, and
to what extent, is striking, Joshua. When it's pointed out to you what
drivel you're talking, you respond with a further flood of drivel,
like some rococo perversion of the homeopathic principle.
I certainly can see my way to the essence of a problem, and yours is
this: if in hole, then stop digging. You seem to think the spadesful
of earth you throw up prove the absence of the hole, but of course
they don't.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>I have mixed feelings about the value of creative writing courses. I
>sent off to UEA for information about the course, and was rather
>disappointed by the naked way in which they were trying to establish
>their own canon. Applicants were adivsed to read the work of previous
>course members and if the applicant's work was of a similar style then
>they would stand a better chance. So bang goes the creative part of
>the course description.
Only if you think all of the published UEA graduates are the same.
They're not, and in fact they cover a wide range of styles.
What they're doing, I think, is telling you not to bother if you
favour the sword'n'sorcery genre, or have a new tale about starships,
as many beginning writers seem to. All they're doing is pointing out
what the ballpark looks like, and more importantly what it doesn't
look like.
It's no different, in fact, from a publisher who publishes detective
novels advising that submissions of romances that they'd better not
bother. That particular course is not for everyone, writing in every
style in every genre. It's in the interests of those who take part,
and those who decide it's not their bag, that it should be so.
>On the other hand, a pal who did the course
>said that he got a lot of motivation from the pressure to write so
>regularly. He also got to make some useful connections. So it's really
>a question of knowing what you want from the course. In the end I
>didn't bother with it and just got on with my writing and found an
>agent (pretty much a sine qua non these days) and a publisher and it's
>all going well enough without any UEA input.
Good for you.
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
Ah, Alan, Alan, Alan, fated always to mistake subtlety for farce, and
farce for subtlety. Cuz you don't see it, dearie, don't mean it ain't
gonna make you sick.
>Your inability to discern when you're making an arse of yourself, and
>to what extent, is striking, Joshua. When it's pointed out to you what
>drivel you're talking, you respond with a further flood of drivel,
>like some rococo perversion of the homeopathic principle.
Pointed out? Oh, you mean when that funny fellow accused me of
imaginary illogic in the slightly embarrassing manner of those
fundamentalists who believe that the Theory of Evolution is circular?
Or when he repeated a couple of grammar school facts on primes, and
then. for reasons known only to himself, took his own statement as
evidence of my ignorance?
So, Alan, when was the War of 1812?
>I certainly can see my way to the essence of a problem, and yours is
>this: if in hole, then stop digging. You seem to think the spadesful
>of earth you throw up prove the absence of the hole, but of course
>they don't.
Becoming quite the little victory pronouncer, aren't we. You should
take lessons from Zen -- at least he's good at it.
Josh
Frank ess
I accept your most graceful, geracious, and dignified resignation.
--
Reverend Frank, The Plain One
Joining mates to one another
and matching the occasional
wayward doofus
with its Reality
since 1974
Joshua P. Hill
>Joshua P. Hill goes:
>
>>But remember, even though you keep refusing to see it, I've made a
>>slightly subtle proposition here. I'm /not/ saying that writing
>>courses can't offer training that a successful writer will find
>>useful. I'm /not/ saying that writing courses can't offer training
>>that a less successful writer will find useful and that he couldn't
>>have mastered on his or her own. I am saying that those who have
>>sufficient talent to be successful writers don't need to take courses
>>in creative writing.
>
>Had that been your position at the outset, Joshua, I shouldn't have
>bothered you with my comments. But it plainly wasn't, and it's very
>shifty of you now to claim it was. You in fact stated to a complete
>unknown that he ought to forget about writing courses and get down to
>writing his novel. You further opined that writing courses were
>worthless for people of talent, and might possibly even have a
>deleterious effect.
No, what I said above informed my position from the beginning. I can
understand why Patricia didn't understand that -- the necessary
conceptualizations, while hardly profound, are over her head -- but
I'm genuinely curious as to why you didn't.
Here's what I originally said:
"Don't do it. Just my opinion, of course, but if you're good enough to
write professionally, as opposed to dabbling for his own amusement,
you don't need the course, and if you take it your style will likely
be heavily influenced by the academic preferences of your teachers."
You claim that I said writing courses are "worthless for people of
talent." But in fact what I said was "those who have sufficient talent
to be successful writers don't need the course." The difference
between what you said and what I said is the difference between saying
that people /must/ cut their own nails rather than going to a
manicurist and saying that people /should/ cut their own nails rather
than going to a manicurist. Which is to say that I'm not saying that
the manicurist doesn't cut your nails -- I'm saying that someone with
a steady hand can do as good a job of cutting their nails on their
own.
I also said, as you report correctly, that creative writing programs
have a potentially deleterious effect: "Your style will likely be
heavily influenced by the academic preferences of your teachers."
Well, I continue to believe that. Zen said yesterday that this
particular program "churns out authors with the same dreary style." I
don't know about you, but I for one wouldn't want to be churned out
with the same dreary style. I take Zen's remark as tending to confirm
my more general impression of the work of MFA's.
Finally, I believed then, as I believe now, that if someone gets the
hankering to write a novel, they should sit down at the typewriter and
bang the damn thing out rather than spending several years and
thousands of dollars learning How to Write the Same Novel as Everyone
Else. But that doesn't mean that no one should ever consider taking a
writing course. Prospective writers may want to make the connections
with editors and publishers that several have mentioned. Or they may
want a career teaching other MFA's and writing oh-so-good books that
receive polite notices and sell 1000 copies to friends and college
libraries, or to spend two more years avoiding a real job, or to learn
craft in a formal academic setting rather than on their own. Lots of
reasons. But, again, what I said was that you don't /need/ the course,
not that you can't take it if it makes you happy.
My not having addressed some of these concerns explicitly may have led
some to believe, despite the relative care with which I phrased my
post, that I was saying more than I actually did. As I said, I'm
curious about that. But whether or not it did, I'm getting more than a
little fed up by the few who play Rorschach blot with my posts and
then accuse me of disingenuity when I tell them that no, I didn't
intend it as a bat sucking blood from your mother. I may not be clear,
or the reader may not be alert. But there is no cause for that.
>And you persist in your romantic view that talent will out, in your
>ars gratia artis way. Hang around and wait for a visit from the Muse,
>in other words, rather than take steps to learn the craft.
This is an excellent illustration on the Rorschach blotting to which I
referred above. As it so happens, I've never said anything of the
sort. Talent without craft is nothing. The issue we've been discussing
is how the talented can best obtain the craft they need -- whether it
is best obtained in an academic setting, or on their own. Yet you went
far beyond that, created your own fantasy about what I believed, and
will now, no doubt, accuse me of being disingenuous because I don't
agree with your fantastic interpretation.
>If only
>Kasuo Ishiguro had listened to you before enrolling in the UEA course.
>He might have made something of himself by now.
This reminds me of the bit about the corrupt mayor and the tidal
waves.
Reporter: Mr. Mayor, why is your mother on the municipal payroll?
Mayor: Mom watches for tidal waves.
Reporter: But this city has never /had/ a tidal wave.
Mayor: Don't thank me, thank Mom.
Josh
Dr Zen
> Simon goes:
>
> >I have mixed feelings about the value of creative writing courses. I
> >sent off to UEA for information about the course, and was rather
> >disappointed by the naked way in which they were trying to establish
> >their own canon. Applicants were adivsed to read the work of previous
> >course members and if the applicant's work was of a similar style then
> >they would stand a better chance. So bang goes the creative part of
> >the course description.
>
> Only if you think all of the published UEA graduates are the same.
> They're not, and in fact they cover a wide range of styles.
>
Bullshit are they.
> What they're doing, I think, is telling you not to bother if you
> favour the sword'n'sorcery genre, or have a new tale about starships,
> as many beginning writers seem to.
They're saying don't bother unless you think AS Fucking Byatt is the
height to which all authors should aspire.
> All they're doing is pointing out
> what the ballpark looks like, and more importantly what it doesn't
> look like.
>
I hope they are not indulging in such awful Americanisms.
> It's no different, in fact, from a publisher who publishes detective
> novels advising that submissions of romances that they'd better not
> bother.
Rubbish.
> That particular course is not for everyone, writing in every
> style in every genre.
Damned right it's not.
>It's in the interests of those who take part,
> and those who decide it's not their bag, that it should be so.
>
I went to Norwich last weekend. It's the sort of place where Corncob
Bob would actually be as scary to the autochthons as he thinks he is.
DYOCFT.
Zen
Dr Zen
Scoooooorrrreeeeee!!!! First thing I've read this month that I wish
I'd written myself.
Zen
Rhiannon
news:gfcicvs4g7tkv1jdj...@4ax.com...
> One doesn't have to be familiar with the biography of every great
> writer to know that
What then, does one have to be familiar with?
--
Rhiannon
rhi...@sympatico.ca
Rhiannon
> On 21 May 2003 18:07:04 GMT, pbutl...@aol.com (PButler111) wrote:
> >Josh's sweeping generalization was that no writer in
> >the history of the world until the 20th century had ever taken any formal
> >instruction in his or her craft. I took exception to that. If you want
to
> >support Josh's ludicrous claim with some proof, by all means, do so.
> And where, exactly, did I say that?
Prior to the 20th century, I don't think that /any/ writers took creative
writing courses, for the simple reason that they didn't exist.
Joshua P. Hill josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS
Date: 5/19/2003 9:17 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <vephcvctnpke7cr7n...@4ax.com