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.
One of the most interesting things about this chapter is the fact that Mayers cites thinkers such as Heller in order to suggest that: much like the institutional-common sense model of creative writing suggests that since a creative writer is a person of idiosyncratic genius and thus can't be taught the creative part of their field, they can still be taught writing in some sense through "craft," reducing creative writing classes to craft is much like reducing composition to drilling in mechanics of language and grammar.
Heller is really the linchpin of his argument in this chapter, I believe. While Mayers once again tackles the "privilege of unknowing" that leads literature professors to continue on without incorporating creative writing and composition into English/writing studies - instead assimilating and then shunting them off as sub-disciplines - he also notes that what is required of an alliance between creative writing and composition is a reconfiguration of their theoretical foundations in order to work together.
Finally he is spelling out what he sees as the purpose of this 'alliance' between literature interpretation, composition studies, and creative writing. On Pg. 110 I finally saw his vision of it. "the goal must be to move English studies away from a structural model in which textual production tends to be valued primarily as a vehicle for textual interpretation and toward a structural model in which exactly the opposite is true" So textual interpretation should be a vehicle for textual production! Ah Ha! I am glad I persevered and found this little nugget of wisdom. I was starting to get disheartened... I could see all his arguments lining up and making sense individually, but I was failing to see the big picture.. I couldn't see where he was going, if he was even going anywhere other than ruminating on and around the subject of English studies. So there it is. We study texts in order to learn how to produce our own. I see it now.
I understood his argument that literary interpretation should not be valued above production in the other chapters, but I still didn't know what Mayers really wanted to accomplish. Someone mentioned earlier in the blog that we had already read some of his arguments from other people in the readings for class. Mayers doesn't think that literature based composition classes produce good writers and that cultural studies composition courses aren't enough either. He acknowledges that there has been some moments in English Studies history which may have allowed for the three branches to be more united, and he thinks another opportunity to work together may be coming in the future.
He proposes a Writing Studies approach where creative writing and composition work together. He can see the benefit of incorporating rhetoric into the creative process. He had several points which supported his overall argument of creative writing and composition working together, but of all of the points, I like two the most;
1) He explains the difference between mystery (the unknown quality of talent) and mystification which is "the act of shrouding a writing process in calculated uncertainty." Mystification says that even trying to explain the process hinders the process- which is basically bollocks (sorry guys... my Brit boyfriend is in town and I'm impressionable :p) 2) Mayers cites Patrick Bizarro who says that this mystification is not because professors don't want their students to write well (creatively), but rather, "they do not trust the language of pedagogy; the use of 'methods' or 'procedures' in helping students to write poems might seem to many practicing poets as contradictory at best and dishonest at worst."
This is kind of like the argument I made in an earlier post-- just because some professors can't teach, it doesn't mean it can't be taught. Furthermore, as a teacher, I'm starting to see the value of the teaching craft as well. It seems more and more that "those who can't do, teach" is really inaccurate because not everyone can be a good teacher. So, not all who can "do" can teach. Hmmm...
Again, I'm finding some guidance for my thesis intro. I'm really liking this demystification of creative writing, and I can see the value of creative writers learning composition-- especially if we will continue to run in academic circles (no pun intended :p) As we've pointed out before, the intros to our theses falls more under the composition side of English Studies as craft criticism, than creative writing.
One of the most interesting things about this chapter is the fact that Mayers cites thinkers such as Heller in order to suggest that: much like the institutional-common sense model of creative writing suggests that since a creative writer is a person of idiosyncratic genius and thus can't be taught the creative part of their field, they can still be taught writing in some sense through "craft," reducing creative writing classes to craft is much like reducing composition to drilling in mechanics of language and grammar.
ReplyDeleteHeller is really the linchpin of his argument in this chapter, I believe. While Mayers once again tackles the "privilege of unknowing" that leads literature professors to continue on without incorporating creative writing and composition into English/writing studies - instead assimilating and then shunting them off as sub-disciplines - he also notes that what is required of an alliance between creative writing and composition is a reconfiguration of their theoretical foundations in order to work together.
Finally he is spelling out what he sees as the purpose of this 'alliance' between literature interpretation, composition studies, and creative writing. On Pg. 110 I finally saw his vision of it. "the goal must be to move English studies away from a structural model in which textual production tends to be valued primarily as a vehicle for textual interpretation and toward a structural model in which exactly the opposite is true" So textual interpretation should be a vehicle for textual production! Ah Ha! I am glad I persevered and found this little nugget of wisdom. I was starting to get disheartened... I could see all his arguments lining up and making sense individually, but I was failing to see the big picture.. I couldn't see where he was going, if he was even going anywhere other than ruminating on and around the subject of English studies.
ReplyDeleteSo there it is. We study texts in order to learn how to produce our own. I see it now.
I understood his argument that literary interpretation should not be valued above production in the other chapters, but I still didn't know what Mayers really wanted to accomplish. Someone mentioned earlier in the blog that we had already read some of his arguments from other people in the readings for class. Mayers doesn't think that literature based composition classes produce good writers and that cultural studies composition courses aren't enough either. He acknowledges that there has been some moments in English Studies history which may have allowed for the three branches to be more united, and he thinks another opportunity to work together may be coming in the future.
ReplyDeleteHe proposes a Writing Studies approach where creative writing and composition work together. He can see the benefit of incorporating rhetoric into the creative process. He had several points which supported his overall argument of creative writing and composition working together, but of all of the points, I like two the most;
1) He explains the difference between mystery (the unknown quality of talent) and mystification which is "the act of shrouding a writing process in calculated uncertainty." Mystification says that even trying to explain the process hinders the process- which is basically bollocks (sorry guys... my Brit boyfriend is in town and I'm impressionable :p)
2) Mayers cites Patrick Bizarro who says that this mystification is not because professors don't want their students to write well (creatively), but rather, "they do not trust the language of pedagogy; the use of 'methods' or 'procedures' in helping students to write poems might seem to many practicing poets as contradictory at best and dishonest at worst."
This is kind of like the argument I made in an earlier post-- just because some professors can't teach, it doesn't mean it can't be taught. Furthermore, as a teacher, I'm starting to see the value of the teaching craft as well. It seems more and more that "those who can't do, teach" is really inaccurate because not everyone can be a good teacher. So, not all who can "do" can teach. Hmmm...
Again, I'm finding some guidance for my thesis intro. I'm really liking this demystification of creative writing, and I can see the value of creative writers learning composition-- especially if we will continue to run in academic circles (no pun intended :p) As we've pointed out before, the intros to our theses falls more under the composition side of English Studies as craft criticism, than creative writing.