Writers: Ask Questions of A Creative Writing Lecturer at Birkbeck University, London

[Damyanti]

The author of Massive, Julia Bell, who also teaches Creative Writing MA at Birkbeck University, London, answers writing related queries at my blog today. .

Among other things she doles out writing tips, and talks about the controversy surrounding the usefulness of writing programs.

Drop by with your fiction-related questions and comments if you have any.

[Feliks]

Okay. I'll bite. But I'm not participating in anyone's blog. I'll post my responses here.

First question.
1) "Are creative writing courses useless?"

This barbed, cage-rattling query comes not from me, nor you ('D.') but from someone named Hanif Kureshi.

Well. First, I wasn't aware that anyone (much less 'Hanif Kureshi'?) had the authority to decide this question (much less, decide it in the negative).

Next: Why would anyone take Hanif Kureshi's abrupt dismissal of such a long-standing tradition, seriously in the first place? Why did you ('D.') even select it as a question? It's so absurd in itself, its almost an insult to include it in your discussion between you and your writing tutor. Hanif Kursehi sounds like a royal ass. Why? Because creative writing classes have traditionally--historically--done a lot of good.

[The real question is, 'are they doing any good now?' Are courses like the ones being taught by Professor Bell, as good as they were in the past; or are they pandering to today's slovenly reading trends?]

I digress. Kureshi's nonsensical musing being swiftly dispatched; now I can turn squarely to Ms. Bell's answer to Kureshi. To put it bluntly, her reply is ...just awful. Fiendishly bad. It is to groan over. She really just flops in her response. I don't know who is worse, Kureshi, or your prof.

Here she goes:

"Hanif Kureshi sounds like part of an older generation of writers"

Eh huh what? What 'older generation' of writers exactly is Bell referring to?

Kureshi's broadside would be received by us differently if Kureshi is someone who began writing in 1940, 1950, or 1960; right? Someone who distinguished themselves among those alumni needs to be listened to. There's not too many of those writers left. Those who are, have probably earned the right to say what they please and have it at least considered seriously without anyone 'slurring their age'.

On the other hand, if Kureshi is merely 'someone who has matured recently' (in this contemporary timeperiod) then, their opinion on creative writing wouldn't matter a damn anyway. Because, there is no one who is contemporary who also possesses literary stature and so by default there is no one in any position of authority to comment on today's fiction...accordingly, their sweeping remark would immediately fall flat.

Thus, why is Ms Bell bothering to address it--much less, frown on some 'older generation' hypothesis as the probable source for the aspersion? And doing so, all apparently without being clear as to exactly what generation Kureshi represents? Its a fuzzy, over-reactive statement and a 'disparaging', (without identifying who is being disparaged).

Furthermore, I myself never heard any of the *competent* generations of writers (1930-1970) frowning on writing courses; plenty of them got their start in exactly that way. So, Ms Bell's stereotype is quite mysterious as to where she even conjured it up. Who is she talking about?

No matter. What any previous generation has done--it is far from credible that Ms Bell's generation should have absolutely anything to say about it; because they have done sod-all to advance or do better. I mean for criminey's sake, who the heck is this woman, who the heck are any of her contemporaries to say anything? Do any of them have two sticks to scrape together? They're internet-era scribblers. A painfully embarrassing lot of failures. They are the generation which has sold out to little handheld screens, after all. They are the generation which is allowing books themselves to die out.

Here's the rest of her outlandish sentence:
"who preserve their position through adopting an attitude of superiority."

Uh, but as I stated above---they probably were genuinely superior. What claim to superiority does Ms Bell or any of her peers have to shelter under?

Any bonafide generation of writers (i.e., not recent; not recently-became-older) didn't have just 'new kid on the block' attitude to back them up. They cut the mustard every which way it can be cut. Who is Ms. Bell (et al) to sneer at anybody?

New sentence from her.
"Creative Writing programmes have created a new democracy in literature"

No; creative writing programs have been going on for quite some time. They haven't created any new democracy that never-existed-before; homemakers, car-wash attendants and other amateurs were always scribbling away in their spare time. They were taking mail-order writing courses and attending night school. In what way were they denied democracy?

"where anyone with a story can learn how to tell it"

People could, did, and were always developing new skills in previous decades...whether or not any college courses were available to charge tuition for it.
[What Bell is probably talking about here is the teaching of 'marketing oneself as a writer'.]

" and I think it’s evident now that Creative Writing can be taught"

Evident based on what? Colleges and universities offering creative writing programs and people attending such courses? Circular evidence. She's basically saying, "well, we ARE teaching it so ...it is being taught!"

She goes on to say...
"I would say that CW MA/MFA Courses are a vital part of finding and developing new voices in literature.""

Well, to what extent is this true? On the face of her remark, if even just one amateur attends a writing course --and goes on to write at all (after leaving campus); then that is a 'new voice' even if that writer only publishes an obscure blog somewhere.

What fame, what accomplishments are these 'new voices' actually achieving, to what degree are they succeeding; how exactly are they making the most of new opportunities? In what way are there opportunities being afforded them--based directly on their demonstrated merits as writers? How are these writers making any real hay at all?

I can cite one huge counter-example: screenwriting. Writing-for-film is a deeply cherished dream of many young writers (and always has been). But never before--as now--has that field been locked down so impregnably. Frankly it doesn't matter what any young writer does today; there is no getting 'in' these days; MFA degree or not.

Or, how about poetry? Is today's generation of writers (with/without MFA) reviving poetry in modern culture? Nope. That is another body which new writers are not powerful enough to exhume. How about even..the art of letter-writing?? Nope. Ashes; dust.

By and large, what today's young writers are doing is nothing more commendable than cranking out serialized genre stories ; little more than pulp writers did in the 1920s. They're desperately trying to be the next Stephanie Meyers.

So, I'd like to hear from Ms. Bell, not whether amateurs can be taught writing; but a defense from her of the kind of 'high-powered hack' writers which the MFA programs (she defends) are turning out --in spite of any claims of 'furthering a vital literature'. I'd say Bell is being wildly charitable.

I suggest creative writing programs in a university setting are no better than paid boot-camps on-line; because they are being used for one thing: as get-rich-quick-schemes. Yes, any fool who wants to write probably can be taught to write. But to what end? What goal? Towards what methodology? What kind of writing are they being taught to succeed at? What caliber of writing is being steered towards?

Whew. I forgot how foppish I find academics. But thankfully (for anyone who just read my rant) I don't see much else in that interview to pounce on. I'm glancing at the rest of your Q&A session with her and I don't see anything else with any meat/bones for me to gnaw.

Sure, I could come up with some questions for this woman; yes. If any occur to me (tomorrow) I will submit them to you here. You can probably already tell I'm a bit of a *hardnose* on certain 'themes'. I think literature today is in a crisis--not just on the brink of crisis but well into it--and skimming this lecturer's comments did not provide much reassurance, that's all. That's what I'm looking for. Overall I think this author/professor is --as usual with professors--suffering from 'ivory- tower' syndrome. Meanwhile--the Red Death ravages the landscape outside.

[[deleted user]]

Feliks wrote: "Okay. I'll bite. But I'm not participating in anyone's blog. I'll post my responses here.

First question.
1) "Are creative writing courses useless?"

This barbed, cage-rattling query comes not fro..."

Hi!
I don't know how long this conversation has been going on, I just received it in my email and I thought I better add my two cents for what it's worth (probably 2 cents).

I have not had a creative writing course in my life! However, I have lived an extraordinary life and when I get together with friends and begin to tell of past experiences, their mouths drop open (as far as physically possible) and then they say, "Did that really happen? You need to write a book!"

I have published the first two in my series, The Extraordinary Life of an Ordinary Woman. My third is written but I am trying to hold out for an agent to represent it, and I am working on my fourth. It will take eight books to tell my story.

My readers love my work. I am not a professional; I'm too poor to hire someone to proof my work. My third book was proofed by my daughter (school teacher) hopefully it hasn't got so many grammatical errors in it. But, my readers don't seem to mind; it's the story that interests them.

I think if a person has the ability to tell a meaningful story, whether fact or fiction, makes them a good writer. All the classes in the world won't do much good, if the writer doesn't possess a natural gift.

Just my thoughts.

Victoria Farnsworth

[Feliks]

Well. Hello there. The conversation began last night around midnight USA EST. Congratulations on your burgeoning career as an author.

Your remarks push us toward the fringes of a very old debate (old both in academic circles and in coffee-table circles); which is 'can talent be taught?'

There are very sharp arguments on *both* sides of the matter. Plenty of examples abound for each position yea/nay.

Frankly, I'm not sure we want to get into it. We'll quickly be up to our neck in quotes from everyone from Thomas Alva Edison to Yogi Berra; anecdotes about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Leonardo Da Vinci...and be not a whit closer to a definitive answer. We'll have to discuss what happened to F Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner when they went to Hollywood. It will be messy.

In any case, creative writing programs are not going away; they clearly do give people a lot of value; and they do have a place in academia. Whether they produce 'important' writers--as Prof. Bell seemed (to me) to be implying--is another matter.

I bet she has a lot more opinions I'd find wonky; all I can say is she's lucky I wasn't interviewing her. Still, she's performing a useful service if she can teach today's whelps the difference between you're/your.

[[deleted user]]

Feliks wrote: "Well. Hello there. The conversation began last night around midnight USA EST. Congratulations on your burgeoning career as an author.

Your remarks push us toward the fringes of a very old debate (..."
Thanks for the laugh! I'm off to a meeting about a genealogy fair I just participated in last Saturday night. (So much work to do!) I wish I had more time to devote to writing. I need to make some money!!