• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

What Writing Fiction Teaches the Nonwriter

May 17, 2011, 3:46 pm

By Elise Blackwell

Introductory creative writing courses and fiction workshops fill quickly here. Most semesters my In box swells with requests for overrides before registration closes, sometimes within hours of its opening.

Students sign up for a workshop for myriad reasons. A few are born writers or think they are, but most students who take an introductory course aren’t planning a literary career. Sometimes their reasons are less than high-minded. One young man informed me the first day of class that he hated to read and couldn’t name a single author he liked. When I asked, “but you’re interested in writing?,” he told me that he was not in the least but that class facilitated a no-Friday schedule in a university city with a lot of Thursday-night drink specials.

Other students assume the class will be easy: a gut course with no “real” work. Some believe the rumor that ripped through fraternities at Tulane and other campuses a few years back that taking creative writing automatically raises your LSAT score 20 percent. A very different type of student—perhaps the most problematic across the semester—views writing as therapy and enters workshop seeking a support group. But most students sign up for vaguely well-intended reasons: The class fulfills a distribution requirement and sounds interesting, they like to read and so want to try their hand at writing, writing is something they enjoyed as a child and would like to give another go, the class will be a change of pace in a semester filled with lectures, and so on.

Naturally I want to identify and encourage those few students for whom fiction writing will be a long-term vocation. Even as I fear the angry phone call from a parent whose daughter has decided to apply to M.F.A. programs instead of medical school, informing and nourishing unmistakable talent is one of the job’s joys. But it’s important to me that the rest of my undergraduates, which is most of them, also have a valuable semester and leave in some way better for having studied creative writing. Tricking them into thinking they have more talent than they do and should become writers would be a disservice. When asked if universities discourage young writers, Flannery O’Connor famously said, “My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a best seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”

While I would never want a student to give up writing because I told her it wasn’t her calling—she should seek a second opinion—the reverse is the greater cruelty. Still, there’s much a student who will never write another story can gain from a fiction writing class. Creative writing teachers are often asked whether writing can be taught, and the best answers are some fleshed-out version of “yes and no.” Equally important to ask is this: “What else can you teach students?”

Most semesters I face some initial anger as students figure out that writing fiction and critical analyses is incredibly demanding, that I’m willing to use the full grading scale, that I fail to recognize the next Tolstoy, and that I have no patience for the group-therapy model favored by some community-based writing workshops. By the end of each semester, though, most students walk away having learned something and—sometimes to my surprise—pleased with the experience.

Most obviously, the practice of creative writing develops an appreciation of what goes into making literature and deepens close reading and writing skills in ways that serve students going into nearly any profession in which writing precisely and reading between the lines are useful, not least business, law, politics, advertising, and journalism. As a form of world-building, fiction stimulates imagination, makes students ask “why? and “what if?” I’m not naïve enough to argue that writing fiction makes someone a better person—I know far too many misanthropic, narcissistic, besotted, and otherwise atrociously behaved writers to make that case—but the attempt to create original fiction encourages students to imagine in detail what it might be like to live another life. This form of role-taking can foster their capacity to engage other people with imagination, openness, and empathy.

Writing workshops also give lessons in group dynamics, self-control, delivering and receiving well-intended criticism, and building an atmosphere in which good work happens painlessly. Due to the relatively small class size and fact that the students themselves produce the texts under discussion, the students have one of their most intimate and interactive college experiences. It’s not just that the professor knows their names but that they know each other’s names—and much more. When students with divergent backgrounds and sensibilities respond to each other with generosity and intelligence, much is learned not just about fiction but about living well in a world populated by other people. (Potential employers take note: Students in workshops report a sense of responsibility to the group to show up prepared and meet their deadlines.)

Perhaps most valuable, if hardest to pin down, is this: Writing and discussing literary fiction can shake loose the conviction that life operates by clichés and that human behavior follows simple psychological formulas. Milan Kundera has argued that the novel is the art form best able to depict ambiguity and that its spirit of inquiry is its great value. The scholarly study of literature teaches ambiguity, too, and well, but writing students tend to engage with their own work and the unpublished work of their peers more personally and with a great sense of contingency. When I hear a student in workshop say, “But that’s not what I would do in that character’s situation,” it always means the student’s critical vocabulary needs sharpening and it often means the story up in workshop has an implausible plot or unconvincing characterization. But sometimes it also signals a nascent understanding of human difference and complexity.

When I hear a student point out where another’s overextended metaphor stumbles, I hear someone discovering that language can mislead. When another says, “So she got the guy, but isn’t the most interesting part of the story what comes next?,” I hear a student realize that  marriage is about more than wedding planning. And when I hear a student who is asked whether his narrator is “bad” or “good” answer “both,” I recognize an increased tolerance for answers that aren’t easy and a real effort to understand the human condition.

When the student who says this is the least skilled fiction writer in the class, or the one who enrolled to leave his Friday mornings free for sleeping, it makes my day.

Elise Blackwell is the author of four novels and directs the M.F.A. program at the University of South Carolina, where she also teaches undergraduate creative writing.

(A&A illustration derived from photos by Flickr users Marcie Casas and darkpatator)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • lizziec

    I hesitate to open this can of worms but this topic has been on my mind for some time. For academics who are not top-tier, internationally (or even nationally) recognized as experts in their field (in other words, a majority of us), what exactly are we worth on the job market outside of academia? I shudder to contemplate the answer, and I think that the answer might be ”not as much as we’d like”.

    In this new economic reality, as we rethink the role of tenure, the needs of society and the ever-shrinking public support for higher education, we need to take a long, hard look at the reality of what we can do to make a living outside of the hallowed halls, because I’m afraid that many of us are going to have to face this sooner than we ever believed it would come to pass.

    I post regularly about the cheapening of the credential of an education, mostly in reference to the proliferation of for-profit, online, degree-granting institutions but that model of faculty employment may soon come to be the norm, even in the better, state institutions. For those of you unfamiliar with this side of the tracks (for-profit), the hourly rate for faculty in these places can be as low as $12 an hour when you break it down (it’s not pretty), and without benefits as it is contingent work. (hourly rate calculated based on the average amount of time invested and the pay assigned. Adjuncts are paid per course in most institutions)

    I have a friend who works in the information technology business with whom I regularly have frank discussions about the academy (he is an adjunct at a local technical college).  The perception in the corporate world is that full time academics are often “stale” and possess “old skills”, and are not accustomed to working the kind of hours that those doing the “9-5 boogie” are doing most weeks, which is in truth more like an “8 – 6 two-step” and 6-day work weeks. This will most certainly VARY depending on the person, but it is something worth considering as our academic employers move to a more corporate model of doing business.

    What is the answer?

    What are the options for non-superstar faculty?

    Is this a “much-needed weeding out” of the professoriate or an unfortunate outcome of capitalism run amok?

    For the vast majority of us who just do a darned good job teaching and in some cases, performing minimum-impact research, what does this mean for our careers, and our futures?  We need to consider as well that since most of the academic superstars are not teaching faculty, but researchers, what this will mean for the future generations of students (those who can still afford to attend college). 

    I have considered the possibility that I am an academic “Henny-Penny” and this will all blow away and we’ll live happily ever-after in the stye of days past. Still, lots of troubling questions. This extends beyond the halls of French, Italian, Russian, the classics, or theater programs and will eventually be something that we ALL need to at least acknowledge on some level. I don’t pretend to have any answers, just my own questions, and I am interested in hearing the collective wisdom of others on the issue.

  • edwoof

    Considering that the primary purpose of universities is job preparation, the essential languages are Spanish and Mandarin. If there are other funds available then I would add Russian and Portuguese. Forget French and German as these languages are not “useful” which is the current criteria for subject evaluation.

    The emporer is stark raving nekkid. There is no more “research mission” except for the sciences and only in order to secure outside grants.

    The most unfortuante victim of the conversion of universities from providers-of-knowledge to sellers-of-academic-experiences is the classics department.  Personally, if I am interviewing anyone for a job, I like to see a classics background because that person is probably aware of patterns and cycles of history which influence daily transactions. The ideal job candidate for me would have an undergraduate classics major/minor and a business major or minor.

  • unenclosed

    Sigh.  “Edwoof” tells us, “the primary purpose of universities is job preparation.” Since when? Since when did we decide that the present was the only thing that mattered and that, as a society, we had reached a point at which further progress was either not possible or not worth it? Are we there yet? I don’t think so. Since when did we decide that large portions of the world, those who speak French or Russian (not just France and Russia, of course, although these countries represent two of the world’s largest economies), just don’t matter any more?

  • mam5mc

    Having had the job at the state level of eliminating unproductive programs,I suspect  that the language and classics programs at SUNY, like their counterparts elsewhere, had very few majors. And as I said to provosts then, what does it mean to consider a major critical to your mission if there are few to no students in it? Faculty really do have to convince students that what they teach matters, or in times like these, their programs are toast.

    That said, I feel for the professors in the program, who underwent a long and rigorous training only to find the terms and conditions of employment changed. I suspect it is to carry the tenured among them to the end of their careers that the university has chosen to keep the minors alive. The savings will accrue from not hiring new faculty. Maybe it’s only a few positions, but as a state legislator told me when I made the same point to him, “There are agencies in this state that would KILL for one or two positions!”

  • abednars

    What a wonderful article!  As an academic advisor of science students, this has given me an idea of how to talk to my students about the value of creative writing.

  • lexalexander

    I’ve written for money for more than 30 years, but after reading this column, if I had the money and a babysitter, I’d drive down to Columbia and sign up for Ms. Blackwell’s course right now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nick-Eke/754151731 Nick Eke

     I am inspired by this wonderful article. The ability to have multidimensional mind to accommodate other people’s perception about life generally helps one to lead. I think creative writing makes you create your own world even as you respect others.

  • la_profesora

    Hell of a crazy “industry,” where virtually every successful “business” operates at a loss!  You do know that tuition only covers a fraction of the cost of educating a student at most public and private non-profit institutions?  I think most people who seriously study such things think of education as an example of market failure rather than as a business.

  • copesan

     Defending tenure as it exists sounds like a losing strategy.  I am always surprised at how little support there is for tenure even among educated professional but not academic persons.  In conversations with non-academic, well-educated friends who value education and universities, I have learned that I have to spend a lot of time explaining the nature of academic research and writing and explaining why tenure should not just be categorically eliminated.  Tenure has little or no support outside the academy, and we have to do a better job explaining it.

    What do we need? Job protection, respect for research, but also some sort of consequence for people who are deadwood but sopping up resources and time. (20% of my department is in this category). What about long term contracts, say 10 years at a time?  I am sure that there are many on this list who will inform me why this won’t work, so go ahead.  I thought the analogies to other professions were interesting; but my friends who are law partners and consulting partners and executives all feel pressure to step up what they do, not decline. 

    One aspect that has to change: the labor structure at universities is like a medieval fief where the tenured (sometimes) strut and throw their weight around, denying that there is any problem with tenure, with the job market, etc., while the untenured and graduate students tug their forelocks.  As hoppingmadjunct wrote, it cannot continue with the kind of inequity of status, resources and job security that is rife in the academy.

    But can the academy change?  What I fear is that the whole system will just crack.  Except at the most elite universities.

  • droselle

    The assertion that law and accounting “do in fact offer something remarkably close” to tenure seems likely to bring the observation that there have recently been large layoffs of lawyers (including partners) and accountants (including partners and CPAs). An internet search will provide verification that this is, indeed, the case.

  • robjenkins

    That’s because their clients went away. If our clients go away, many of us will probably be laid off, too–including the tenured. For the time being, at least, our client base seems relatively stable in most disciplines, and is even growing in many states. We need to do what we can to make sure it stays that way.

    Rob

  • janetlinda

    The analogy of a tenured faculty member to a corporate partner does not hold for the important reason that the latter are equity partners in their organizations — they must buy into the partnership using their own money, and then possess a financial stake in that enterprise — shouldering the rewards, but also the risks, entailed in this level of investment. If the organization should fail or lose money, the equity partners are impacted financially (potentially losing their entire retirement funds/lifetime savings,  besides being out of work). For instance in the recent economic downturn, partners in architectural firms that I know took 20% or more pay cuts, as well as laying off staff in order to try to keep their firms afloat. As well, partners are expected to actively bring in business to the firm in order to contribute to the financial bottom line. I believe a more apt metaphor for tenured faculty is independent sub- contractors, but with permanent guaranteed contracts in which performance is irrelevant to continued employment. Once tenure is achieved, research productivity, provision of sponsored research, teaching evaluations or service to the department do not impact one’s continued employment, at least at my university.

  • eudaimon

    I agree. There is a lot that is wrong with the analogy to partnerships in law firms. But more important to me is that this suggestion and the general drift of the argument seem to suggest that tenure is about long term employment and security, not academic freedom. Academic freedom protects freedom of research, teaching, and intramural and extramural speech. Law partners, however, don’t get to choose cases or practice areas simply because they are intellectually interesting, they don’t get to try novel advocacy methods if they don’t benefit their clients, and don’t get to publically criticize their firms. Just to give an example, a law professor at UCLA is openly criticizing a large donation and the naming of a building by and after Milken. A partner in a law firm would not get away with publically opposing a lucrative business opportunity representing a controversial client. If academicians want to defend tenure, they need to focus on academic freedom and address the worry that tenure is just a sinecure.

  • manitoga

    Your logic is quite flawed.
    First of all, academics do get assessed yearly: at annual merit raise evaluations faculty are evaluated not only on how they taught (course evaluations) but also on what they have published and what type of service they’ve performed.  You might not get a formal written evaluation but as the saying goes “people pay with their wallet” – the size of your merit increase is a type of evaluation by your peers.

    Secondly, evaluation isn’t really front loaded. What pre-tenure is is a rush to get that book published or those x number of articles done. It’s not a marathon as academic life should be, but a sprint.

    Finally, as a professional, I call BS on specialization. Professionals aren’t generalists, we are specialists as well, and when the economy take a down turn, guess what, we adapt and retrain ourselves.  You don’t need to complete another PhD to retrain, you just need a good head on your shoulders and critical thinking.  

  • manitoga

    Not to mention that partners also tend to have to put their own money back into the first as investment. I see very few faculty giving back to the school to find scholarships and other works.

  • manitoga

    As a professional staff member at a university I supported tenure for our faculty for a long time. I am now starting to see it a bit differently for a few reasons – and the main reason is that tenure just isn’t the protection that people think it is.

    Intellectual freedom seems to be the main string that faculty harp on when bringing up tenure, but the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as intellectual/academic freedom – the only thing that exists are human relationships. If you write about a taboo or controversial topic, guess what, you won’t be fired, but you might be ostracized by your peers. The end result is almost the same: being cut off from the community – the only difference is whether or not you get a paycheck.  Academic freedom isn’t even something that protects you because when layoffs happen and departments close, you will be given the “it’s not your research, it’s that we don’t have money” argument when they give you the pink slip.  The pink slip is coming whether or not you have tenure.

    Most places also have faculty unions – what’s the point of tenure (other than the placebo effect) when you’ve got a union to negotiate terms of employment?

    Secondly, as others have mentioned: tenure is creating an underclass. Those who have (the tenured) and those who do not (the adjuncts).  While the tenured teach a 2-2 or a 3-3 load and have time for “professional improvement” and “intellectual rejuvenation” those who are adjuncts are teaching 4-4 or 5-5 (or more if they can!) to pay for their living expenses.  Guess what – adjuncts would do research as well, if they had time that is remaining after teaching excessive teaching loads and if they weren’t  always on the lookout for more work because they are at the whims of academic deans and course enrollments.

    So, forgive me if I have no sympathy for your cause.  It’s not that I don’t care because I don’t have tenure, it’s more that you don’t care that others in similar positions don’t have tenure, so why should we care for you? It’s a two way street and you’ve already shown bad faith.

  • yanxsm

    I don’t view tenured and adjunct faculty as two classes
    against each other. The fact that there are so many adjunct faculty now is a
    result of the slipping away of the tenure system. I agree with you that tenured
    faculty should be more caring about their colleagues who are left out of the
    system and I think a multiple-track tenure system that provides different
    career tracks toward tenure should be promoted. Many of the adjunct faculty are
    excellent teachers and should be tenured, even if they do not focus on research
    that brings in large amount of grant money.
    In addition, I think many academic professionals
    (for example, those working on student success initiatives) should also be
    offered the opportunity of tenure, so that they have the freedom and security
    to objectively evaluate the impact of their programs on students and apply
    their knowledge of what did not work to the revision and improvement of future student
    services.

  • raymond_j_ritchie

    In this age of goals and outcomes and teamplayers this piece of sanity is out of place.  Even when they accidentally appoint good people they squander the opportunity.

  • citizenship

    Drove through central and eastern Washington a while back; long-time home of beautiful orchards that are world-famous for healthful and economically-vital apples, pears, cherries, etc…  Many of those orchards have been cut down and plowed under to make way for growing grapes for the many boutique wineries springing up all over the place. 

    See any metaphors there?