Writing for interpretation
(From my other blog)
Once the questions of "can writing be taught" and "should it be taught" are overcome, the general framework for creative writing classes seems to grow from a response to two problems. The first problem is a question concerning models. What "models" of "good writing" do we use? What ideological motivations are behind those selections? The second problem is a problem of application: once we select a model, what do we do with it?
The current-traditional mode of creative writing has answered these two questions in the same way since its inception. On the first hand, what counts as a "model" has always meant some form of canonical literature. This, in whatever form, is almost always some piece of published literature. Usually, it is a "major" work or one that has won several awards. This method always ignores the rather pertinent question of "what exactly constitutes 'good' writing?" The answer is bound with the response to the second problem...
Current-traditional methods answer the "what do we do with it" question rather simply: we interpret it. This is a direct appropriation of literary studies methods. In particular, the methods of new criticism. The lingua franca of any class discussion over writing in a creative writing class is always the "close reading" in which students are asked to analyze through some quasi-scientific method of reading what is "going on" in a text. To further shove this into the "new criticism" mold, in most workshops the author cannot speak, just in case you thought that something might exist "outside of the text."
Interestingly, what counts as "good literature" in the literary canon are works that literary criticism can be done on. Consequently, the "good literature" we are asking students to read in a writing class are generally works that are "good literature" to do literary criticism on because they fit a specific mold. Ponder this: a student creates a piece of work that is so new and so original that no one knows what to say about it. In this scenario, the entire process would break down. The writing would have no 'academic value' to the class, and as such, would be considered worthless in the academic sense. But this is why the confusion of literary interpretation and literary production is so dangerous: this piece of work might be a great piece of art that is tossed in the trash bin because it doesn't look like literature ought.
This all points back to the disciplinary past of creative writing. The great secret of creative writing classes is that, despite the name, creative writing was, historically, never concieved of as a method to produce literature. Rather, the only thing creative writing was meant to do was to let students "understand literature" from the viewpoint of a writer. The methods that were used in the beginning owe more to their relationship to literary interpretation, since that was the original goal of creative writing.
In 1951, a class in "advanced composition" was offered here at the U. The description for it was: "Principles of composition in these [prose and verse] arts. Class meetings are devoted to analysis of examples drawn from standard sources" This class was to remain on the books until 1981, when the first "intro to creative writing" was offered. The description to the '81 class is just as telling: "A highly structured approach to creative writing for students with limited writing experience. Development of techniques through definite assignments."
Even though I haven't located the syllabi for these yet (still working on it!) through the descriptions we can start to paint a picture of just what was going through the minds of those teaching these classes. In the advanced comp class, the phrase "examples drawn from standard sources" is telling in that I think it is pretty safe to assume that "standard sources" are canonical examples of literature. What is different in '81 is that the first mention of "technique" is made, but it is still done through a "highly structured approach" and utilizes "definite assignments." In both classes, unstructured personal expression is the absolutely last thing they would be looking for.
As these two examples show, over the past 50 years the stated goal of creative writing became more related to the actual "writing" while the methods remained the same. In other words, due to an alarming lack of historical knowledge of the roots of creative writing, teachers of creative writing have been teaching something totally different than they thought they were. They have been teaching classes in a very narrow and specific method of reading, NOT a way to write.
It is my belief that teaching writing through teaching a method of interpretation leads to work that is written to be interpreted by these very same methods. This is a far cry from the "personal expression" we all claim to be producing. We don't write towards expression, we write towards interpretation by others. Very, very rarely do you see work that comes out of a poetry class that severely and powerfully questions the very notion of "poetry." Yet, how strange it is to think that even though the world changes at an astonishingly rapid pace, complete with new technologies and new ways of thinking, that the primary modes of "poetic expression" have largely remained unchanged. The only way this makes sense is to realize what a deep freeze we have put ourselves in by concerning ourselves with methods of literary interpretation instead of conceptualizing what it means to actually produce writing. (and if you doubt me, just think of how many times you have heard "you have to learn the rules before you can break them." what sort of ideology does this express? What rules are we learning? Who gets to decide the rules? And are we really teaching them to be broken? Or are we really teaching the rules as a way to define what the guidelines for interpretation are going to be?)
Sometimes I really wonder if these methods are the finger in the seawall holding back the tidal wave of change in literature. I can't believe how much the world has changed even in the past 5 years. Why we're still demanding the same things in our student's writing is, frankly, beyond me. I mean, I know the reasons we've done so in the past (undergraduate classes are for appreciation, graduate classes are for production), but I cannot find a good argument to perpetuate this system.