June 14th, 2011 / 5:31 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
Ruth Fowler shits on Tea Obreht winning the Orange Prize: “Oh how I long for the days of writers like Nabokov: those who hadn’t spent five years learning how to put a fucking sentence together, but instead wrote with their guts.”
I read this earlier and thought, “My but she really hates The Tiger’s Wife.”
Did Ruth just call her plump?
YES. As if that has anything to do with anything.
Oh. Good. Another anti-MFA rant.
Someone is pissed off.
So goddamn tiresome.
Ruth Fowler: u mad?
Huffington Post has the worst, most braindead books section around.
“I can’t believe that tonedeaf girl won American Idol. FUCK JULLIARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
As Nabokov is an exceedingly technical writer who probably spent quite some time learning to put sentences together (in multiple languages), I find the last statement rather dulls her argument or illustrates the fact that she hasn’t read much Nabokov. Though the Obreht book could well suck, I dunno, haven’t read it, don’t really care to. Sounds like another precocious (annoying) Safran-Foer dribble machine.
I mean, that “article” is about as coherent as a YouTube comment.
I am consistently baffled by their Books section. It’s as if they completely abandon coherence and sanity and start ranting on top of a milk crate, throwing in key, multi-syllabic words, while also shouting MFA every few sentences.
I mean, Huffington Post is an awful website in general, but the quality of writing on the books section seems determined to under perform even the low standards of the other writers writing for free for AOL.
There’s actually some truth to the MFA-thing. MFA programs do breed and encourage mediocrity and safe writing, and it’s a not a mere coincidence that MFA programs are tied to the upper-class and/or Ivies (Iowa was founded by a Yale man). Tea graduated from Cornell, etc.
However, it’s a shame when someone like Fowler blows her argument with bitterness and histrionics. For instance, claiming that Diaz isn’t interesting, yet holding up Shriver as an example of good writing simply because Shriver had a difficult time publishing her novel. Really? I wonder if she actually read “We Need To Talk About Kevin,” because it’s the same kind of book she’s attempting to condemn here–boring, turgid style, middlebrow, safe moralizing masquerading as “ambiguous psychological probing,” w/ the inevitable nod to the Russians on the back jacket. I mean, really, a novel that starts with the premise of probing why kids shoot up schools, and one that is completely tied to resolving this question from beginning to end at the expense of engaging the imagination…how more middlebrow, safe, and dull can you get than writing a novel that has a simple point to prove (“why does little Kevin shoot up schools, up next on CNBC, after Locked-up Raw”) and resists genuine honesty?
I tried writing with Nabokov’s guts once, but my hands got all sticky.
Not to mention, when was Nabokov ever considered a writer who wrote “from the gut”? He is one of the headiest writers around who was all about linguistic complexity, structural inventiveness, and literary allusions. “Writing from the gut” is supposed to apply to writers like Bukowski.
I don’t care to get into the MFA debate again, but the ivies and other elite universities have actually long been hold-outs and not had MFA programs. Harvard, Princeton, Yale… no programs.
Did you actually read Kevin or just the summary? I won’t argue with you about the style of it, but I wouldn’t call the book uncreative by any means. I also didn’t see any moralizing… The book is a lot more about the mother-son relationship, and a woman who’s not sure if she’s even right to be a mother/can love her child, than any type of CNBC special.
I’m sorry but it’s so absurd to say that MFA programs breed and encourage mediocrity. This is a tired ass statement that people keep trotting out for reasons I’m not clear on. What, precisely, does this mean? What evidence supports this claim? It’s the laziest possible statement. I have no investment in MFA programs one way or another but people have taken to criticizing MFA programs with absolutely no thought or effort. Most institutions in this country have links to the upper class so connecting that to MFA programs and then just leaving it at that… is silly. I’m not trying to pick on you but the world breds mediocrity and safety. The idea that these issues are unique to MFA programs is irritating.
totally, he’s as academic as they come.
Anyone who has ever read slush for magazine knows that writers without MFAs are just as formulaic, dull, and trend-hopping as any MFA student.
Man but do I love angry people, and I don’t really have a problem with what she’s saying. Life experiences tend to make for better things to write about, so the more life experiences a writer has, the better he or she will likely be. What’s wrong with demanding more of yourself all the time? Why get defensive when someone suggests you try and do more to make yourself better at something you dedicate your life to, and why be reluctant to admit that you’re not doing everything you possibly can to be the best at it?
I mean, everyday I’m at work, or I’m on this site, or I’m jacking off, or I’m sleeping in, and these are moments of weakness during which instead I could be getting drunk and walking across town for no reason, hitting on women, reading the dictionary, reading a book, doing any number of stupid/interesting things that could result in great story telling material, or I could be actually writing. I admit that I’dd probably be a better writer if I were braver and more disciplined. That doesn’t mean I’m not a good writer. It just means I could be better, and I think what this lady and the whole anti-MFA argument requests: higher focus on self-improvement.
And if we write for ourselves shouldn’t that be where the focus rests? And not on some instructor or program? I know everyone writes differently, but I don’t know how I could be good at writing if I didn’t feel that I was my own best judge of my work.
Just the idea of people reading this article and rolling their eyes and saying “Listen to this crazy lady yammer on about how we should be trying harder” bothers me is all.
LOL exactly.
I’ve reached my lifetime limit of the MFA debate. I suppose it’s worth debating now and again in BookWorld. But anyway, lazy – generally – is a good way to describe this Orange Prize-Obreht-Zadie Smith screed/turd.
there is more than one type of gut
Thuggish lepidopterist.
Serbian fabulism is the “safe” writing being generated within MFA programs?
I feel a classic HTML 100+ comment thread comment on here. I’ll
get some beer flavored popcorn. I usually never wade into this, but I guess I
will. Jesus, Huff is a low bar, but fuck it. It’s a lazy summer night, I graded
my summer class work, I did some reading, I ran, I threw decent, only decent,
disc golf, I ate a tad of nachos, now I’ll truffle (tread and shuffle?) into the vapid me/we of the Googlenet:
The attack MFA opening. So weak and done and tiring.
Anything new to say? No. I mean this is like beginning her argument with child cradled
in her arm on the podium and she says, “It is what it is.” Huff had a whole TMZ
aspect of its operation, which explains the perpetual attack MFA edge. Just
lazy, basically. And cynical. Huff seems to assume their readers are dumbasses.
They are the talk radio of the net.
Let’s go to pull-quotes. Wade in. I mean WTF.
“I’m going to admit now that I haven’t read all of The Tiger’s Wife.” Kudos on that
move. OK.
“A degree in English Literature” And she attacks
academically trained writing. Academically trained critics are fine?
Wrote with their guts? That has to hurt, not to mention just
basic post-writing surgical logistics.
“Although I earn my living as a screenwriter.” Self-aggrandizing,
vapid, petty.
A 5 year MFA?
Looks remarkably personal. This is probably my core “gut” response. Weak, personal rhetoric.
Being a young writer is apparently default for not-worthy.
As someone who overuses the word “fucking” I’d like to say
Ruth is overusing the word fucking. Also the pubic hair imagery…Anyone get the
creepy “I wrote this with 4 drink buzz” feeling?
I think Ruth is just as cynical as Huff. She sat down and said, “I’m going to write a critical piece for Huff and HUff sucks and doesn’t care it sucks (since they write down to their audience) so I’m about to suck some suck (while buzzing).
Well, you did it, Ruth. This fucking sucks.
I feel a classic HTML 100+ comment thread comment on here. I’ll
get some beer flavored popcorn. I usually never wade into this, but I guess I
will. Jesus, Huff is a low bar, but fuck it. It’s a lazy summer night, I graded
my summer class work, I did some reading, I ran, I threw decent, only decent,
disc golf, I ate a tad of nachos, now I’ll truffle (tread and shuffle?) into the vapid me/we of the Googlenet:
The attack MFA opening. So weak and done and tiring.
Anything new to say? No. I mean this is like beginning her argument with child cradled
in her arm on the podium and she says, “It is what it is.” Huff had a whole TMZ
aspect of its operation, which explains the perpetual attack MFA edge. Just
lazy, basically. And cynical. Huff seems to assume their readers are dumbasses.
They are the talk radio of the net.
Let’s go to pull-quotes. Wade in. I mean WTF.
“I’m going to admit now that I haven’t read all of The Tiger’s Wife.” Kudos on that
move. OK.
“A degree in English Literature” And she attacks
academically trained writing. Academically trained critics are fine?
Wrote with their guts? That has to hurt, not to mention just
basic post-writing surgical logistics.
“Although I earn my living as a screenwriter.” Self-aggrandizing,
vapid, petty.
A 5 year MFA?
Looks remarkably personal. This is probably my core “gut” response. Weak, personal rhetoric.
Being a young writer is apparently default for not-worthy.
As someone who overuses the word “fucking” I’d like to say
Ruth is overusing the word fucking. Also the pubic hair imagery…Anyone get the
creepy “I wrote this with 4 drink buzz” feeling?
I think Ruth is just as cynical as Huff. She sat down and said, “I’m going to write a critical piece for Huff and HUff sucks and doesn’t care it sucks (since they write down to their audience) so I’m about to suck some suck (while buzzing).
Well, you did it, Ruth. This fucking sucks.
more than one way to spend years learning how to put a sentence together too.
Dude, if I wrote something, and someone said that the MFA program I went to generated it for me, I would be really pissed off.
in the generic manner of description i’m guessing fowler was using, “brains” and “guts” are usually seen as distinct. like on the A-Team.
true, but to argue a technical gut is way more nuanced than Ruth can handle.
yes
before I was (very likely)
born.
Sure, but certainly not in Fowler’s construction here.
Sorry, but it’s not absurd. What’s absurd is that we can’t even have this *conversation* without both sides acting crazy. The “tired ass statements” that you seem to be reacting to are those like Fowler’s not mine, hence my use of “there is some truth…”
I’ve said numerous times here that MFA programs possess both good and bad qualities.
So, we’re already off on the wrong foot because you seem to be conflating my statement with Fowler’s, and thus–like so much rhetoric in this country–the two sides can’t out of each other’s [polarizing] way.
You write:
“What, precisely, does this mean? What evidence supports this claim? It’s the laziest possible statement.”
Evidence? This is all subjective, of course, so I can’t provide you with some sort of scientific document. However, here’s what I believe, as someone who graduated with an MFA and has spent time in four English departments in various capacities:
1) The institutional workshop model, while certainly helpful in some respects, is also flawed in that it so often operates as a “fault-finding mechanism.” Entire stories are gutted for “what’s wrong” in order to be “fixed.” How could this not breed safe writing to some degree, especially when many of the peers have nothing personal at stake in terms of their relationship to the writer and many of their “I liked this”-comments are sincere? People often cite how, before MFA programs, writers like Hemingway and Stein “workshopped” each other, as if two expats who agreed to work with each other beforehand is the same thing as a bunch of students thrown in a classroom and forced to critique each other’s work for a grade–students who often barely knew each other, the writer’s vision, or don’t get along. Do you know many experienced writers who would agree to such a bizarre set-up? And yet, we can’t even acknowledge how bizarre the set-up is for novice writers/young writers still searching for their voices?
2) Next, comes the inevitable, “well, writers have to have tough skin anyway and learn to take criticism”….this is true, of course, but too often “workshop criticism” doesn’t fit the stage of writing up for workshop. Criticism is often editorial-oriented, devoid of engaging matters of inspiration and vision, and misapplied to works that are too early along in the process to be ripped apart line-by-line. It’s absolutely amazing to me that people can understand this concept of process in composition studies, yet not in the world of academic creative writing.
3) I’ve spent time in more than one creative writing program, to varying degrees, and have seen these issues each time. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I do in fact trust my experiences and the experiences of others I’ve talked to.
You write:
4) “It’s the laziest possible statement.”
Sure, in some contexts-like Fowler’s.
You write:
” I’m not trying to pick on you but the world breds mediocrity and safety.
The idea that these issues are unique to MFA programs is irritating.
5) But I never suggested that they were “unique to MFA programs” simply because I acknowledged that there is “some truth” to the criticism of MFA programs. It seems like you’ve inserted a strawman here to express your frustration at people like Fowler. I understand that, but I’m not sure your strawman fits my particular stance on this very complex issue.
6) Finally, if class is to be chalked up to a problem that transcends MFA programs, then why are there MFA programs–like Rutgers-Newark–that actually acknowledge this problem and seek to combat it?
And, what do you think of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmEOylWMdi8
Or this:
http://therumpus.net/2010/07/the-rumpus-interview-with-pinckney-benedict/
Or this:
http://www.guernicamag.com/fiction/2510/row_4_1_11/
Again, it seems strawman-ish to suggest that any criticism of these issues in light of MFA programs and academia implies that such issues aren’t part of the larger world (I’m not that naive or unworldly–trust me), but I’m guessing that you confused my initial post with typical lazy anti-MFA stances that aren’t as nuanced as mine, as I’ve thought carefully about these matters for some time because I sincerely care about improving what I believe is a staid and deeply problematic model that is too satisfied with itself, despite only existing for less than half a century. I care because I care about the students who often enroll in these programs and have their natural voices squelched by otherwise well-meaning teachers and students.
Finally, yes–mediocrity is a fact of life, but we can still talk about in certain arenas, can’t we? Or, she should just shut up now?
So? I wouldn’t disagree with this.
Of course, the national journal I read for receives most of its subs from MFA grads–probably 75% of the cover letters now reference either an MFA or some kind of workshop experience.
i’d actually say the “technical gut” is a product of the academy ruth decries.
*many of their “I liked this”-comments are insincere?
So what I’m saying is that MFA programs don’t breed or encourage mediocrity anymore than the real world does. Speaking purely from a personal experience, my program was actually very diverse and most of my teachers pushed people to be more risk-taking and unique. I know of people who’ve had very different experiences of course, who had teachers who pressed everyone into the same mold.
Either way, I really don’t think taking a few workshops for a two year period is going to utterly and radically influence a writer in a way that is impossible to shake for the rest of their lives. An MFA just isn’t that impactful, either positively or negatively.
Again, so?
Why are you putting words in my mouth, or making assumptions?
Talk about lazy–the old, “well, x exists everywhere, so it’s pointless to analyze it in y.”
I think Ruth is just upset that “The Tiger’s Wife” has a higher rating on Goodreads than “No Man’s Land”.
MFBomb: you can’t be surprised that saying there is some truth to the MFA-thing, in response to a specific screed, makes people assume you are saying you agree somewhat with said screed or at least with the general anti-MFA screed, both of which offer far stronger criticism of the MFA program than you seem to in your more nuanced response below.
Personally, I think the fact that the MFA’s influence on a writer’s writing, of the course of their life, is very overstated in these debates is actually pretty crucial to this debate and not a point to be shrugged off which a “so?”
Finally, yes–mediocrity is a fact of life, but we can still talk about it
in certain arenas, can’t we? Or, should I just shut up now?
So, the MFA is so low-impact that most writers who publish literary fiction today have an MFA?
I assume we all assume MFA = Iowa? Huh?
I don’t know–I haven’t read the book, and I made it quite clear that Fowler’s argument was over-the-top.
And thanks for these links.
Well, the workshop model that persists today did begin in Iowa not too long ago. People act like we’re talking about something that’s centuries old. The lack of historical perspective on this topic is astounding.
I’m not “surprised,” but it’s frustrating that both sides make having the conversation impossible–a conversation that might actually benefit students.
No, I can’t accept that. There is no “workshop model” that isn’t heavily modified or dismissed entirely, etc. And it has been many, many years, relatively. Not in epoch/dinosaur time, but in teaching writing time. I have worked at 5 universities and the whole tired, Ivory Tower thing is bull-lazy-shit. The people who care study pedagogy, respond, makes changes, try things, bend rules, all that. The writers who care about teaching writing still exist and are not asleep at the wheel. MFA programs are not some tired funny novel by Russo about English departments. They are people trying to do their job better. They are trying to teach. It is what they wake up and do. They know the Iowa model but, hell, doctors know that, yes, leeches can “let” blood but there might be better ways. Etc. My point is the Iowa model is not exactly the big thing current teachers look to. Current teachers understand its role in writing history, but they also understand the role of the typewriter. I mean come on. It actually does NOT persist today, the workshop model of Iowa. Not with my peers.
Once again, any hint of criticism toward MFA programs is chalked up as “bull-lazy-shit,” even when I went out of my way to distance myself from Fowler’s insane tirade.
There is obviously not some one-size-fits-all definition of the Iowa model, but the basic foundations and tenets of the model remain in place at most programs, and you are flatout lying if you say otherwise.
Furthermore, it’s certainly possible for good teachers to exist within this model, even if some acknowledge its flaws.
In case you missed Fowler’s bio:
“Ruth traveled the world eking out a living from writing, teaching, sailing, cooking, hand-jobs and begging.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruth-fowler
Oh how I long for the days of critics like Nabokov:
those who hadn’t spent five years giving hand-jobs, but instead
studied literature.
Great pull quote. I did not say YOU said that. I meant that is an obvious attack, by others. NOT by you, who obviously comment with gradients of opinions.
Anyway, this whole MFA thing is approaching lib/conserv level as far as rhetoric. Talk about small steaks, big knives, to make a cliched pun.
I’m not even sure why I waded into this. The sun is still up. I would much rather fish and, oddly, there is a stream in my backyard. I am about to go fish.
I am not being dismissive. I do understand the Iowa hangover. I just want to say I work with some great teacher/writers (note: teacher first) who “get” the Iowa thing and react.
Okay.
Dude, this is almost too good. An adult almost used LOL. Well, cool. Go hand-jobs.
“writing” sucks
Well, it’s not over-the-top, it’s just plain inaccurate. To the extent that there is such a thing as “MFA writing” at all, it pretty much doesn’t involve the fabulist or fantastical. More than a few writing programs and many teachers actually bar such themes from their classrooms.
One may as well point to the trend for fixed-gear bikes and blame “NASCAR culture.”
Generating “within”, not “for.”
and as is typical of most gut’s, ruth fowler’s is mostly full of shit and hot air
and as is typical of most gut’s, ruth fowler’s is mostly full of shit and hot air
Yes, I read it—and hated it for many reasons and disagree with you that it doesn’t contain any moralizing. It was just yet another safe book about mental illness…like the world needed another one of those books. When’s the Lifetime movie version coming out, because that’s what it felt like. Speaking of which:
It’s also undeniable that the book’s topic is highly-marketable, given the national fascination w/ Columbine and VA Tech…you know, the only time when gen. pop. actually gives a damn about the mentally ill–when some kids shoots up a school.
In fact, most of books on mental illness–that is, where mental illness is a prominent feature–are about upper middle class or rich people (Girl Interrupted, pretty girl in a rich person’s hospital, Bell Jar–Plath at a hospital that was a resort, etc.) and their personal triumphs or descents, often separated from the social. Other than “One Flew…,” which is now dated, there are really not many contemporary works, about mental illness that engage with the more complicated issues of disenfranchisement, bad policy, post-Reagan deinstutionalizatio, rates of mental illness among the homelessness and incarcerated, patient abuse that’s updated from the days of “One Flew”….etc.
If you or anyone else know of such a book to exist, please let me know, because I’ve been dying to read it instead of yet another mere “psychological study” or tale of “persona triumph.”
I definitely agree with you that it’s stupid to suggest that there is a MFA house style.
It’s unfortunate that many people can’t critique MFA programs in a more nuanced way, because, ultimately, nothing is gained and the students sometimes suffer as a result.
However, I would argue that there is a connection between MFA programs and style. I don’t see how you can deny this, when most workshops only focus on one form of fiction–the literary short story. Genre is excluded, along with the novel.
And I think one is being dishonest if he or she doesn’t think that psychological realism holds more sway in MFA programs than other types of literary short fiction. Let’s be real.
Obviously, not all works of psychological realism are the same–there is still tremendous diversity there–but still, it’s troubling at times…
This is all such a bottomless drag, it’s palefaces vs. redskins, and while I agree with Ruth Fowler’s points on the MFA work product, I wish she wouldn’t have gone into this catty, 11th grade girl bully mode of calling Tea Obreht “A plump, blonde, smiling MFA-product”. She didn’t need to do this and exposed the always puzzling envy-fueled mentality of girls dipped in the pretty sauce. She can drop by and give me hand job any time.
yes, maestro
We wrote a ton of fantastical and fabulist works in our MFA program.
Point taken re short stories and psychological realism, but I’d be curious to know your thoughts on poetry and the MFA.
Honestly, I’m probably guilty of talking about MFA programs with only fiction in mind, since I’m a fiction writer–I really can’t talk about the poetry side.
I read Obreht’s book. It was awesome. I’ve recommended it to a bunch of people at the library, and they think it’s awesome too. And it seems like writing about history and family post the war in the Balkans takes some guts when you’re from there and still have family there, yeah?
Ruth Fowler’s dismissal is misogynist bullshit (no male writer would ever be dismissed because of his figure or hair color) that completely misses the mark.
On the thread, Fowler is called a “dick” for using the carefully-chosen-but-not-painfully-so adjective “plump”. Her response is priceless . . .
Oh yeah, this is good: “I’m going to admit now that I haven’t read all of The Tiger’s Wife.
A degree in English Literature has taught me many useful and discerning
skills, amongst which is this little gem: if you can’t get past page
50, give up.”
She didn’t get past page 50? What a joke.
The logic in the Fowler article is sort of astounding: 1) Obreht went to an MFA, 2) MFA students are always bad/boring writers, 3) I’ve read books by other MFA writers, 4) the MFA students’ books were bad, and 5) Thus, I know that Obreht’s book is bad, even if I didn’t read it.
iowa = columbia
cornell = alabama
ohio state = the brown
heck: stanford = san francisco state
everybody knows that
Blake? I don’t know. Enemas can be pretty entertaining.
I actually agree that there is a connection between MFA and style.
My point is that THE TIGER’S WIFE, specifically, is not an example of MFA style, because of its fantastical/fabulist theme. The book Fowler is denouncing as “MFA fiction” is not remotely related to “psychological realism.”
Yeah, it’s that simple.
I love how your vapidness shines when you’re not infusing a bunch of gibberish jargon into your posts.
Final thought: Obreht’s story in the NYer about the body and the beach was great: http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/features/2010/08/02/100802fi_fiction_obreht
I feel like this year I’ve been defending Obreht and Lebron James a lot. Not gonna stop now!
That’s extremely unusual, though it is becoming more common. What program do you attend? A couple of years ago, I wrote an article called “Pulp Faction” for THE WRITER’S CHRONICLE on the few programs/teachers that encourage it—if there are more programs to add to my little list, I’d be pleased to hear it.
– well, that’s what “to eke” might sound like it means.
I hear ya.
I actually never defended Fowler. My first point acknowledged that there’s “some truth to the MFA thing” (which didn’t even have to be taken as any sort of agreement with Fowler) and was somehow lumped in with her by a bunch of posters, starting with one in particular.
Maybe
Bitterness, histrionics, and polarizing rhetoric can each and all be problems for “conversation” and “nuance”.
It’s a shame when anyone blows their argument with bitterness and histrionics.
It’s a shame when status-quo trolls such as yourself get a free pass around here. Do you grow tired of licking boots?
As for your initial sarcastic remark, you do realize that some of the best MFA programs are housed at state universities whose students attended prestigious institutions as undergrads, right? Some of these programs even brag about the fancy pants undergrad institutions of their students.
Iowa in particular has been known for attracting its most well-funded students from elite private colleges and universities.
For a screed on – or any discussion of – art, I think it’s an egregious inaccuracy to talk of meticulous craftsmanship being instead of “guts”.
Putting psychological realism aside (where I think it’s usually best left), my impression of MFA fiction is that it shows careful attention to line-by-line craft. This is generally a good thing. The downside is when the result lacks wildness or idiosyncrasy. Stories like that have been chewed over too much; they come off as tame and tepid (too many stories like that get published in The New Yorker). I found The Tiger’s Wife’s prose to be tame at times, but Obreht’s conception and underlying passion carried me through.
I wrote and read a lot as well in my program, but I think it is certainly true that if there is an “mfa style” it is a kind of polished psychological realism.
It’s a shame when bitterness, histrionics, and polarizing rhetoric limit the possibility of nuanced conversation.
You do realize that prestigious institutions house undergrads that have to be funded (because their families can’t afford to borrow the tuition for an adult who’s not buying food and paying rent). You do realize that state university post-grad programs house students who graduated from state universities.
what’s the orange prize?
Yes, I realize that, even when most of the MFA students who eventually become faculty members tend to come from privileged backgrounds. No, there’s certainly no connection between this point and a widely-acknowledged preference for middle and upper-class psychological realism that’s “polished,” scared to offend, and features main characters having epiphanies about the meaning of life at Costco.
Now go ahead and tell me that there are some MFA faculty members who do not come from privileged backgrounds.
ahhh hahahaha this was why i was totally confused by that lady’s quote!!!
some people say i write from the gut. I would like to stop writing from the gut, would someone please accept me into their MFA program and make me their TA so I can it paid for free and my loans will go back into deferment.
can’t decide what is more predictable, hufpo fluff piece, htmlgiant response, or this sentence.
Fabulism and magical realism were as welcome as any other kind of writing in my MA program in creative writing which was workshop oriented much like an MFA and that was in 99-01. More programs than you might imagine are open to writing beyond psychological realism. When I turned in my thesis, my committee, who knew I had done a lot of writing and publishing of genre fiction asked why I didn’t write a genre-focused thesis. I thought, “Great question!”
Yeah, sorry, but your experiences are not the norm. And genre question? Yeah, good luck with that one at most programs.
curious, mfbomb: how have you determined a norm?
Yes–I have.
I don’t feel like I need to provide some sort of statistical analysis. There are always exceptions and outliers, but I can’t believe this is even a question when we consider the overall picture.
Interestingly, I think this situation *can* be good in the long run for the non-traditional writer. In workshop, “traditional” writers who write in the default style usually don’t have to defend their aesthetics; their flat, transparent-get-lost-in-the-‘story’-style is rarely questioned–so the workshop tends to focus primarily on character, plot, cutting a few unnecessary words, and misc. story elements/ideas/topics/etc.
Writers whose work is more non-traditional (maximalist, comic, language-driven, anti-epiphany, “growth” and “insight,” modular, etc.) usually have to listen to feedback that often attacks the writer’s aesthetic rather than accept the story for what is and provide feedback that fits the story (and the writer’s aesthetic). In this case, the critique is often more personal and directed at the writer who dares to write in a way that doesn’t beg for group acceptance. And, so if you’re in this second group, you can’t take your aesthetic for granted–every choice you make has to matter and mean something to you and your vision because people consider you suspicious and uppity; all of this stuff goes back to the 80’s and the Gardner v. Gass wars and remains today with Gardner’s Puritanical side more represented and entrenched. Finally, if you’re in the first group, you tend to take your vision and aesthetic for granted because no one has ever truly challenged it–who is going to say in most workshops, “you know, this language is really just too quiet and polished for me? I was just able to ‘fall right into the vivid and continuous dream state’…I have a problem with writers who write in a style that is just, well, quiet and looks like it could’ve been written by anyone.” Who has actually ever heard that in a workshop? I sure haven’t.
Now who has heard stuff like, “you know…the language and style here ‘distract from the story’ and is ‘pretentious’ (the favorite buzz and code word of minimalists and diehard psychological realists for writers who actually don’t believe that all fiction should taste like a can of SlimFast). I sure have–way too often…and for stories that were actually using such a style for an honest and clear purpose. In other words, stories that were not “pretentious.”
ohkay.
I never even thought of it as a book about mental illness–that’s interesting. I don’t mean that in a facetious way, either. It seemed more like “The Omen” to me.
What interested me about the book was not Kevin–he was almost the MacGuffin of the story–but hearing about a mother who didn’t like her child and maybe didn’t want to be a mother, and was warring against her husband about it. I did pick it up initially for the school shooting aspect, but I stayed with it because of the mom character. I think any Lifetime movie version of the story would make the mom entirely sympathetic, instead of the way the book is actually ambiguous about how maybe the mom being so cold contributed to Kevin’s awfulness.
A much better “school shooting” book is Dennis Cooper’s My Loose Thread, but it’s difficult to read. I don’t know what to recommend about the mental illness books. I do understand what you’re saying about mental illness usually afflicting only upper class people, but I feel like that’s true of a lot of literary problems–like, the fewer books written on a topic, the more likely a high percentage of them will feature well-off people.
But I can also see a less nefarious reason for that being the case. It’s like how in scientific studies (like the basic middle school model) you’re only supposed to manipulate one variable at a time. Maybe there are more well-off mentally ill characters because if the book is about someone who already started off with a lot of other problems, that would distract from the pain that mental illness alone can cause. I already hear the objections being raised to this, so just let me give one example.
When I was younger I really liked that book The Perks of Being a Wallflower. The narrator is incredibly lonely and socially maladjusted and emotional and introspective. But then (spoiler) in the last few chapters it’s pegged on his being molested. That really took me out of the story and alienated me, because here I was relating to this character so strongly and feeling like “hey it’s OK to be like this,” but then it’s supposed to all have arisen from his molestation. Well, I wasn’t molested, so I immediately started feeling like “the narrator has a legitimate reason to be upset, what’s my excuse?”
So maybe (in some cases) writers would choose to portray mental illness without that extra “distraction.” (I put distraction in quotes because I know all the institutional/policy problems are real ones, but I’m talking about distracting from the core of just feeling like you want to die and nothing will ever get better.) Because I personally can relate to characters being depressed, but then if it turns out that it’s because the government is after them/they were born into crippling poverty/they were molested/etc etc, then I still feel bad for them, but I also immediately separate from them, and feel like my own suffering is bullshit now. “They have a ‘real reason’ to be depressed, I don’t, so what’s wrong with me?” So if I were looking to read about mental illness I’d rather hear about it when it comes on its own, because it does. When there’s all those other circumstances, it also can kind of perpetuate the incredibly hurtful myth that you have to have some “reason” to be depressed or your depression is just “in your head” and not valid and not worthy of being taken seriously. I don’t know if this is making any sense.
I know that’s a tangent and not exactly what you were talking about, I’m just thinking “out loud” here.
hey anybody, is this book good?
Good post and thanks for the response. This is obviously a very complicated issue and difficult to discuss in a comments section. I see what you mean by, “not a book ‘about’ mental illness.” It’s more of a book about pathology, and yet, our notions of pathology are so tied-up and intertwined with our understanding (and lack thereof) of mental illness that it’s hard for me to separate the two.
“then I still feel bad for them, but I also immediately separate from them, and feel like my own suffering is bullshit now.”
I’m not sure about your points about “relating” to characters who are depressed. I’m not sure it’s my job as a writer to make sure that you always relate neatly and tidily to my characters; this idea that it’s always about the readers’ interests bothers me–when I read, I want someone to abduct me and take me to another planet. I don’t read books to see how they necessarily align with my own experiences. That said, it all comes down to honesty–brutal honesty–and there’s simply not enough brutally honest fiction out there about mental illness. Most of it is just navel-gazing. I don’t mean, btw, to minimize mental illness amongst the upper-middle class and upper-class; mental illness can impact everyone. However, we need more stories about the mentally ill in state hospitals, prisons, and on the streets…and about people with the most severe cases (though the last is sure to make many editors and readers uncomfortable, which is probably part of the problem). What you see in most fiction today that takes on big social issues is that there’s a troubling “limit” on what the writer can say.
So to bring this back to Fowler and her citing of Shiver: I find Shiver’s book to be troublingly “appropriate,” if that makes sense.
I wouldn’t want to say it’s a writer’s job to make relatable characters. I can see where you got that from my post. It’s because I tried to imagine if there were no books at all like Bell Jar and every book about mental illness involved poverty/prisons/homelessness, I was thinking how alone I would feel. But that’s my issue, not a general reader’s. Moreso than any other topic, I do read books about mental illness mostly to relate to them and maybe feel like I’m not so abnormal and hopeless, but that’s just me and my issues, I wouldn’t expect or want every book to be like that.
And I can see what you’re saying about the Shriver book. I found it enjoyable and fascinating reading about the mom character, but it didn’t make me want to pick up any of her other work or anything. It’s by no means a book that’s so important to me that I’d think less of someone for disliking it, especially–as you have shown is true in your case–when they read it and didn’t dismiss it based on the flap copy or it winning an award or whatever.
I’d highly recommend reading My Loose Thread if you haven’t yet. It’s incredibly intense, especially compared to WNTTAK’s contemplative detachment.
Also, FWIW, I’d like to say that I can understand (from a general perspective–I really don’t want to get in on the argument, at least before I’ve read every post and considered it more) a hesitation about MFA programs. I can also see why people respond so viscerally to any criticisms of it, though. I feel like anybody who studies any topic in the humanities faces a lot of “Is what you’re doing worthwhile, why aren’t you studying computers/engineering” etc etc crap anyway, but then when you add the expense and time commitment of any graduate degree the students have even more invested in defending it, because no one wants to feel like their experience wasn’t “worth it.” And so those (perfectly understandable) feelings can cloud the discussion, sometimes. But again, I haven’t caught up with all the posts yet, so I’m not commenting on any person or point specifically, just saying that I can sort of see both sides and that I know it can be frustrating feeling like an entire comments section is against your (or, on the other side, like someone is maybe dismissing the importance/benefits of your hard work). Everything is tricky, tricky, tricky.
Leapsloth, I was wondering if you could talk about how some classes are set up that don’t use the Iowa model. I’ve only been able to attend a few workshops, and at the undergraduate level, but they were all based on the “Iowa” model or at least the model of, a teacher and a roomful of people all take your story home and mark it up then bring it back and they discuss it. I think this model is imperfect for several of the reasons MFBomb mentioned, and so I’d sincerely be very interested in hearing how other teachers have found a way around it and done something different.
I feel like MFA programs are invaluable for offering time and space to write, but I do see some merit in criticizing the workshop model (not MFA programs as a whole, but just the format of “a teacher and a roomful of people all take your story home and mark it up then bring it back and they discuss it”). I feel like the main criticisms of MFA programs (all this “the stories come out all sounding the same” business) aren’t necessarily about the programs in general, but just the workshop model.
So I was wondering if anyone was in an MFA program or writing class that was structured differently, and how that was? I have tried to come up with some way to run a program other than the imperfect workshop model, and I can’t… but surely many teachers out there have?
Is The Killer Inside Me a book ‘about’ mental illness? If it counts, then there are many.
I haven’t read that, so I can’t say for sure. Was it the source for the movie with the same title?
What I meant by a book “about” mental illness was one that actually recognizes the mental illness in a specific way instead of just generalized stereotypical “crazy,” and explores the problem in its own right without only using it as a blanket motivation for whatever wild/violent behaviors the character engages in.
For instance, I’m sick of books/movies where there’s no actual motivation for the killer so they just say “oh, he’s crazy” or “she’s a ‘sociopath'” or whatever and people accept that as if it’s a real answer, when obviously the vast vast vast vast majority of mentally ill people are non-violent. And lazy interpretations can do the same thing… Like if someone read/watched American Psycho and instead of talking about consumerism they just said “oh he’s crazy,” I would consider that missing the point. I feel a similar irritation when there’s something unusual in art and people just say “oh he/she was on drugs when he/she made that, haha” like that’s the entire answer.
I haven’t read that, so I can’t say for sure. Was it the source for the movie with the same title?
What I meant by a book “about” mental illness was one that actually recognizes the mental illness in a specific way instead of just generalized stereotypical “crazy,” and explores the problem in its own right without only using it as a blanket motivation for whatever wild/violent behaviors the character engages in.
For instance, I’m sick of books/movies where there’s no actual motivation for the killer so they just say “oh, he’s crazy” or “she’s a ‘sociopath'” or whatever and people accept that as if it’s a real answer, when obviously the vast vast vast vast majority of mentally ill people are non-violent. And lazy interpretations can do the same thing… Like if someone read/watched American Psycho and instead of talking about consumerism they just said “oh he’s crazy,” I would consider that missing the point. I feel a similar irritation when there’s something unusual in art and people just say “oh he/she was on drugs when he/she made that, haha” like that’s the entire answer.
You do realize that conviction – even expressed in soothingly bitter and histrionic tones – does not constitute ‘wide acknowledgement’.
Now go ahead and tell the world that MFA programs are uniquely the reproductive organs of “privilege”.
There are very few literary novels like that–the ones that actually try to do something honest and original with mental illness.
In fact, there aren’t many literary novels period–bad or good–that deal with mental illness as a major topic (I’m talking full-on treatment).
It’s why I lawl’ed at Blake Butler a while back when he came up with that snarky list of “stories not to write.” He wrote something like, “don’t set a story at a mental institution,” as if somehow there are a ton of stories and/or novels out there set at mental institutions. There aren’t (unless slasher films now count as fictional texts). There are, of course, a ton of stories about disaffected hispters whose main concern is who to hook up with that night, or the social ramifications of Twitter and texting (of course, these didn’t make his list).
Why would I want to continue to give you a purpose for posting? We all know your function by now.
Why would I want to continue to give you a purpose for posting? We all know your function by now.
That’s interesting–I wonder why he wrote that. I tried both Google and HTMLGiant’s search box to locate that post so I’d have some context, but couldn’t find it. I searched Blake + mental institution, mental hospital, insane asylum, and stories not to write. It seems weird to prohibit any topic at all, so maybe it was a joke or something? I don’t know, I don’t understand him and I didn’t really appreciate his “what the fuck are you doing?” thing to me in that other post, but he probably didn’t appreciate my critique of books without characters based on M Kitchell’s review, so I guess we’re even and none of this matters.
That’s interesting–I wonder why he wrote that. I tried both Google and HTMLGiant’s search box to locate that post so I’d have some context, but couldn’t find it. I searched Blake + mental institution, mental hospital, insane asylum, and stories not to write. It seems weird to prohibit any topic at all, so maybe it was a joke or something? I don’t know, I don’t understand him and I didn’t really appreciate his “what the fuck are you doing?” thing to me in that other post, but he probably didn’t appreciate my critique of books without characters based on M Kitchell’s review, so I guess we’re even and none of this matters.
In fairness, the list was half-joking, half-passive aggressive hipster snark.
I dunno why I bothered, but I kept googling and I think I found what you’re talking about. Apparently it was on a different website: http://www.viceland.com/blogs/en/2010/01/13/the-ny-tyrant-guide-to-not-being-a-horrible-writer-in-the-year-2010/
mmmmm
Is the idea that MFA programs produce their own specific sort of mediocrity really all that controversial? I’ve never had one, so I defer to experience in most of this, but it sounds like the argument’s fever pitch is more an offensive-defensive push-me-pull-you on the absolute value of the MFA, rather than an earnest discussion of the format.
I’m not imagining Roxane, I was researching (back then) and asking (right now). “Magical realism” appears especially fraught in such programs actually. At the University of Minnesota, for example, “magical realism” was fine for students of color. Any sort of fantasy was strongly discouraged among white students, and more than one was told that to write fantasy was to be appropriative of the voices of people of color.
(Of course, all this leaves aside the question of whether magical realism and fantasy should be so easily conflated.)
It’s not a surprise that a MA in English with a CW emphasis is as open as you describe. It’s also just plain’ ol NOT an MFA program. I’ve found that the futher the course of study was from bog-standard—generally, the low-res MFA programs, MA programs, etc.—the more open they were to the fantastical. (Some actually position themselves in the marketplace this way.) In bog-standard MFA programs, students have to argue for their themes in a way writers of either psychological realism or postmodernism do not have to, or are barred from writing such things, or are just humiliated when they do. Sarah Langan, the supernatural thriller writer, for example, literally had one of her teachers announce a VOTE to the class. “Raise your hands if you think Sarah should eliminate the supernatural element from her novel!” Of course, as one, the students raised their hands.
Despite the increasing acceptance of fantastical themes, which is certainly something I’ve benefited from in my little tiny career as an occasional visiting writer and teacher, Fowler pointing to THE TIGER’S WIFE and calling it “MFA”-style writing is just nuts.
I liked it.
This sounds pretty typical.
And the writers who survive it were going to survive it anyway. No one, though, seems to ever stop and think about the ones who didn’t survive the experience (metaphorically speaking, that is), and how such tyrannical teaching might’ve impacted their futures as writers.
Seems silly to blam the prevalence of psychological realism on MFA programs. It is just as prevalent, if not more so, elsewhere. It’s also wrong, I think, to discuss MFA programs as a general category. There’s so many of them with so many different stylistic orientations. That being said, I can understand and agree with the statement that ‘the MFA’ doesn’t have much value as a credential these days. They’re too easy to get. But that doesn’t mean the same writers aren’t better writers for having had that time to study and develop their practice. Seriously, how could that be a bad thing?
To call the literary story ‘one form,’ also seems like a severe generalization/limitation.
“Seems silly to blam the prevalence of psychological realism on MFA programs. It is just as prevalent, if not more so, elsewhere.”
The psychological realist short story is primarily written by MFA grads in the United States. Where is this outside prevalence that you speak of again? Who actually reads literary short stories?
“It’s also wrong, I think, to discuss MFA programs as a general category.”
Which is why, of course, people always want to shutdown any and all criticism of MFA programs–because deep down, they acknowledge the inherent diversity of a model that, across the board, is in fact the same everywhere, even if some of the teachers are different.
“There’s so many of them with so many different stylistic orientations.”
There are so many fast foot joints with different kinds of menu offerings that it’s silly to compare, say, Burger King to McDonald’s because one sells a Whopper and the other sells a Big Mac (the Whooper uses mayo, while the Big Mac uses thousand island).
“But that doesn’t mean the same writers aren’t better writers for having
had that time to study and develop their practice. Seriously, how could
that be a bad”
I never said it was all bad; please stop with the talking points that just blindly defend MFA programs at all costs.
“To call the literary story ‘one form,’ also seems like a severe generalization/limitation. ”
Well, in my posts I said that there is still diversity within it, but I don’t see why it’s a big deal to say that the literary short story is one form of fiction. Is it not? You don’t see how silly it is to teach a class called “fiction writing” while banning half or more of the forms of fiction?
It is. On the other hand, if the faculty aren’t familiar with the fantastic (or some other mode), it’s not like they can teach or judge it anyway. People who want to write a certain kind of fiction should look closely at the graduate programs to which they are applying, in the same way that some economist interested in Marxism wouldn’t have a good time at the University of Chicago, but might find U. Mass Amherst more amenable to his or her research interests.
If I could go back in time, I’d attend Alabama. It’s one of the few programs that actually strives to maintain a progressive and forward thinking program.
Yes, it’s good.
I’ve yet to read a negative comment about Obreht’s book by someone who actually read it.
THAT’S WHY I PREFER TO WRITE WITH MY GENITALS
ALTHOUGH, IF I WERE ON THE RAG
MY HANDS WOULD STILL GET STICKY
LIKE FOWLER’S ARE HERE
http://www.observer.com/2011/culture/not-grown-ups-tigers-wife-tea-obreht
It’s not unusual to read a work of fiction that is fervently praised by reviewers only to discover that you think it’s crap. Happens all the time.
It’s a shame when someone like MFBomb blows her or his argument with bitterness and histrionics.
It’s [not] a shame that you’ve finally decided to write sentences in normal-person’s English, regardless of the content. Kudos.
It’s a shame when reading incomprehension results in bitter and histrionic encouragement to write in mediocre and safe “normal-person’s English”.
It’s a shame when bloated, disingenuous bombast passes for intelligent discourse amongst the easily satisfied.
It’s a shame that I’ve wasted a day of productivity on this thread (when you tally the total hours).
Here’s my last post on the matter before I return to the life of an artist–the only life that really matters (not shameless self-promotion, posturing, begging for group acceptance, kissing ass, and wanting to be everyone’s-best-friend-all-the-time):
[…]
Someone has unfortunately hacked my account. Please ignore everything previously written here under “MFBomb.” MFA programs are fine—they can’t improve, so please, STFU
already. All criticism of MFA programs
is completely random and doesn’t come from any semblance of truth. Let’s take the easy way out, then, by associating all critique of MFA
programs with extremists like Fowler; that way, we can just say that all people who
critique MFA programs are crazy like Fowler and, viola, we’re off the hook.
Now, who is attending AWP next year? The Little House on The Prairie Review 6th Year Anniversary Reading in Ball Room Z9045 sounds awesome. I hope to see y’all there.
hahahaha, you know a lot about that, don’t you?
will you two get a fucking room
On MFA programs re pretty much everybody who posted, you CANNOT teach GOOD writing, period, end of story. But you CAN give students tools for useful critique of their own work. You CAN make them understand that maybe something is NOT working in their fiction, thus furthering its betterness. I think that’s what an editor does as well, so it can’t be all bad, huh? And I’m saying this knowing that a lot of my favorite writers were not products of MFA. But I’ll also admit that a few were. But as it goes, you CANNOT teach GOOD writing, you can only help bring it into focus.
And I’d also say there is no such product
I think, or something. shit!
fucking rooms, the best kind of room
WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT HOW SHE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE HER AUTHOR PHOTO
hey bro, is this u or the shaman speaking?
I wasn’t talking about it but I was thinking it. I decided the book jacket photo must be a few years ago.
lol
Maybe because Ruth decided to call her plump? So in her “review” (cough) she went after the author photo (always an artifact to its own self)/actual life binary. Once again, Ruth as asshole.
If you only wanted that question answered, why not link to the book’s description, or an objective news article of the book’s winning an award, or just the book’s title…. instead of linking to an article that starts “The Creative Writing MFA is the singularly most devastating occurrence to hit literature in the 20th century, churning out writers of utterly indistinguishable competence.”
I guess you wouldn’t be able to have the “oh silly commenters at it again” moment if you had done it that way, though.
The name of my shitty blog is ‘I Never had an MFA’.
uh, it goes way beyond the plumpness; that is a dramatically different head on the back of that book.
What is your point? That authors picks younger, better looking photos of themselves?
Uh, yeh. They do.
Are you arguing they are two different human beings?
I’m sure there will be an MFA for bloggers soon.
yes.
well before this orange business, i kept hearing that it reads incredibly flat. i’ve only read the first chapter, and honestly, reads like something you’d see being turned into a writing workshop.
the lens flares in super 8
The work of MFA-grads tends to stand out like Lebron’s fourth quarter choke-jobs.
what did you do with the fucking money
Ruth Fowler is a British-born, Los Angeles-based author, screenwriter
and journalist. After graduating from Cambridge University, Ruth
traveled the world eking out a living from writing, teaching, sailing,
cooking, **hand-jobs** and begging.
gotta love a good hand-job. And yes it really says this in her Bio
Oh come on, I’m just messing around. I love you deadgod.
not sure why anyone would argue that institutions–mfa, htmlG, nba–don’t encourage conformity. we’ve known this for a thousand years? that persons inside the institution can/will buck the conformity to keep it vital is of course also possible.
25(???).
Makes perfect sense that she’d mention that in her bio – even if in jest. Her “brand” after all is Cambridge U. turned stripper turned writer/screenwriter.
I assume she got paid for sailing.
i really liked it. it moves and it is dreamy. its old fashioned.
cuz no one gives a SHAT
starting to get the sense that CU is churning out a bland contingent of anti-mfa jeremiad generator bots. we are all members of some club or other…
And yet, the defensiveness over MFA programs is straight-up bizarre. What loyalty do some of us have to a dumb degree that doesn’t even really mean anything, that rarely employs us, and that in many cases, took a measly two years to complete while we were teaching two sections of freshman comp for 10K a year? I thought writers were supposed to be individuals, btw, not club members.
If there is a problem with many contemporary American writers, it’s that many of them want to “belong” and be validated all the damn time, which is where a lot of the blandness comes from in their work.
She is hilarious, not a woman to tangle with, which only of course makes one want to tangle with her, and she is badged a Level 1 Superuser, so…
The powers that be here should ponder a badging system. I wanna be a Level 1 Suckerfucker! Or Level 1 Snipespewer, or a Level 1 Veryseriousthinkingman, then I will grow a beard and stroke it as I read through tears of being all too human.
Personally I rather like plump blondes.
everybody mess around
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqz876VkwwY
I feel pretty sure she’s write. 20 or so years ago I was one of those punks at Iowa getting my MFA. I never wrote tidy, precious stuff but it did take me Gordon Lish and 15 more years to be kind of worth reading. Just my two cents.
Ooops. Right. Not write. You know. pb
Ruth Fowler’s vehemence is sexy
Huffington Post books section is bad, though
[…] other thoughts here and here. This entry was posted in Bric-a-brac. Bookmark the […]
One point that hasn’t been addressed yet is the fact that previous generations of writers could get jobs in journalism/publishing/etc. and learn how to write as they gained real world experience. Sadly, a lot of the industries that supported writers in the past are in decline, and I think MFA programs are picking up a lot of that slack whether they want to or not.
I think you mean each person has her/her own unique gut. Except maybe Tea Obreht has no gut at all.
Ruth Fowler’s memoir about stripping in New York was far more interesting and better written than Tea O.’s book.