Re: intelligence of the author vs. intelligence of the characters

John Gedsudski wrote:

> I stand by my original post: the programs are a waste of time. If a person
> needs "writing time", to "polish" or hone his/her "craft" then it would be
> in their best interests to keep the greatest distance possible from other
> writers, especially young ones. Most flimsy liberal arts degrees are
> meaningless, especially when they are expounded by Lacanian know-it-all
> critics in English departments. Will, I'm not calling you a sciolist or
> condemning what you do, but creativity; the expressiveness and imaginative
> thrust of great literature, can never be taught. Ergo, your class, and any
> like it (Writing for Publication), can at best hope to screen out those
> writers who thought they were registered for journalism.

As has been said in other posts, the purpose of the MFA (so far as I can tell)
isn't to teach "creativity, expressiveness, and imaginative thrust" -- I really
don't know why this misperception keeps getting stubbornly repeated from post to
post. I don't see anyone claiming to offer this in serious MFA programs. I
didn't hear it in any of the writing classes I did take.

What was taken for granted was an already present creativity, expressiveness,
and imaginative thrust. Students can't even get into an MFA program without
showing some ability (again, this too is a repeat from past posts). What wasn't
taken for granted was that the writer hadn't developed quite a few bad habits of
thought and of writing that couldn't be helped by more experienced writers, or
simply by other intelligent readers, or by the close study of other literature
from the angle of the work as the result of a creative process and as a piece of
crafted writing.

Studying poetry, for example, and having to write different forms of the poems
after having those forms explained (and after having numerous good examples
offered) gives a writer quite a few tools he/she can use or toss or combine in
new ways as his/her "expressiveness, creativity, and imaginative thrust" sees
fit. Innate qualities are not enough, by themselves (usually), to guarantee
that a the writer's production is anywhere near their capability.

And that nonsense about meeting the experienced writer on the subway and forming
relationships there...please :). Are you thinking at all about what you're
saying? Try striking up an e-mail conversation with a published author then
slip them some of your work and see if it gets read :). The point is that a
professor in a program at an institution is **motivated** to help a student (at
the least, they're getting paid for it and know these people have been screened)
while they're not necessarily motivated to help someone they meet on the street.

You said you teach. How hard would you help someone develop their knowledge in
the subjects you teach (can't be English, you sure don't know much about real
English profs...Lacan is passé) if they weren't registered for your class? If
you just met them on the subwa? When was the last time you educated someone you
met on the subway -- invested time in that?.

How often have you actually _done_ that? Ever.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Sep 2 14:43:30 2002