We are a reading group composed of graduate students in the Masters of Fine Arts program at The University of Texas Pan American and are discussing "(Re)writing Craft" by Tim Mayers for our Composition Techniques 6325 course with Dr. Jonikka Charlton. We hope to find a connection between RhetComp Studies and Creative Writing.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Chapter 1. Composition, Creative Writing, and the Shifting Boundaries of English Studies
So a few thoughts here, rather than attempting to just sum this up, because I might get some details wrong:
I am glad to see that Mayers recognizes a three-part version of English rather than other options. He is trying to give both composition and creative writing a place within the field rather than merely subordinate them to literary studies.
I think he is, anyway, though he spends some pages talking about how attempts to critique and re-ground the structure of the discipline have more or less failed to this point. He notes a few interesting things along the way: many attempts to give composition a bigger place within the field of English studies are often ignorant of or really uninterested in doing the same for creative writing.
This brings up something I noticed when I attended the EGO meeting I was able to make so far. Despite the fact that English, from the outside, is given some kind of monolithic status, the truth seems to be that we are operating in one (or more) of three different sub-fields that have some tenuous connections but are largely related, it seems, by the fact that two of them are like stubby legs on a big ol' belly, and they pretty much grew out of it as a way to have to do some surgery on the bloat within the belly. I wonder if that metaphor is working as well as I thought it might, but I am tired so you can deal with it.
This is another thing that I think bears mentioning from this first chapter: the fact that literary studies within the English department is so overpowering that when it meets with opposed discourses, it can short circuit them by making them "sub-disciplines." But we are then taught that they all refer back to literature in some way. Teaching composition is merely something you do when you start out, until you get enough experience and a good enough resume to move up the ladder. And this is why a lot of comp teachers are actually lit professors.
Interesting anecdote: while waiting for Skinner one day, I learned he is teaching a comp class, and that he felt unprepared to do so with his educational background and professional experience. So he grabbed a book and followed after it; he seemed a bit jealous that we are taking a class like this, to give us more than only a token warning and training about what to do when teaching FYC.
About composition studies, I also got the same feeling about Skinners thoughts on it. He asked me specifically about this class and how I was responding to it. I got the feeling that he finds this course very useful. I know that it is required for us in the MFA, and that lots of people have fought taking it, and now they have come up with something new to take as a second option to this, but I myself am glad that I have even though I am not so sure I will teach in the future. I found it an interesting lesson about the workings of the "Discipline of English".
To me, the entire first chapter was a rehash of what we have been talking about all semester, but with different sources, and more of an interest in what is to become of creative writing. I found it very interesting, especially when Mayers goes on and on about Fenza's argument for creative writing to stay separate and distinct. All the nonsensical and clueless statements Fenza spews about what creative writers are, and how they are born and have to be 'found' and encouraged, and how they are uniquely suited, and indeed the only ones capable of teaching writing, which in his opinion can't be taught except for craft, and that anyone can become technically proficient at craft, but not be good for anything else, so what is the point of hiring a 'real' writer to teach the course.... and so forth.
All that aside, I think once I find where Mayers is leading us, I may really be interested in checking it out.
The thing about Fenza's claim, though, is that I'm pretty sure other people in the academic community believe, in fact, that you can't teach someone to be a writer but you can teach them to be a better writer if they already are one.
You recall from Jean's class what McGurl had to say? I don't think McGurl would be in noticeable disagreement with the statements you're referencing... but maybe I'm misinterpreting him. There are also plenty of essays that have been written over the years that keep asking the question of writing: "Can it be taught?" and the debate continues.
I think the debate has basically resolved itself to a common denominator of: you can teach craft. Anything beyond that is still under discussion.
Crazy stuff! In a way, the arguments Mayers explores seem convoluted. First, one has to define and categorize English Studies and then argue about those definitions and categories which then produces new disciplines to include the defining and categorizing aspects. Despite this criticism, I read this book both as a writer and a teacher of writing (which makes me very vested in the subject matter.)
I like that Mayers explains the power struggle in English Studies. Dr. Bill Broz at UTPA advised me once to pursue a PhD which would allow me to teach teachers. He cautioned that PhD's in literature didn't guarantee employment. Since then, I haven't aspired to be a literary scholar and have concentrated more on the writing aspect of English. I wasn't aware of the Rhet/Comp branch of English Studies when I was looking into graduate programs (which just shows my lack of exposure to academia.)
A part of me wants to place Creative Writing above literary studies and composition studies because Creative Writing produces original work. Being part of the Creative Writing program at UTPA makes me biased of course. :)
Mayers gives some history as to how composition came to exist and what scholars think of Creative Writing. I am currently working on my thesis which consists of a collection of short stories and an introduction which in part explores this notion of whether a person can learn to be a good writer. I am of the belief that a person can learn to be a good writer, but I am still curious to learn what others who have years of experience writing, publishing and teaching writing have to say.
I like the idea of having literary studies, composition studies and creative writing all be considered equal. I am biased to one branch, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the importance of the other two; and the importance the other two areas have to my livelihood (I make my living by teaching reading and writing and not by selling my writing.)
I am curious to read where Mayers will take me. So far, he's told me what others have to say about English Studies. Now I want to know if there is a connection between composition studies and creative writing and how this connection can help me be a better writer and teacher.
Regardless of what happens in the rest of the book, I already feel like I learned something (several things actually.) Text includes more than print literature and the current structure of English Studies. I wonder if I can be a triple threat: Literary scholar, composition instructor, and creative writer. :)
I'm really on the fence about the whole what exactly is writing aspect. Or more to the point, what kind of writing should be taught, how it should be taught, etc. So many arguments, so many perspectives, it just makes your head spin.
As for the creative writing aspect, I agree that creative writing produces original work, but I wonder if the same argument can be made for any type of writing. A research paper can be considered original by someone, even if it contains ideas from other works. I guess it just depends on the perspective.
Fenza's claim is oddly enough, something I have heard over and over again throughout my whole life. Whenever I would write a story, people would often say they wish they were born with that ability to write. I have to apply it to teaching though, but I am wondering if it is because I do not fully understand his entire argument about who should be teaching writing and why.
So a few thoughts here, rather than attempting to just sum this up, because I might get some details wrong:
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see that Mayers recognizes a three-part version of English rather than other options. He is trying to give both composition and creative writing a place within the field rather than merely subordinate them to literary studies.
I think he is, anyway, though he spends some pages talking about how attempts to critique and re-ground the structure of the discipline have more or less failed to this point. He notes a few interesting things along the way: many attempts to give composition a bigger place within the field of English studies are often ignorant of or really uninterested in doing the same for creative writing.
This brings up something I noticed when I attended the EGO meeting I was able to make so far. Despite the fact that English, from the outside, is given some kind of monolithic status, the truth seems to be that we are operating in one (or more) of three different sub-fields that have some tenuous connections but are largely related, it seems, by the fact that two of them are like stubby legs on a big ol' belly, and they pretty much grew out of it as a way to have to do some surgery on the bloat within the belly. I wonder if that metaphor is working as well as I thought it might, but I am tired so you can deal with it.
This is another thing that I think bears mentioning from this first chapter: the fact that literary studies within the English department is so overpowering that when it meets with opposed discourses, it can short circuit them by making them "sub-disciplines." But we are then taught that they all refer back to literature in some way. Teaching composition is merely something you do when you start out, until you get enough experience and a good enough resume to move up the ladder. And this is why a lot of comp teachers are actually lit professors.
Interesting anecdote: while waiting for Skinner one day, I learned he is teaching a comp class, and that he felt unprepared to do so with his educational background and professional experience. So he grabbed a book and followed after it; he seemed a bit jealous that we are taking a class like this, to give us more than only a token warning and training about what to do when teaching FYC.
About composition studies, I also got the same feeling about Skinners thoughts on it. He asked me specifically about this class and how I was responding to it. I got the feeling that he finds this course very useful. I know that it is required for us in the MFA, and that lots of people have fought taking it, and now they have come up with something new to take as a second option to this, but I myself am glad that I have even though I am not so sure I will teach in the future. I found it an interesting lesson about the workings of the "Discipline of English".
ReplyDeleteTo me, the entire first chapter was a rehash of what we have been talking about all semester, but with different sources, and more of an interest in what is to become of creative writing. I found it very interesting, especially when Mayers goes on and on about Fenza's argument for creative writing to stay separate and distinct. All the nonsensical and clueless statements Fenza spews about what creative writers are, and how they are born and have to be 'found' and encouraged, and how they are uniquely suited, and indeed the only ones capable of teaching writing, which in his opinion can't be taught except for craft, and that anyone can become technically proficient at craft, but not be good for anything else, so what is the point of hiring a 'real' writer to teach the course.... and so forth.
All that aside, I think once I find where Mayers is leading us, I may really be interested in checking it out.
I Like it so far.....
The thing about Fenza's claim, though, is that I'm pretty sure other people in the academic community believe, in fact, that you can't teach someone to be a writer but you can teach them to be a better writer if they already are one.
ReplyDeleteYou recall from Jean's class what McGurl had to say? I don't think McGurl would be in noticeable disagreement with the statements you're referencing... but maybe I'm misinterpreting him. There are also plenty of essays that have been written over the years that keep asking the question of writing: "Can it be taught?" and the debate continues.
I think the debate has basically resolved itself to a common denominator of: you can teach craft. Anything beyond that is still under discussion.
Crazy stuff! In a way, the arguments Mayers explores seem convoluted. First, one has to define and categorize English Studies and then argue about those definitions and categories which then produces new disciplines to include the defining and categorizing aspects. Despite this criticism, I read this book both as a writer and a teacher of writing (which makes me very vested in the subject matter.)
ReplyDeleteI like that Mayers explains the power struggle in English Studies. Dr. Bill Broz at UTPA advised me once to pursue a PhD which would allow me to teach teachers. He cautioned that PhD's in literature didn't guarantee employment. Since then, I haven't aspired to be a literary scholar and have concentrated more on the writing aspect of English. I wasn't aware of the Rhet/Comp branch of English Studies when I was looking into graduate programs (which just shows my lack of exposure to academia.)
A part of me wants to place Creative Writing above literary studies and composition studies because Creative Writing produces original work. Being part of the Creative Writing program at UTPA makes me biased of course. :)
Mayers gives some history as to how composition came to exist and what scholars think of Creative Writing. I am currently working on my thesis which consists of a collection of short stories and an introduction which in part explores this notion of whether a person can learn to be a good writer. I am of the belief that a person can learn to be a good writer, but I am still curious to learn what others who have years of experience writing, publishing and teaching writing have to say.
I like the idea of having literary studies, composition studies and creative writing all be considered equal. I am biased to one branch, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the importance of the other two; and the importance the other two areas have to my livelihood (I make my living by teaching reading and writing and not by selling my writing.)
I am curious to read where Mayers will take me. So far, he's told me what others have to say about English Studies. Now I want to know if there is a connection between composition studies and creative writing and how this connection can help me be a better writer and teacher.
Regardless of what happens in the rest of the book, I already feel like I learned something (several things actually.) Text includes more than print literature and the current structure of English Studies. I wonder if I can be a triple threat: Literary scholar, composition instructor, and creative writer. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesorry guys... blogger kept kicking back my posts... but i guess they were all going through
ReplyDeleteI'm really on the fence about the whole what exactly is writing aspect. Or more to the point, what kind of writing should be taught, how it should be taught, etc. So many arguments, so many perspectives, it just makes your head spin.
ReplyDeleteAs for the creative writing aspect, I agree that creative writing produces original work, but I wonder if the same argument can be made for any type of writing. A research paper can be considered original by someone, even if it contains ideas from other works. I guess it just depends on the perspective.
Fenza's claim is oddly enough, something I have heard over and over again throughout my whole life. Whenever I would write a story, people would often say they wish they were born with that ability to write. I have to apply it to teaching though, but I am wondering if it is because I do not fully understand his entire argument about who should be teaching writing and why.