Let me see if I can nutshell the history: Creative writing as a university subject came into being at about the time of the decline of philology and the rise of criticism. Creative writing instruction before "creative writing" proper consisted of "how to" handbooks and courses in writing (mostly the short story and mostly by correspondence) that emphasized formulas for commercial success. Creative writing proper began in a middle school and spread in the K-12 public school system as a part of the progressive movement in education. This CW was characterized by a lack of concern about the quality of prose/poetry produced and, instead, a focus on the development of creative expression in students. CW at the university level began when Norman Foerster took over the School of Letters at the University of Iowa. He opposed the progressive/expressive model of creative writing and felt that creativity and criticism ought to be taught in conjunction for a more complete understanding of literature. Since then, creative writing has shifted its emphasis from teaching literature to creating professional writers. Then, they taught writing as a means to another end. Now, we teach it as a distinct, even isolated, branch of English studies. The "elephant machine" is in full swing.
Seems to me there are branches of progressive and critical still in practice. The progressives still have K-12, more or less, as is evidenced by the latest CTA magazine. (I'll have to dig that up) And I had an undergrad workshop that was more or less a progressive deal. Wandor and others complain of this "therapeutic" tendency in the contemporary workshop. And there are some who advocate for CW as an education in "reading."
Here are the quotes I pulled, which more or less flesh out the history outlined.
CW as distinct from lit studies and rhet/comp:
Creative writing...has been an effort to treat writing as an end in itself. As such it has acted with hostility toward two different conceptions of literature and writing, which for convenience might be labeled the scholarly and the socially practical. On one side are those for whom literature is primarily a genre of knowledge...On the other side are those for whom literature or writing is a social practices that either serves the dominant powers or the forces of opposition...The one side has been content merely to *understand* literature, the other merely to *use* it. (8)
Historically, creative writing has beckoned a third way...They [the writers who taught writing] wished to substitute an approach that was grounded (in the words of their allies) on a practical experience of writing. they sought to impart the *understanding* of literature through a *use* of it...Creative writing was originally conceived as a means of teaching literature from the inside, as familiar experience, rather than // from the outside, as exotic phenomenon. It was intended to be an elephant's view of zoology. (8-9)That's a nice reversal of the "elephants teach" deal. Basically accepting but also affirming the value of that premise. He uses the term "constructivist" to define CW.
Hughes Mearns is the dude who brought creative writing to education as a part of the progressive education movement. He wrote the books *Creative Youth* (1925) and *Creative Power* (1929), both of which might be worth looking up.
Mearns begins the whole expressive take on CW.
For Mearns:
Creativity was not exactly the same thing as productivity. It involved a shift from *product* to *process*. And in literary terms, this mean the poem carried little weight next to poem-producing. "[F]rankly, we do not care much about the product itself," Mearns said; "our interest goes out to the value in growth of personality that comes from genuine self-expression."...Mearns's view of poetry: it was continuous activity. The poem as something *made* or *said*, as something thta has finality, was foreign to him/ and thus to his conception of creative writing, too. Even the term *creative writing* implies something in progress, imperfect, not yet complete. (118)Mearns's approach is allied with what Myers calls "creativism" which had to answer to critics:
The message of 1920s creativism was that the conditions for cultural renewal were political and educational: first creative ability had to be democratized, then education had to find to set it free. Left unanswered, though, were two questions. To create anything at all (including a new culture) did it suffice merely to liberate creative talent? and even if it did—even if creative talent were just as democratically distributed as creativists said—did not a culture also depend upon undemocratic distinctions between greater and lesser creative achievements? Wasn't *criticism*—not helpful criticism, not communal criticism, but unsparingly evaluative criticism—also necessary?...By shifting attention from the aesthetic object to the aesthetic experiences, creativisim tried to sidestep this problem. (120)I like the idea of the democratization of creativity. That's huge. And the expressive approach strikes me as totally appropriate in K-12. Less appropriate at the college level.
[Mearns's Creative writing] was a course in personal development by means of self-expression for its own sake, not for the sake of demonstrating mastery of concepts in English language and literature...the business of making professional poets—something with which Hughes Mearns had never had the least interest—was left to take care of itself. (121)When CW comes to the university, it begins in Iowa under Norman Foerster, who brings criticism into the mix. Foerster wrote a manifesto for the study of letters: *The American Scholar*, in which he laid out his plan for the University of Iowa, which included an emphasis on creative work:
He was clear about his objective: "We must set about restoring the traditional alliance of scholarship and criticism, the divorce of which has worked injury to both and played havoc with education." The time was ripe for a restoration: "the age of philology and minute historical research," he declared, "is drawing to a close." An age of criticism was dawning. And creative writing (as one of his assistant's phrased it) would be criticism's natural ally. (125)Myers provides some helpful nuance on the new criticism:
Originally the name [new criticism] referred not to any special method of criticism but to the academic condition of the subject prior to 1941. The emphasis was not upon *new* but upon *criticism*. What was new was the argument that criticism was the best means for studying literature, not the kind of criticism itself. (129)
[The new critic's] conception of autonomy—to say nothing of their special method—had been badly misinterpreted. It was set forth in the Letter to the Teacher attached to *Understanding Poetry*: "thought one may consider a poem as an instance of historical and ethical documentation," Brooks and Warren said, "the poem in itself, if literature is to be studied as literature, remains finally the object of study." *If literature is to be studied as literature*: right there was the major premise of the new criticism. The blunder of most commentators has been to treat this as the minor premise, assuming the new critics set to work by stipulating that literature is virginally isolated from the social and historical context in which it is created.In other words, if you study a poem historically, you study it *as history*. If you study it biographically, you study it *as biography*. If you study it in terms of its effects, I suppose you study it *as psychology* or something to that effect. Etc. If you study the poem in terms of its poetry, you study it as such.
Literature was not so much *defined* in this way as *studied* in this way. The new criticism was first of all a pedagogy. (130)
The interrelated nature of creativity and criticism:
the new criticism was distinguished by its confidence in the identity of criticism and literary creation...[They] argued that criticism must be grounded upon a practical experience of writing. This was perhaps the central doctrine of the new constructivist approach to literature. (131)
To write a poem, on their understanding, was to decide critically among the many creative directions it might take; to read it was to reenact those decisions. And to write criticism, then, was to duplicate the poet's experience—in a different medium. (132)
Criticism and creative writing went hand in hand at the Iowa School of Letters. As Foerster explained in his inaugural address, literature would be studied there from both the creative and critical points of view. Approaching it creatively means "[w]e are to study it from the inside, we are to see it, so far as possible, with the eyes of the creative artist." The ultimate aim, as he had put it in *The American Scholar*, was "to assist in an inner comprehension of art." (133)A long quote here, Myers's paraphrase of what sounds like a valuable, unpublished essay by Foerster. Foerster argues for a middle ground on the "can it be taught?" issue, and he rails against the solipsism of "expression":
Foerster did not accept the essentialist dogma that writing could not be taught, though he also rejected the practical vocational alternative to it. In an unpublished lecture on "The Education of a Writer" delivered after he had left Iowa, he identified two popular fallacies: (1) "That a writer can be trained—that if he is promising, and take enough courses in various types of writing, he will be started on his career and thereafter advance by a natural process of growth"; and (2) "that formal education has *nothing* to offer the writer, that he develops from within as he grows in experience of actual life, especially life in the raw." Although seemingly antagonistic, the two ideas were really two sides of the same sentimental naturalism. They merely expressed an unwillingness to undertake the responsibility of educating writers. Foerster sought a mean between these two extremes: "I would have the writer go to college," he declared, "but I would not have him become what we call an 'academic.'"After Foerster, CW grows and spreads and stays "constructivist".
Writers plainly needed a college education, but what they plainly did *not* need was undisciplined practice in creative self-expression. "Expression is a type of solipsism," Foester scolded, "based on the view that the self can known and depict only its own states." And the literary counterpart to the philosophical fallacy of solipsism was this: "While representing a private perception or experience, [the self] communicates doubtfully at best, unless the artist in some way explains." This was why he looked to bind creative writing tightly to the activity of criticism...in order to come truly into possession of creative power, he was convinced, a writer must ally his or her "precious idiocracy" [Whitman's term] to a discipline of ideas—that is, to a critical power. (135)
[As it grew] creative writing remained a discipline of criticism, but the criticism was neither "know-how" nor an absorption in technical detail; perhaps even "vocationalism" is too hidebound. Creative writing was the knowledge of how literary texts are made, how they work; it was a discipline of constructive knowledge. (159)
No comments:
Post a Comment