Google says that there are nearly 130 MILLION unique books in the world. Even assuming a +/- 10 Million difference, that's a lot of people writing a lot of stuff. As much as I hate to quote the guy, Chuck Palahniuk (via Tyler Durden) says that "you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile." (Fight Club)
And really, there's some truth to this. Both pre- and during my time in an MFA program, I'd come across articles about the relevance of the MFA program and whether it homogenizes writers or waters them down to the point of being irrelevant. My response? That's nonsense. Absolute, pure, ridiculous nonsense. Here's why.
A.) The relevance of an MFA program to a writer should be the same as a medical program to an aspiring RN - the skills and tools needed to progress in those particular fields should be the ultimate aim. if you're not pushing yourself, no one's gonna do it for you.
B.) My own experience (1 of several hundred MFA in Writing programs) is that it does the exact opposite of homogenizing writers. I had the distinct pleasure of being given the reins to control my own writing. It was as if my professors were saying "It's not perfect or pretty yet, but here's how we can get you in the right direction to where YOU want to go." I came into the program with an already skewed style of writing, but I was never told to tone it down unless it was in the service of the story.
When I arrived, my prose was all over the place. I was trying to dazzle my fellow workshoppers with often confusing and flowery language that was, most likely, only covering up a mediocre story at best. As the semesters went on, both in workshops and in seminars, I was shown a plethora of ways that I could play with my text in a way that made my story worth reading and also allowed me to put my own personal signature on the piece; you knew you were reading my work in many instances.
And of course everyone has their own style. Some people lean more traditional while others, like myself, prefer to push boundaries to see how far we can stretch a story before it blows up in our faces. There's no one school of thought on this that's better than another. I enjoy just as much traditional writing as I do experimental writing...if the story is there. Each writer comes to the table armed with their own level of talent and drive and willingness to listen to other writers who may not like a piece for this or that reason. Like the publishing industry, you're not gonna please all the people all the time. That's just how it goes.
So when I hear about programs across the country that seem to have a higher than should-be-normal level of jealousy or snarkiness sneaking through their ranks, it irks the crap out of me. There's no way I can look forward into the future and predict that my books will sell any better than someone else's. There's no way I can tell someone "People will hate this and they won't read it." I think the "Twilight" series is a great example of this; I think the writing and story are complete crap, but the movement off the shelves speaks to a different truth than what I cling to.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that I don't understand a jealous writer. I've seen some people give worthless comments on a piece simply because they thought they were a better writer or they didn't like the author of the piece, which I find more than a little petty. I've read good writing and I've read great writing. I've read bad writing and I've read stuff that I think will never see the light of day, but in each instance, I can always find something that's worth giving positive feedback on. This isn't a "make everyone feel like a winner" kind of mentality, but there should be a balance in a moment of critiquing. For every negative thing you found in the piece, find one positive; at that point, it's up to the writer to determine how they take the critique. The weaker ones that can't take the honest criticism will bow out while others will be bolstered by it and push harder to make the work better.
Bottom line: when critiquing a colleague's work, don't be a douche. There's no reason to act as such and it only makes you look like an uneducated, jealous writer - the worst kind. You might be a better technical writer, but someone else may have the better story. You might get the better book deal, but someone else will sell more books. Once the writing is done, it's out of our hands and up to the public to decide, which can be scary and exhilarating at the same time. And we've ALL got plenty of work to do on our own...
(3,838)
Loved this piece. Absolutely I agree! Ultimately the responsibility for improving one's writing skills depends upon the individual writer. We bear our own crosses and must be prepared to carry them up the hill, impale ourselves on them, and wait for our own salvation. Well, it's up to the writer to make him or herself better. Relying too much on a professor you admire, or kowtowing to group opinion destroys one's voice, their individuality and authenticity. One thing I've always admired about your attitude towards writing is your ethic. You get it! You're a writer despite the works you publish or don't publish. Publishing is also secondary to the craft. Those MFA'ers whose only goal is to publish at the expense of doing the heavy lifting at their desks (we know who they are), before the blank page, struggling during the late hours of the night, sacrificing their friends and families, fun times and nights filled with drunken debauchery, to get the work finished, in my mind are hacks. The world has plenty of hacks and few genuine artists. I would like to consider us genuine, because we work damn hard!
ReplyDelete