attack on creative writing 'racket' by columnist Lisa Pryor

Home » Groups » Australasian Postgraduate Students Group
By janene, on 02/03/2010

Anyone feel like mounting a group response to the nasty bit of tall poppy slashing exhibited by Lisa Pryor from the SMH last week?

Here's the guts of it:

"if you can't work out what good writing is by reading widely, if you need it spelled out slowly with the benefit of a circle of plastic chairs and a whiteboard, you lack the mettle to be a great novelist.

And still, the creative writing racket, the pyramid selling scheme whereby teachers pass on their knowledge to students so they can one day become creative writing teachers themselves, thrives. In a speech at the University of NSW last year, Stephen Muecke, the university's inaugural professor of writing, noted there were 14 professors and six associate professors of creative writing across the country. He also noted the migration of creative work from the proverbial garret to the Australia Council and now the university sector.

''It is attractive for a writer wanting to do a doctorate comprising creative work plus dissertation to get a postgraduate scholarship that will at least pay the rent, while some universities compete by offering alluring top-ups.''

This hints at what the racket is all about. Funding. It is about universities seeking student dollars, graduates seeking scholarship dollars, writers seeking teaching work. Writing courses attract impressive writers because it is one of the few ways to make a buck as a writer, not because they all believe in the value of courses for aspiring writers.

Personally I don't have a problem with this motive. Writers need to scrounge for what little money they can. What I have a problem with is the baggage that goes with luring writers into universities. First, funding writers through postgraduate creative writing qualifications skews funding in favour of writers who already have university degrees, with all the particulars of personality, life experience and class that goes with it. Secondly, it skews funding in favour of the gutless. Enrolling in a postgraduate writing course is a hedge against failure, costing thousands of dollars, for those who are too scared to take off a year to get on with it and write. It attracts those who are everything a good writer is not: compliant, institution bound and approval seeking. Thirdly, and most importantly, good writers risk becoming institutionalised."

1.

Isn't there a stat saying 50% of our creative works end up being published - compared to the general publishing rate of unsolicited ms which is a fraction of 1%?

2.

Names, names. Nam Le wrote the stories in his lauded collection 'The Boat' while doing a MFA at the Iowa Writers Workshop. Kate Grenville produced 'The Secret River' and 'The Making of the Secret River' as CW and exegesis for a doctorate at UTS. There are dozens more - I'm always seeing book reviews that mention the author did a CW course but I don't have time to look...

None of them are gutless, compliant, institution-bound, lacking the mettle to be a great writer... etc

3.

Pryor 'doesn't have a problem' with funding writers but seems to be arguing that people without university degrees are a more worthy focus for the dollars. What sort of middle class anti-intellectual cringe is this? Let's support the REAL writers, the ones from the working class who couldn't afford to go to uni, the unrecognised geniuses who rightly scorned high achievement in the education system...? Because obviously anyone who does well enough at Uni to get a PhD scholarship must be a hopeless approval-seeking teacher's pet...?

4.

She's obviously never written a book if she thinks that "taking a year off work to get on with it and write" will do the trick. Oh, we all have a book in us - no need to hone your skills, just sit down and let it all pour onto the page?

Add your arguments & evidence to this posting as Comments and I'll shape it into a rebuttal and send it to the SMH, probably as a letter to the editor

Original article online at

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/by/lisa-pryor

»

The attack on writing programs

Submitted by Di on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 06:22.

It's a good point to raise - I also noticed in Spectrum this last weekend where Bruce Elder was reviewing a book (and I can't reference  book, author or actual comments because someone has thrown out the paper...grrrr) but along the same lines of thinking -  he said something like it seems that a lot of books are written for MA and PhD material and the gist was, pity they dont have to have much merit or writing prowess - he said something to the effect that as long as they are seen to "add to the collective knowledge" the author can write most anything and get published - alluding to the quality ofthe book. Commenting that work will be published because of the factual or new knowledge content rather than a good rollicking story.

No one expects artists to freeze in garrets anymore and not sell paintings  - it's quite OK to be commercial- but writers still seem to be relegated to an unsavoury breed who exploit much needed university funds which could be used in other fields. We have a long way to go to educate public sentiment it seems.

Lisa Pryor

Submitted by mrmnewhook on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 08:18.

Pryor doesn't appear to have any idea what it takes to nurture talent. Talent never succeeds in isolation. And although reading widely is important, many people read widely and can't string a sentence together themselves. Frequently such individuals are those without training in the academy, though not always. They may read, but they cannot analyze what they read in the context of becoming writers themselves.

 

Also, she doesn't mention how publishing has changed in the past 50 years. No longer can a neophyte writer expect to be picked up and nurtured by a publishing company. The academy has taken over a function that publishers and editors once fulfilled.

 

In a nutshell, her piece comes off as more of an ignorant rant than any credible critique of CW programs and the people who participate in them. Curiously, I've noticed that in Australia her suspicions and ignorance are common. In North America, CW programs are viewed as prestigious places and many of the best writers are proud to have MFAs in creative writing. Michael Chabon is one example that leaps off the top of my head. Ken McGoogan is another.

 

 

writing programs?

Submitted by barbarem on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 09:48.

Whatever unis do, they don't expect us to spend the time poor little Bill Shakespeare did - learning (and memorising) classical stuff for long hours every day.

George Eliot, Dickens, Thackeray et al were criticised by the Oxbridge mob as being autodidacts with no true knowledge of learning.

Times change and an appreciation of the arts and their contribution to society and its development are amended.

Take your pick: there's always a point of view.

responses to Pryor's attack on writing programs

Submitted by janene on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 10:37.

Here's a roundup of useful resources people have emailed directly to me so far:

From novelist and phd student Wendy James, an ABR article she wrote on this

subject a few years ago and a recent discussion on her blog:

From Professor Jen Webb, an article published last year in
Creative Writing: Teaching Theory & Practice
From AAWP president Marcelle Freiman:
I have been following this latest emergence of a tired old subject. I
read the article in SMH on Saturday, it was annoying. I take the point
that there's a clear tall poppy agenda in Pryor's article but also it's
the latest manifestation of an old story that just doesn't go away. One
good thing to note, Macquarie VC Steven Schwartz has responded on 
his blog since yesterday: 
http://www.vc.mq.edu.au/blog/2010/03/02/creative-writings-novel-achievements/
I didn't give my affiliation in my entry - it was a bit rushed. The two
students are from our programs - u-g and p-g. 

But we can write a group response to SMH - draw on Janene's well-made points. 
What say you?


 

Agree with Marcelle

Submitted by cacroker on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 16:31.

Pryor's'opinion-piece' is under-researched and illinformed and revisting a hoary old debate from previous years. She uses Stephen Muecke's words in a prejorative manner when I would contend that as a member of ASAL, he is simply pointing out a broader movement happening across the Creative Industries and Faculties. We cannot win this argument.

Either the Australia Council is elitist and pandering only to the 'big whigs' via schemes such as the "Keatings" or the Academy is elitist and detached from instrumental learning initiatives and Industry driven demand, relying on a dubious Anglophone literary canon and humanities program, pandering to the children of the educated classes.

Our PhD programs in CW may be amongst the finest examples (along with our Creative Arts practice colleagues) to open access to the highest level of academic study and creative 'hothousing' this Country can offer at present. It is now (theoretically possible) for a student to arrive at a PhD via Cert 2 in Prof Writing (TAFE), the Diploma, followed by Assoc Diploma or Grad Certificate, Graduate Diploma, BA (CW), MA and any combination of all these plus even via portfolio and rcc/rpl. Whether it actually occurs in any statistically significant numbers is not the point.

The issue is that the Rudd Government's policy imperative under Venturous Australis is to dismantle perceived heirarchies within the University and Research culture between hard and 'soft' sciences and arts. For Australia to reach it's potential as an educated 'creative nation' our Governemnt must invest in human capital.. and that human capital includes developing the so-called creative sector, from where cities are revitalised, tourist precincts emerge and even, horror of horror, arts export dollars can be generated... How dare we leave our garretts and become functioning members of society... and with PhDs also.

How threatening are we as creative intellectuals? Perhaps the 'contagion' that Zadie Smith fears is not the contagion Lisa Pryor fears.. perhaps it is a demand for professonal and quality journalism from a professional writer in preference to a piece picked up from the Guardian in the UK and beaten up as a topical column!