Dawson: Intro

Dawson states his orientation as follows:

Creative Writing functions as a discursive site for continuing debate over some of the foundational questions of literary studies: what is literature, what is the nature of the creative process, and what is the nature between the creative and the critical? It is possible, then, to see the pedagogical strategies which underpin writing workshops themselves as responses to these foundational questions. As a result I intend to approach Creative Writing not as a practice (creativity), or as a synonym for literature, but as a discipline: a body of knowledge and a set of techniques for imparting knowledge. (2)

I like his list of questions, as they are the ones I'm interested in, too. He nicely frames the relationship between pedagogy and theory in a way that allows him to read classroom practice as enactments of and/or responses to theory. I'm not sure what to make of the idea of CW as a "body of knowledge." Makes sense in terms of its location in academia, but maybe too limiting...

Dawson says he aims to place CW within a "history of crisis" in English studies:

Creative Writing first developed disciplinary identity in American universities alongside the New Criticism, in mutual opposition to scholarship in English Studies. Writing programmes expanded at the same time as the rise of Theory but became entrenched in opposition to it as a means of retaining this disciplinary identity. This is because Theory called into question the privileged category of literature, the raison d'etre of Creative Writing. (6)

I think there are a few lines worth investigating here, and I wonder how much theoretical work Dawson will be able to do over the course of his book. First, New Criticism is often adopted by folks in CW as the foundation of the workshop and its method of critiquing student work, but this stance is apparently adopted in spite of the "fallacies" of New Criticism, the "Affective" and "Intentional" fallacies actually work against the project of CW, at least as I see it. CW teaches writers to write intentionally and in order to affect readers, right? So if the discipline is to adopt New Critical methods, it must do so carefully, justifying what it is appropriating and its choices about what to leave behind.
Second, there's a boatload of work to do in defending CW against or within Theory. Dawson puts his finger right on the sore here: CW has, by and large, not adapted to the age of Theory. Even calling ours a "post-Theory" age is not sufficient grounds for dismissing the theoretical work of the last several decades, as Dawson explains that "post-Theory" simply means we've entered a phase of incorporating the challenges of Theory into our teaching practices. I'd like to see what I can do to address CW in terms of Theory, and I'll be interested to see how much ground Dawson gains on this issue.

Three questions Dawson wants to ask (very helpful):

(1) instead of asking whether writers need formal training or whether teaching the craft is helpful for writers, and instead of producing more handbooks on the craft of writing, we must ask what are the theoretical underpinnings of the practical writing workshop, what are the assumptions about literature which allow writing instruction to take place; (2) instead of questioning the academic rigour of the writing workshop, we must ask what constitutes knowledge in Creative Writing, and how does work produced by teachers and students in Creative Writing (i.e. their 'research') contributed to knowledge in Literary Studies—and this also means asking what is the function of literature in modern Literary Studies; (3) instead of bemoaning a split between writers and critics we must ask what position of literary authority can a writer assume in the academy, not as an artistic practitioner, but as an intellectual? (6)

'Nuff said. I'll save comment for his answers to these.

The remainder of the intro is taken up by three sections: "Can writing be taught?" "Should writing be taught?" and "The garret and the ivory tower."

The first two questions are common enough in the discourse about CW pedagogy, although I find them rather dull and purposeless. CW is taught, and taught widely, a fact which seems to me to make these questions moot. We should wash our hands of these questions and move on to how to teach CW. Except for one thing. CW is often taught as if it cannot be taught, and so the question of "if" is unfortunately enmeshed with the question of "how." Dawson comments thusly:

The irony of the debate over whether writing can be taught, which was triggered by the rise of Creative Writing, is that most writing courses themselves tend to operate with the notion of innate talent, claiming only that talent can be nurtured in a sympathetic environment: a community of writers where the practical skills of literary craft can be taught, and where students become better readers of literature and better critics of their own work. In fact, it is common for classes in Creative Writing to regulate enrollment numbers by requiring the submission of a folio which displays creative potential. (11)

WTF, right? This seems especially odd to me in light of the fact that Composition Theory has progressed swimmingly past these questions and has established itself within academia to such an extent that you will not find in the pages of CCC or College English anyone wondering about—or even dreaming they should bother defending the discipline against—the question of whether writing can be taught. CW suffers under a burden of excessive, specious privilege. Fiction and poetry must be placed in a special class, apart from the essay, if their instruction is to require its own justification. I say, if writing can be taught, writing can be taught; what do genres matter? But this excessive, specious privilege has a long history, is tied to notions of genius that have held claim on us for thousands of years. So bucking the trend may take some work. I'm personally disposed just to ignore the questions and move on. I think this movement might actually prove to be the better answer. Anyway...

The final section is taken up with the metaphors of the garret and the tower and their relationship to one another. Not much here that catches my interest, so I'll not comment any further.



Leads:

He cites Donald Morton and Mas'ud Zavarzadeh (1988) as a source that critiques CW workshops as failing to respond to the challenge of Theory.