Crits are super weird fucked up shit, and that's the good ones.
Seven Days in the Art World has quite a funny description of a crit at CalArts, it's worth looking up.
And Then We Came To The End was amazing -- one of my favorite novels of recent years. The Unnamed, not so much. For what it's worth, it appears he did take her criticism about the woman about to have a mastectomy to heart.
I mean, she meant to attack him re his description of the breast cancer patient, and she emerged from that interaction victorious -- and the result was that the novel, in the end, was better for it. Crits may be vicious (I remember listening, horrified, as several friends talked about how they tried to make their classmates -- their friends -- cry during crits) and I doubt I could survive that kind of treatment, but they have a purpose, I guess.
This place has the most amazing ratio of attention:word count.
Heebie, check the Austin meet-up thread, por favor.
Also everybody goes on about making classmates cry but nobody really does cry, I don't think. It's one of those mythical friend-of-a-friend things.
(Maybe graduate programs are crueller.)
There are interesting theories about crits and power structures.
Weird ritualistic stuff. Also, very hard to talk about coherently.
(Also of course crits are personalised! That's a large part of the game. Presumably her undergrad had no crits? (Ah but of course it won't have.) I find it weird to be floored by your first crit in grad school. Surely hopeful by then you've got some training in handling that situation?)
No point to crits where people just get attacked.
The author does sound like she was naive. An acquaintance (who sounds more like Joshua than Abby in the story) has published two books of poetry and a memoir, so is an accomplished writer. She chose her MFA program (not one of the big names) because during the application process, the director recognized and praised a poem that she had published as an undergrad. She basically tried to set up her MFA experience to be a success, and she worked hard both writing and networking. She ended up liking it.
I've never liked the concept of "getting your [MFA / PhD / MPH]". If I say "I'm going back to school, for my master's", it sounds as if there is a master's out there just for me, and if I don't get it I'm missing out. Whereas actually there are an infinite number of the things.
One thing is that all programs in the fine arts are soul crushingly horrible, and by the end you want to kill your lecturers, poison your classmates, and probably move to a hut in the forest and never talk to a human again.
People who do well in MFAs use them quite strategically.
Yeah -- she acknowledges how naive she used to be, but at the same time she still seems to blame her MFA program for the fact that no one there cared about her happiness. That's just not what graduate school is for.
Ooh, how relevant! I had a momentary crisis last week. I was questioning how long I expected to last in my current pretty-interesting programming/research job, and on a spur of the moment started looking at all available MFA programs in the US. Thanks for killing my dreams, heebie!
Also everybody goes on about making classmates cry but nobody really does cry, I don't think. It's one of those mythical friend-of-a-friend things.
Not at Irvine, it isn't. The bathrooms on the fourth floor of HIB are soaked in the tears of a thousand criticized MFAs.
Doesn't everybody cry in Irvine regardless of graduate program?
Does this form of criticism make better writers or is this simply institutionalized gratuitous cruelty?
What Megan said. How can anyone think that making someone cry is going to help them become a better writer?
How can anyone think that making someone cry is going to help them become a better writer?
How many happy writers do you know?
Doesn't everybody cry in Irvine regardless of graduate program?
You have to declare your tears at the city limit.
How can anyone think that making someone cry is going to help them become a better writer?
I'm not going to link to what I've written about the institutional culture at Irvine, but it's easy to find. I really wasn't being as glib as I sounded in my first comment, because Irvine's commitment to criticism for its own sake is really unique. The current departmental quip is that "You can't make a Chabon without a few broken souls," which pretty much says it all.
How many people who cry do you know?
21 to 19.
An enormous amount of hazing goes on in all sorts of graduate education. There's no reason why programs can't accomplish their aims while also being decent and kind to the people in them.
"My parents advisor did the same thing to me, and I turned out all right."
I'm pretty sure Pitt was the key to Chabon's development.
An enormous amount of hazing goes on in all sorts of graduate education.
Not usually competitive hazing by your peers, though.
True, that does seem particularly bad.
Crits have the purpose of getting writers to look at their work objectively, and yes, even brutally. If one is ever moved to seek out any sort of institutionalized feedback on one's writing -- and someone who plans to publish it in anything but the self-publishing sense will be seeking out exactly that -- crits are a good gauge of just what you're letting yourself in for, and provide good prodding to be more prepared and more thoughtful about writing. (In the academic setting, they tend to be geared to the aesthetic and theoretical register of whoever's running the course, but the basic principle is that any decent creative writing criticism probably should shake you up.)
Some people don't have the constitution or level of interest in writing to undergo this. I do believe that some of those people must wind up crying. Unless there's actual gratuitous cruelty going on (maybe there is at Irvine, I don't know, but it strikes me as rare), there is probably nothing much that can be done about this. The more usual problem is that people come into these settings with incredibly precious notions about their writing that their parents, friends and high-school teachers never had occasion to challenge. If they want to hang on to those notions, they should probably avoid systematic critique.
(Having read the whole article now, it looks as though the writer has admitted to have been just one of those people... but only sort of. She hasn't really admitted it to the point of being ready to question whether her attitude to and perception of the workshop she was in might be unfairly skewed. She might need to do that; it could be that the workshop was really as horrible and evil and unfair as she describes it, but I sure wouldn't be willing to take her word for that.)
I just assume everything is horrible and don't trust many people when they say it isn't.
Il ne pleut jamais en Californie du Sud
I don't always cry, but when I do, it's in Southern California.
I know about crits only in the fine arts realm, and that only at second hand, from an ex who did an MFA in visual arts. Sample size of 1 says: he needed to hear, plainly, that in this piece he was being transparently derivative, while in that piece he was clearly working in the tradition of so-and-so, though with a twist that was interesting, but he didn't have the chops (yet) to pull it off. And so on. Harsh but fair enough.
Interesting. I have a poet friend who went to the MFA program at Irvine and lasted (I think) six weeks.
This would have been pre-Wolfe, I think, but it sounds like it was already a toxic environment. He was always a rigorous reviser anyway.
My own MFA experience was quite different and a lot of fun, but not particularly rigorous. Mainly just two years of time and space to work. It was cheap then. I would never do it now.
Castock is right, surely, in 28.1 that writing and visual arts are particularly subject to secondary literature and analysis, which is to say that the critics [not necessarily nay-sayers] have almost as much to do with what you're doing as you do. No?
I guess that's true for the performing arts as well.
17, 18 sure crying = no use, but on the other hand there's something good about an environment where you are at continual risk of shame and humiliation if you fuck up if you want to train yourself to never fuck up.
36: What do you mean by "subject to"?
Clement Greenberg was the apotheosis of the prescriptive critic. The next generation of critics went around saying things like "Art is interesting insofar as it generates discourse" ("by me" was, i think, the unspoken sequel) but nobody in the art world gives a shit about critics these days.
I suppose it's the resort to actual humiliation that's at issue. A slap upside the head seems good enough, and is not quite that.
38.1: I mean the critics [not necessarily nay-sayers] have almost as much to do with what you're doing as you do.
That's only for those who aspire to the higher realms, perhaps. I'd be more comfortable outside of those, myself.
I'd edited out of 36 a second paragraph having to do with the extent to which artist's statements tend to try to explain to everyone what the artist is doing, and why s/he is doing it in this way. Visual arts in particular seem to like translators.
nobody in the art world gives a shit about critics these days
Whoa.
That's only for those who aspire to the higher realms, perhaps. I'd be more comfortable outside of those, myself.
Yeah, me too. But there are higher realms and higher realms. There's the academy, and there's the international gallery/art fair higher realm.
26
Not usually competitive hazing by your peers, though.
Yeah, why exactly are your fellow students qualified to evaluate your work?
Being cut on by a surgeon is one thing, by your fellow med students quite another.
42 was me.
God I hate artist statements. If I can't figure out what you meant by your work, this paragraph of gobbledygook is not going to help.
there's something good about an environment where you are at continual risk of shame and humiliation if you fuck up if you want to train yourself to never fuck up write anything, paralyzed by fear.
FTFY. Seriously, though, people have different personalities; for some, that kind of thing is about as character-building as the worst frat-house hazing.
44.2: Right, but there they are, still. They're required. An artist trying to show his/her work in any kind of juried or similar situation has to present one.
I don't know what you mean, mcmc, by "nobody in the art world gives a shit about critics these days". I tend to think the felt need for an artist's statement is part and parcel of the centrality of critics (i.e. secondary literature or commentary on the art).
Wouldn't it be fucking weird if writers had to produce a "writer's statement"?
46.1: Tell me about it. I'm in the throes of writing one now. Theory can blow me.
46.2: Here's a little essay which takes the opposing position (I mean opposing the "nobody gives a shit" position). I tend to think that curators now have the role critics once did. Speaking as an outsider, I think the art world is an intellectual shambles.
46.3: Yes!
45 yeah i don't really recommend it as a thing, to be honest. Though if you are in the MFA program at UCI you are presumably thinking you can play in the big leagues, & you may feel you can handle the pressure. I dunno.
you are presumably thinking you can play in the big leagues, & you may feel you can handle the pressure. I dunno.
Why should you be able to handle this kind of environment in order to produce big league work? It's more important to be able to stand being by yourself. You have to learn to stand up to criticism, but you can do that in private, when the rejection letters arrive.
You have to declare your tears at the city limit.
As the signs say: "Irvine welcomes you; have a hanky".
there's something good about an environment where you are at continual risk of shame and humiliation if you fuck up if you want to train yourself to never fuck up.
I find this bizarre.
||
Am I wrong that "under false pretenses" deserves a * by it? I am reading my friend's novel and she has used the phrase twice. I always considered it a not entirely sensical misapprehension, like "for all intensive purposes." I mean pretenses are already false. But if two uses got thumbs up from her editor, maybe I am deeply convicted but wrong?
Oh, the book is fun. I mean it's YA fantasy so 100% not my thing, but it's a good story and she's funny, my friend.
|>
I've heard those kinds of justifications for poor behavior in philosophy. All rigor requires assholishness. It's mostly bullshit.
"Under false pretenses" seems totally fine to me. With what would you replace it?
On reflection, I have to say that it might be helpful from some perspectives if some writers presented a writer's statement to go along with, like: okay, the kind of stuff I write (submission included herewith) is this sort: blah blah explication.
For example: it's basically political snark, awright? Or: it's what you might call pastoral poetry. Or: I totes write reflective memoir with local color, contemplative yet elegant, shades of Annie Dillard or May Sarton.
I don't see what's wrong with "false pretenses" either.
57: That's what dust jackets are for. And nobody expects the writer to come up with that bullshit himself.
25: I'm pretty sure Pitt was the key to Chabon's development.
I will again (and fairly relevant to this thread) recommend Chuck Kinder's Honeymooners: A Cautionary Tale, a roman à clef about him and Raymond Carver way back in the day. Kinder was the novelist/academic model (Grady Tripp) in Wonder Boys and Honeymooners was reputedly the monster novel in progress (as published it is actually not exceptionally long). He is currently the Director of the Writing Program at Pitt.
I have always assumed it was a mishearing of "under false pretexts."
"False pretenses" is redundant.
But I'm googling this and apparently am just wrong. Ok.
51 -- I don't buy it, because apart from anything else it's just an excuse for unpleasantness, but that's the argument, as I understand it.
62: And "under false pretexts" would suffer similarly from redundancy.
59: Huh. It's true that I've read ... I don't know what they're called, but ... statements from gallery owners or curators about an artist's work that clearly weren't written by the artist.
Art is difficult on this front, and some of it can make me querulous, because there are times at which I do want a written word or two to tell me what this otherwise seemingly idiotic thing is supposed to be or do or say. (I'm getting tired: I'm just thinking of the single coiled garden hose lying on the floor, coiled in the spiral shape a hose lends itself to. Um, what? or the display of open, used pizza boxes with traces of stuck-on cheese on them, with cigarette butts stubbed out on them. These were mounted on a wall. Or, not to carry on, but the artist who'd waxed her legs and mounted the ripped-off wax (or maybe it was strips of transparent tape), with her leg hair stuck onto it, under glass, and hung them on the wall. Well, fine, I can make of it what I will, but the artist can tell me something about it if s/he wants to. Or not. Bleh.)
Actually, nevermind. I don't need an artist's statement about those pieces.
38.1: To the extent that I know jack about the visual art world as opposed to the literary world (and it's a very limited jack indeed) I don't think Critics in the capital-C sense of the word have ever really held quite the same level of importance in the former. There are certainly people whose function is to talk some good bullshit about the latest exhibition, but collectors and exhibitors have always seemed to be way more important and to have far more clout. It's different for writers: the bulk of literature doesn't have collectors and exhibitors in the same sense.
But actually I wasn't really talking about capital-C Criticis -- although it's surely useful, if one is going to talk about writing, to learn something about what other people who talk about writing have to say, and most decent workshop courses involve a lot of reading in that regard. What I meant is that workshops function, or are meant to function, to teach the students how to analyze writing (their own and others') critically: to be able to explain why they react to a certain work, to a clarify what they're looking for from the text and force the writer to clarify what they're looking to do and take a good look at whether or not they're achieving it. The teacher's job is supposed to be to facilitate that process and make sure that all the people involved are learning from it.
67: I don't need an artist's statement about those pieces.
Artist's statements really are often the worst thing ever.
Has anyone linked to Hennessey Youngman's MFA on DVD yet? Fucking amazing.
Ritualized humiliation doesn't seem like a great teaching tool anywhere or in any field. This conflicts with my sense that whining about how tough your MFA program is seems like the ultimate kind of lame ass bitching that should produce a boo hoo hoo response.
68: There are certainly people whose function is to talk some good bullshit about the latest exhibition, but collectors and exhibitors have always seemed to be way more important and to have far more clout.
I know what you're getting at here, but I can't help but think about all the reviews I've read, and the extent to which they shaped my own internal narrative about what was going on with X or Y artist, or at times more relevantly, movement. The critic puts a given artist in perspective, often historical perspective. That seems to me to be crucial; critics give their imprimatur to nascent movements, or at least trends, as well.
I'm not seeing how collectors are going to collect without some semblance of that.
Mostly because MFA programs seem to be about 20% making connections, 20% hazing, 10% skill building, and 50% setting money on fire.
and 50% setting money on fire and filming it.
Performance art of a very subtle kind.
70: The best. I wonder what the essential readings are.
I once listened to a guest curator explain the exhibits he had collected. I wanted to stab him, but at least partially this was because I was told it was an "opening" and there would be drinks. And there were drinks, but not until this guy had a full hour to explain whatever.
Halford, you're generalizing from particulars, I think.
If he had nonparticulars, he wouldn't need to generalize.
75: I haven't bought it yet, but I've intended to.
71: The conflict evaporates when you realize that many complaints about "humiliation," ritualized or otherwise, are overblown or fictive. They really do often come from the kind of person Aimee in the article admits herself to have been: essentially, over-privileged dicks who expected to sail through their MFA without ever encountering a challenge to their views or a critical word about their work. (Not all are as awful as the former self she describes sounds, actually. You have to be something more than just naive to sign up for a grad-level course with a marquee writer like Wolff and be crushed when he doesn't automatically plaster your every effort with gold stars.)
72: Well, again keeping in mind that my knowledge is limited here, I'm of the impression that collectors and exhibitors tend to work via their own grapevines and more often through word-of-mouth. The written reviews seem to me largely to put a public stamp of approval on whatever emerges from that process. I'm way oversimplifying about this, I'm sure.
I only did a BA in creative writing, and that was enough for me. I became a monster, and so did everyone else I knew who was really good. We ate each other alive. I remember one course in which my best friend and I never sat on the same side of the room because we realized our attacks were far more effective when they came from both sides.
That said, he went on to a professional writing career in a program in which you aren't allowed to do that. It's one of the few MFAs in the US in which positive feedback is encouraged. At first, he felt held back by it, but eventually, he came to realize that positive criticism can be extremely helpful.
As a writing prof, even a non-creative one, I find that of course it's incredibly upsetting to get feedback on your work as a writer. It's you, somehow. I get office tears in a way that would not make sense for a math prof, even when dealing with very technical problems. Everyone who writes cries about it. Everyone who is good at it, anyway.
The written reviews seem to me largely to put a public stamp of approval on whatever emerges from that process.
Something like this. Even negative attention from a critic serves to validate the artist's importance, since his dealer and other defenders can appeal to the myth of the misunderstood artist. And then monetary values are set at auction.
81.last: Dan Brown's hanky has only nose-drippings.
80: Everyone who writes cries about it. Everyone who is good at it, anyway.
So, anecdotally/famously the incidence of alcoholism among writers* is pretty damn high. I wonder if it is true or not, or whether anyone has tried to actually gather statistics.
*Maybe all creative sorts, I don't know.
81: As a writing prof, even a non-creative one, I find that of course it's incredibly upsetting to get feedback on your work as a writer. It's you, somehow.
It's incredibly upsetting to get feedback on any creative endeavour one engages in, until you train yourself to do it. It's true of music, dance, painting, pretty much anything. Overcoming that reaction is part of preparing to actually work in a creative field.
Not that toxicity doesn't happen in some cases, of course. Your instructors failed horribly if you were actually positioning yourselves in the classroom to increase the effectiveness of "attacks," that's bizarre.
83: He's crying on the inside, Moby. Not that you'd care.
Everyone who writes cries about it. Everyone who is good at it, anyway.
I have to admit I find something appealing about the image of, say, John Irving slumped at his desk, sobbing uncontrollably. Probably not true... but a fine image.
I still can't believe I read that thing to the end. The only good that came out of it is Tom Hanks got a stupid haircut.
I get being emotionally invested in your creative work, even when you're a philosopher, but literal crying (at least if you're any good) seems like an overkill statement. Rather, what you have at hand with your writing is a problem: you want to do and say and accomplish this. How do you do that? Dammit, that attempt is not working! Rework that! Okay, reassess, that's better, moving on to next sentence or paragraph or chapter ...
It's an art for which skills must be built and deployed.
Off to bed!
88 to 86.
88 to 87 if you replace "Tom Hanks" with "Mary Beth Hurt" and "got a stupid haircut" with "bit off a guy's penis."
The ones that aren't crying are the ones that are
drinking.
The ones most influenced by Irving turn on their hazard lights before any oral sex in a car.
Presumably the really good ones are both drinking and crying. And occasionally losing bowel control.
I don't cry about my writing anymore, but I do cry about my teaching, which is the most creative thing I do. My writing is good, but I don't get bent out of shape about it anymore. My teaching is a soap opera of self-doubt and paranoia.
You know what's worse than getting an MFA? Falling in the mud and getting kicked... in the head... with an iron boot.
96: I am paranoid that I cook weird. When I have people over, I try too hard, etc.
Sorry, that was a dumb comparison... skip that.
Getting an MFA probably gets you more than getting a RTFA, but we should probably still award diplomas of some sort.
Just read the linked article, which didn't do much to combat the stereotype of the writer as overly self involved annoying person. I don't know why it pissed me off, actually; maybe the faux cutesy tone.
I have not read the article linked in the OP. I have a hard time believing that an MFA in writing never cried about a crit as a BA. BA crits are the fucking worst. Visiting writers with great reviews telling you everyone is wrong when they tell you you're a great writer because everyone knows you're a sadsack loser who desperately wants everyone to tell her she's funny? That should happen to you by the time you're 19 if you want to be a professional writer.
I have a hard time believing that 107 far too specific to be a good guide to much of anything about writing, BA creative writing programs, or MFAs in writing.
I'm pretty sure that the one very successful professional writer I know well was told at least 99% of the time in both undergrad and MFA (done 100% for connections, and cheap) that his/her writing was great and amazing and exciting, etc. For whatever that's worth.
I found five dollars but they were out of MFAs.
Maybe we'll never know what the essential writings are because...there aren't any? Because who gives a fuck about Michael Fried when you're scouring NYFA's job listings for an actual job? It's all fuckin internships, really.
It is quite possible that I thought I was better than I was. That's why I stopped doing it. But I know I was better than most of the people in my writing courses. It's different from the experience of being better than most of the people in my calculus classes. I'm not sure why. I cared more about math. But it wasn't as personal.
Speaking of writers, people who like reading should read this book, by a friend of mine. Because I still haven't read it, and I feel bad about that. But I hear it's good.
107: I have a hard time believing that an MFA in writing never cried about a crit as a BA. BA crits are the fucking worst.
I have a very easy time believing it, actually. Since not all BA programs are as ridiculous as it sounds like yours was, and not all people are emotionally similar.
I'm with Halford on the linked article. She sounds like she was exactly the kind of emotionally precious and entitled person who melts down when they encounter their first critique as a writer. But everyone is not that kind of person; it's just that that kind of person isn't well suited to workshopping.
The writer of the linked piece strikes me as an unreliable narrator, unable to grasp her own bad behavior and blaming her problems on everyone else.
That's most obvious in her description of her confrontation with "Josh." She fails to identify any malicious or inappropriate behavior on his part, beyond writing too well and being recognized for it. But she clearly feels that it's okay to fling abuse at him, and that he is culpable in some sense for the fact that she chose to abuse him. Meanwhile, he's just trying to make peace.
Then Josh made me hug him, and we sort of made up.
But from that moment on, our animosity towards one another was established, and it followed us around for the next two years.
Then she goes on to describe her animosity toward him, and her effort to avenge herself (for what, exactly?) by scoring points on him during a workshop. She never says anything to suggest that he bore her any animosity at all, or treated her badly in any way.
114: Yep. It's kind of like she's groping her way toward realizing that maybe she was actually the asshole in this situation -- which it sounds awfully like she was -- but hasn't quite gotten there yet.
There have been times when I've wanted good detailed criticism of my writing but I probably wouldn't handle it well. Unlikely to lead to crying, just a re-evaluation of what's important to me.
85.1 eh I have done things just as horrible, it's part of the game.
114 -- he is totally a complete wanker though, I know the kind of guy and they are fucking fuckwits to deal with, even if there's no objective reason for hatred.
Also he sets himself up to get ripped out when he makes that remark about feedback, it's the rough equivalent of walking into the Crossed Keys and singing the Famine Song.
110.last stop being so theatrical mcmc.
117: Is it? I took a lot of seminar courses in university at both undergrad and grad levels and was only ever in one where there were participants who clearly there purely to attack people or to listen to their own voices; it stands out in my memory because it was a noticeably different experience from a regular, reasonably constructive seminar. Even there, I don't remember the people in question deliberately placing themselves for stereo effect. That sounds pretty unusual to me.
But on the other side I've had someone's back in a crit like that and been fucking brutal on people being a dick. It's part of the game.
Or: the art world is political. Part of a good art program is learning how to handle that.
Most of the musicians I play with take criticism quite well. I wonder if it's just that we're always pressed for time.
"Okay, we've only got one more hour to practice before the 10pm sound ordinance kicks in, so let's figure this out. So you'll do the jud-jud part, and you'll do the tweedle-dee, and you'll rock out on the floor tom until the break? Word. 1-2-3-4!"
118.2: I don't know about that. pf is right that she's an unreliable narrator: how do we know that her excruciating, tortured perception of the "feedback session" isn't her projecting her reactions to feedback onto everybody else? How does she know that nobody else is sincere when they thank somebody for feedback? It's also interesting that in her story, everybody goes dead silent when she has her grand moment of confrontation with her nemesis-to-be. She seems still to present it as being that she's spoken the unspoken truth that everyone else was afraid to say... but it seems just as possible that her quiet, squirming classmates were just embarrassed. For her.
Josh does come off as having been oblivious to seething resentment -- whether just Aimee's or everybody's -- but that doesn't really mean that the seething resentment is his fault or his problem. He sounds like the kind of person who pisses people off by actually being there for the reasons that he's theoretically supposed to be there, and actually buying into what the course is supposed to be doing, and being successful at it as a result damn his eyes... and it hasn't occurred to him that others can't or won't do that.
Nah he's a cunt. He might be a righteous cunt, but he's a cunt.
Nobody's always sincere when they say thanks for the feedback in that kind of formalised crit. Sometimes people really are thankful, but generally it's an unpleasant experience and you hate the people who are having a go at the time. The reason you say thanks is because it's insincere in a way, it's to make you remember that really you do want this to happen.
Also he sets himself up to get ripped out when he makes that remark about feedback,
Huh. I don't see that at all. If you're not prepared to get feedback, then you really don't need to be doing anything for public consumption - and that includes making hamburgers or writing comments on blogs. (And I warn you, if you continue to disagree with me about this, you're really going to hurt my feelings.)
Oh he's right, it sucks not to get feedback, and the most offensive thing I ever saw in a crit was a complete refusal to engage even negatively. But to say `oh it sucks nobody ever gives me negative feedback'? Asking for it.
124: Nah he's a cunt. He might be a righteous cunt, but he's a cunt.
Well, everybody's a cunt in their own way, innit. We're all annoying sometime, clueless sometime, whatever. It's mainly a question of who's the bigger cunt in a given scenario; for me, the person who shows up in a grad course and resents other people for actually acting like it's a grad course usually wins that pennant.
Nobody's always sincere when they say thanks for the feedback in that kind of formalised crit.
Few people are never sincere either. And actually not everybody hates the people who are having a go at the time; it's just there are some people who think like this who imagine that everybody must. Basically the statement that nobody ever means that is almost certainly bullshit unless (spectacularly unlikely, I think) absolutely 100% of her class outside of Magic Josh also showed up not expecting a grad-level workshop to involve criticism.
126: Yeah, that's a clueless remark. Whether it's "asking for" what she describes unleashing is a whole other thing.
She seems pretty nice though, really. I mean, the worst things you can say in a crit are so wildly offensive & hurtful that compared to that what she says is pretty tame.
126: But that's not what he said.
He said this:
"Well, she needs the criticism," Josh said earnestly. "I'd love that kind of a workshop. I'd welcome that kind of feedback."
And this:
"She should welcome our opinions," he said, calmly, matter of factly. "I mean, of anyone, she needs the most help.
He's not praising the feedback for its negativity, he's praising it for its validity - something the author of the piece doesn't dispute. He's saying that if she wants to be a better writer, she's going to need to accept criticism. This seems obviously correct to me.
I thought Castock's 115 was the best description of the piece. You can see that she's really struggling to assimilate this part of her life, and you get the sense that she's making progress, but (as Castock says) she's not quite there yet.
129: If people are saying things in a crit that are actually wildly offensive & hurtful, there's a genuine problem. But this should only obtain if they're making personal remarks about the writer instead of the writing, which any decent instructor should be quashing immediately. Outside of that, she doesn't seem nice to me, or at least the past self she's describing doesn't. She sounds sort of horrible and spoilt and unnecessarily nasty. (At least as regards the whole writing seminar situation, I'm sure she was a perfectly lovely person otherwise.)
"She should welcome our opinions," he said, calmly, matter of factly. "I mean, of anyone, she needs the most help.
Woah holy fuck that's a bitchy thing to say. Maybe this is just differing norms, but if you start throwing that around you are asking to spend every crit from then on being torn apart. AWB?
I'd love that kind of a workshop. I'd welcome that kind of feedback.
Is (a) total lies and (b) smarmy as fuck, and asking for it.
131 --- this writing is lazy. This writing fails to engage with the moral problems of race in America and is fascist. This writing is laughably incompetent; I was unable to read the mother's death scene without laughing.
This writing is immensely disrespectful to x.
The thing about the crit is that it is possible to be entirely fair, honest, and useful and still be a huge cunt.
132.4: I mean, honestly. Not everyone is working an angle when they say something like this, you do know that, right? I get that not everyone is an arguer by nature, but we cannot pretend that in grad school of all places there are no arguers. That would be silly.
And for holy fuck that's a bitchy thing to say -- no, not necessarily. What's bitchy is when people roll their eyes or change the subject when That Person gets mentioned (and there's always That Person in any CW class, who keeps coming in with genuinely awful stuff and really does need help). Again, Josh sounds just clueless here, like he expects that stating the obvious, will improve the situation. Of course it doesn't, but not (I'm not convinced) because he's being the biggest prick in the room.
if you start throwing that around you are asking to spend every crit from then on being torn apart
It's likely this will only fly if you have an instructor that will let you get away with being bitchy for invalid reasons that have nothing to do with the actual writing. Doesn't sound to me like Wolff is that type (hence no doubt her absolute conviction that he was somehow playing favourites with Josh).
133: Well, of course in a half-decent workshop you're expected to back stuff like that up. If I had tried "this is fascist" or "this is immensely disrespectful to X" in my CW seminars -- we had one of those crotchety profs that sounds a lot like Geoff Wolff -- I would've been torn a new asshole by the instructor first and foremost.
If I had tried "this is fascist" or "this is immensely disrespectful to X" in my CW seminars without having a darned good reason for it that I could cogently explain...
But being bitchy for valid reasons is really easy, that's the problem.
I just don't think crits can be made safe from bitchiness any way other than by giving the critted person most of the control.
Remember, this person is at one of the best MFA programmes in America. There's no-one useless in the room. The instructor's an arsehole. It's wankery to say you'd enjoy getting fucked over by the instructor, and if you do, well of course its going to come back to you.
110.last stop being so theatrical mcmc.
Good morning. For the record I was quoting Hennessey Youngman on Michael Fried and who gives a fuck about him, for AWB's amusement. I suppose I should have indicated that somehow.
In Creative Writing Kindergarten (of which I am a proud graduate) they admonish the students, "Show, don't tell." The author shows her own poor behavior and tells us that everyone else behaved badly, too. That's what I'm reacting to.
Again, Josh sounds just clueless here, like he expects that stating the obvious, will improve the situation.
Being right about something obvious is not appropriately thought of primarily as a tool of one-upmanship, though it can be that. At least Abby, who prioritized status games over writing, took the right lesson: If you're want to cast someone as your opponent, and you want to humiliate him, you do it by being more right.
It's true that by his remarks, Josh was inviting valid criticism and deserved it when he got it. I'd bet he also had the sense to be ultimately grateful for it. The evidence of the story suggests that for him, it was the writing that mattered.
136
If I had tried "this is fascist" or "this is immensely disrespectful to X" in my CW seminars without having a darned good reason for it that I could cogently explain...
Does fascist even mean anything in a literary criticism context? Presumeably fascists can be good or bad writers just like anybody else.
It would certainly be interesting if somebody who was obviously a transcendentally brilliant poet like d'Annunzio and shared his views turned up at such an event. Or even Ezra Pound.
No one -- and I mean no one -- except for you, and maybe your mother, cares if you write.
Wrong. I care about the output of quite a few writers. I want to read their next book, so I am sad when they don't write, and happy when they do.
Have you ever heard Romney say anything that indicates, substantively, that he's any smarter or better informed than Sarah Palin? More articulate, yes, but when you listen to the content, is there any there there?
if you want to train yourself to never fuck up.
Wait, I'm not an artist, but this seems like a disaster for anyone who ever wants to try anything new. You will fuck up inevitably before you make something good that's original.
145, 146:
Yes, it seems more likely that it would train one to never try anything new.
I haven't ever done this sort of criticism of creative work, but I'm wondering if making survival of this sort of process necessary for critical success or recognition is going to have the effect of selecting writers for interpersonal stoicism/toughness more than how well they write.
I mean, it sounds useful, but also like the sort of process that a fair number of people would change their life plans to be able to avoid, or at least wouldn't handle well at all, and also as if handling it gracefully wouldn't have much to do with your merits as a writer. It seems possible, although I don't know, that you'd get an effect in these programs where people who are tough and impressive in the process of talking about their work develop a reputation as good writers disproportionate to what their work deserves, and the reverse happens to emotionally frailer or less successful oral communicators.
(Of course, that wouldn't matter unless MFA programs really do act as gatekeepers to literary publishing/critical success. I have the vague impression that they sort of do, but I don't really know one way or the other.)
I've long said that the second best job in the law is mooting (and critiquing) a colleague's appellate presentation. Best is preparing the client for cross-examination: making them cry means you're doing it right.
Yes, it seems more likely that it would train one to never try anything new.
Reminds me of my favorite Fran Lebowitz quote. "Original thought is like original sin: both happened before you were born to people you could not have possibly met."
I should have suggested that to urple.
Have you ever heard Romney say anything that indicates, substantively, that he's any smarter or better informed than Sarah Palin? More articulate, yes, but when you listen to the content, is there any there there?
Since we're here, he (or his team, which he put together) came up with Massachusetts' health-care plan. And imagine Sarah Palin in charge of Bain Capital--my guess is you'd have all the layoffs and none of the profit. So he's not as dumb as Sarah Palin for what's that worth. His speeches are content-free because nothing he might actually think would appeal to the Palin-loving tea party types. He's a Wall Street Republican who is indifferent to the social issues that concern tea partiers.
@149
N+1 had an interesting piece a few issues ago - "MFA vs. NYC" - that paints an interesting picture of the in many ways self contained world of the nation's network of MFA programs.
I suppose I mainly found it interesting because I had only a vague notion that such a world existed.
I love how seriously writers take writing.
It's sort of like how seriously plumbers take joining copper pipe.
In fact, I found it so interesting that I used the word "interesting" 3 times in one short comment.
153: I went to an event which included one of his former Health and Human services people who is helping states to set up exchanges, and she was pretty dumb. She kept trying to explain why it was different and why it was the right fit for Mass, since it was given that we'd never get rid of guaranteed issue and were already in an insurance death spiral. She did kind of admit that the stiff on his website was stupid. She just kept saying that Republicans don't like government. Her whole positive spin about Romney was that, unlike most politicians, he really was a numbers, data-driven kind of guy.
In my senior year of undergrad, the literature department and the creative writing department sent their best 6 or so students to a joint honors seminar. The creative writing people came into the seminar with this cringing conversational style, saying things like of course, this probably isn't important, but I just noticed... and generally behaving like beaten dogs. There was the occasional shiv between the ribs, mind you.
I was a brash, oblivious, smart thing, and ran generally rough-shod over them. It was sort of brutal.
(I have since learned to be more careful and humble, was my point. But also that I see how training in these sorts of setups could reinforce odd patterns.)
She did kind of admit that the stiff on his website was stupid.
But should still be elected.
If you're a plumber or a writer, you have to be willing to accept blunt criticism of the way you practice your craft. A writer's output is more personal than that of a plumber, and the standards by which a writer's work is judged are more subjective, so it's inevitable that criticism of a writer's work will necessarily be taken - and given - in a more personal fashion.
I'm not sure I would trust a plumber who views that craft as a vehicle for personal expression; I can't imagine being interested in a writer who didn't. And neither is going to become any damn good without subjecting their work to scrutiny.
I'm not sure I would trust a plumber who views that craft as a vehicle for personal expression
Obviously, you don't want somebody to get creative with materials, but the good ones are clearly looking for some kind of quality that includes an aesthetic component even when there is very clearly no reason for it. Joints are neat and the pipe is square before the drywall covers it up because that's what they do.
a vehicle for personal expression
Well, a conveyance would be more accurate.
163, 164: Jesus Christ! Can't someone just write without being subject to all this goddam criticism? One day, I'll get you fuckers for this.
165: You could try pitching an article to Salon about the cruelty of Unfogged.
However, I already tried this, and they turned me down.
Also, on the topic of artist statements -- I think I've written the best artist statement ever. Everybody smiles when they read it.
I hope you enjoy my drawing! Thank you!
137: It's wankery to say you'd enjoy getting fucked over by the instructor,
This is relevant only if you accept Abby's characterization of the crits. And her characterization is suspect, since by her own admission she was something of a wanker about encountering criticism.
That Wolff was gruff does not mean he was fucking anyone over, in much the same way as all people do not encounter criticism as something to be hated and feared. Your pattern of assumptions, while fascinating in its own right, does not tell us much about her situation or "crits" in general.
I just don't think crits can be made safe from bitchiness
Nothing can be made entirely safe from bitchiness, but lots of kinds of bitchiness can be restrained by an application of intellectual honesty. You apparently have encountered seminars where it would be okay to lightly accuse someone of "fascism." I feel for you, but that is not necessarily a standard situation, as in a well-run seminar someone would be shredded -- or firmly chastised -- for trying something like that.
Now, there are kinds of bitchiness that can slide under the radar, and that the Gruff Professor paradigm can promote. Some criticisms will hit sore spots without people even realizing it, the moreso if the primary priority of the setting is substantive criticism rather than kindness. But if one is too fragile to encounter this, one really should not be in a workshop, and it is not the same thing as reckless bullshitting or deliberate hurtfulness. And it really is hard to hide when "crits" are being driven by mere personal animosity and point-scoring, at least if you have a reasonably experienced prof in the room.
148.1: The writing profession selects for people with thick skins. There are plenty of people who might be naturally very talented writers who never become professional writers because of an inability to endure criticism. The workshopping process is just another example of that; someone who crumbles when facing it would be in even worse shape encountering the kind of editors one does when working freelance or publishing a book.
Replace that semicolon with a period and make that last sentence two separate ones. Thanks. Otherwise, it's great.
I can't speak for creative writing, but I've seen people crumble under really mild attack* in seminars. On one level you feel genuinely sorry for them, as it's obvious no-one's ever done this to them before and they are shocked. On the other hand, if (after the first couple of times) you can't defend yourself against that sort of attack, best to give up talking about your ideas in public.
I can see how some kind of process of critique might help a bit when it comes to dealing with editors and the like. However, I don't think MFA programs [or their UK equivalent] are anything like as big here, and there aren't many writers I can think of who've been through them. Ishiguro?
* by which I mean robust but fair, not the full philosophy-asshole monstering. I've seen some people unable to handle it even when the audience is really gently trying to lead them in the right direction.
'That's interesting, but perhaps you meant [much more plausible and less obviously idiotic version of their proposal]?'
Thanks for your feedback, Moby!
170.first and last: Yes, the dynamics are somewhat analogous, I think.
170.2: The UEA programme has the most distinguished alumni: Enright, Hanif, Azzopardi, McEwan, Ishiguro and others. I don't think CW has the same kind of profile in UK writing, and there's a controversy over whether it's overall a help or hindrance to writers. (Based mainly not on the criticism being too mean, but on the possibility that many people who go through it become so dependent on the structure of the workshop for their process that they have difficulty writing without it.)
If you're a plumber or a writer, you have to be willing to accept blunt criticism of the way you practice your craft.
Can you imagine Baudelaire or Rilke or Joyce in an MFA program, thanking their colleagues for the disinterested feedback? I can't.
Everything depends on who's doing the blunt criticism. If you have a basically sympathetic reader whom you trust, sure. The problem with MFA seminars is you're with people who are not necessarily trustworthy critics of your particular project. I suppose that's on you for picking the wrong program, or maybe any program.
Can you imagine Baudelaire or Rilke or Joyce in an MFA program, thanking their colleagues for the disinterested feedback?
Worst creative writing prompt ever.
This is relevant only if you accept Abby's characterization of the crits. And her characterization is suspect, since by her own admission she was something of a wanker about encountering criticism.
It may be suspect, but I assure you, it's not unfounded. I appreciate that y'all are being generous to people you don't know, but that really is how UCI's English department works. I don't want to pull a trump and say I was in those classes, but, um, I was. And no experience I've had outside of UCI has been remotely like what I experienced there, so I think generalizing might not be the best way to go.
The writing profession selects for people with thick skins. There are plenty of people who might be naturally very talented writers who never become professional writers because of an inability to endure criticism. The workshopping process is just another example of that; someone who crumbles when facing it would be in even worse shape encountering the kind of editors one does when working freelance or publishing a book.
The bold bit is what I'm doubtful about. Sitting in a roomful of your peers picking at your work, while I'm sure that it's a very valuable experience for people who tolerate it well, seems to me to be a completely different experience than having an editor edit or correct you: not a peer, not many on one, and usually not face to face. Some might tolerate one experience much better than the other -- thick skins aren't all the same.
The other thing, is that critiquing and being critiqued like that are a form of oral performance that, while obviously are going to be related to what you know about writing, are an independent skill. Someone who's interpersonally charismatic and quick is going to have a much easier experience of that sort of thing than someone who's slow off the mark and mumbly, and that seems as if it could distort outcomes as well.
Can you imagine Baudelaire or Rilke or Joyce in an MFA program, thanking their colleagues for the disinterested feedback?
Van Gogh actually was in that kind of situation a couple of times. I didn't get the impresion he was the best at accepting constructive criticism.
176: Interesting. You were in workshops with Wolff, then?
Seems to me that even the kind of editors one encounters working freelance or publishing a book get good results from authors lots of different ways, including positive critique and gentle correction.
As I get older, I'm coming around to the notion that all learning happens better with positive methods. Motivated people can overcome harsh training (people attribute their learning to the harsh methods, but the motivated part that enables them to withstand the methods was the real source), but they'd develop faster and last longer with supportive training methods.
You were in workshops with Wolff, then?
One, yes, and it was on par with every other seminar I took at UCI. I was also deliberately excluded from one seminar with him, on Joyce -- I was an Irish modernist at the time -- because he didn't want any of us Ph.D. candidates in his MFA class. He thought we gave the wrong kind of criticism. (Karen Lawrence stepped in and led a Ph.D. Joyce class, since the exclusion of all Ph.D. candidates from a course without informing them it was an MFA-only seminar wasn't exactly kosher.)
full philosophy-asshole monstering
Mouseover text?
181: One, yes, and it was on par with every other seminar I took at UCI.
Also interesting. And if you have time, do you think you could furnish one or two specific examples illustrating a dynamic that made his or other seminars at UCI a toxic environment? (One of the things that makes the article linked in the OP harder to assess is that she doesn't provide much in the way of such specifics.)
182: We'd need to remove the hyphen for fullest effect.
What's amusing is a UCI philosopher came and gave a talk to the mahkcO Society, when I (co-)ran it, and got pwned* -- I think everyone present was somewhat embarrassed by it. So I presume the lit/MFA department ran on different lines.
* somewhat in the full philosophy-asshole-monstering sense, tbh, but he _did_ show up with a shitty lazy paper. He was, on the other hand, a lovely bloke. And bent over backwards to help a friend out later.
And if you have time, do you think you could furnish one or two specific examples illustrating a dynamic that made his or other seminars at UCI a toxic environment?
You're making me feel old, because I assume most of you remember what my time as a grad student at UCI was like, and the oodles of support I received when confronted with, we'll call them, circumstances. But in case not, here's what I wrote about my qualifying exams, and you can extrapolate what you will from that.
(Oops, I meant "my wife's qualifying exams," which weren't different from mine in the least.)
186: Am I missing something, or is that a bit of a change of topic?
Well, either way, it's an entertaining change of topic. With my current employer, I took, and later administered, an employment test that was entirely impossible to do well. Because I am a geek, I came to refer to it as the Kobayashi Maru.
And to my surprise, once I was responsible for administering the test, I found that I got a lot of useful information about applicants from it. It was also embarrassing - but gratifying - to see people applying for entry-level jobs doing better on it than I did.
Shorter 183: Show, don't tell.
Am I missing something, or is that a bit of a change of topic?
It's the best I can do, given that I'm still currently employed by the department I'm slagging.
138 -- mcmc argh sorry that was a really bad joke about Fried not a dig at you! Sorry! Was not meant to be bitchy!
191: You hurt me, Keir. It was cruel, but good for me in the long run.
Once again, I am so grateful to live near a community called "Savage":
Pit bull not attacked after all, Savage cops say
Savage police believe the animal was hit by a car and not targeted because of its breed.
186: Actually, I'm not sure how to extrapolate from either your quals or your wife's to the quality of the dynamic in seminars (Wolff's or others') at UCI. I was sort of thinking that if they're uniquely awful, specific examples directly from the seminars should readily suggest themselves?
Sorry my Acephalous reading is a bit behind. I'm admittedly a little spotty after the salad days of reading about your accidental interruptions of boning sessions in your office, but I'll catch up! That's a promise from me to you.
195.2: I too have fallen gravely behind in following the transmutations at Acephalous since the salad days. Things have changed there quite a bit, which is to say that it's a surprise if you haven't been keeping up.
As I get older, I'm coming around to the notion that all learning happens better with positive methods.
David Thorpe agrees with you.
I was sort of thinking that if they're uniquely awful, specific examples directly from the seminars should readily suggest themselves?
They do, but belong to email and other less public ventures. Honestly, I was trying to give you a taste of the toxicity without having to venture into specifics.
Sorry my Acephalous reading is a bit behind.
I'm not required reading. You asked a question about the intellectual culture at a particular institution, and I responded that despite the fact that publicly bad-mouthing parent institutions is bad form, you could get a sense of Irvine's intellectual culture by reading through my archives ... which include not only posts by yours truly, but many a comment by other people in my department. I even suggested that some of the folks invoked in the original article might could've commented there. I'm sorry about this slight bit of circumspection on my part, but given that you're not commenting under your own name, I thought you'd be forgiving in this regard.
Things have changed there quite a bit, which is to say that it's a surprise if you haven't been keeping up.
No one wants to hear tell the sad plight of the wandering adjunct, I get that. I write about other things now because the alternative is generic self-pity of the uninteresting sort.
198.3: I was aiming for gentle joshing with my comment about Acephalous reading, not waspishness. I guess it didn't come across that way, sorry. My bad.
but given that you're not commenting under your own name
This passive-aggressive attempt to treat pseudonymity as somehow suspicious is not on, however.
And I'm not really buying the rest of what you say in this paragraph, either. You have already in this public venue and under your own name, or at least initials, slagged off the UCI English Department quite plentifully and in very strong language without apparent concern about "bad-mouthing." But suddenly, backing those vagaries up with an example or two would suddenly be "publicly bad-mouthing" them worse than you've already done? If anything, it seems to me that throwing out insinuations and leaving them unsubstantiated -- or gesturing vaguely at vague and not-clearly-connected examples from your archives -- would seem to me to leave a considerably worse impression.
But I mean hey, do what you feel.
Above comment sponsored by the Department of Redundancy Dept. I'm for bed.
This passive-aggressive attempt to treat pseudonymity as somehow suspicious is not on, however.
I wasn't aiming for suspicion, just understanding. That I write under my own name is my own damn fault, a mistake made years ago, but it is what it is, so I sometimes only feel comfortable pointing. Restatement is akin to sinning again, but pointing to past transgressions? That's innocent. (Plus, there's the bonus that reading archives is reading archives, which as an historicist who thinks such things are awesome, I think is awesome.)
Point being, if anyone ever wants to write an account of UCI's intellectual culture during the late '90s and '00s, he or she could do worse than consulting my comments section. I'm just not the person to write that -- still have to interact with these people on Facebook and all -- but it's there for the mining.
That I write under my own name is my own damn fault, a mistake made years ago, but it is what it is, so I sometimes only feel comfortable pointing.
SEK, I've wondered about this at times: why not adopt a pseudonym for yourself for commenting more comfortably and freely when you feel like doing so? Certainly it's not an unheard of practice.*
N.B. I am not saying that you should do that here in this thread, or that there's something wrong with your not having done so. (For all I know, you do have a pseud in use, of which I'm unaware.) I've just wondered why you wouldn't free yourself suitably in this way for any number of purposes.
* In this forum, of course, presidential anonymity is available, and many people have taken advantage of it, but it's not quite the same as a consistent pseud.
Thanks for linking to that, SEK--it's a brilliant description of what it feels like to prepare for exams. But now that you're several years past the exams and your dissertation's done, I wonder if you still view things the same way.
It seems to me, reading over the comments to the post, that preparing for exams is painful when people believe that a) the only way to read a book is intensively and b) the only way to make an argument is through close readings. But writing a dissertation requires--and teaching requires even more--the ability to survey a field efficiently and to generalize without being reductive. And it seems like that's what your exam structure was trying to get you to do?
I hope I'm not being annoying in raising this question, it's just that this is something I struggle with a lot in my own advising. I can see that many of my students experience the preparation in much the way you describe, and I don't know what I should say or do to make the process feel more productive while they're going through it (I think/ hope that they recognize it's value afterward). Do you have any suggestions?
Oh God, I hardly ever post, and when I do I make an apostrophe mistake? Its.
why not adopt a pseudonym for yourself for commenting more comfortably and freely when you feel like doing so?
Honestly, it's because I'm stupid. My computer remembers better than me, so when I try and run a pseudonym, I end up having it linked to my blog. Or I say something that only I'd say, a half-reference to something I've written that, even sans link, outs me. In other words, I've tried and failed, so I've given up. (Not entirely: I adopted my initials because a search for them lands you in a sea of links to the Swedish krona, but deflection only goes so far.)
when people believe that a) the only way to read a book is intensively and b) the only way to make an argument is through close readings
The thing is, "people" means "people seeking a doctorate in English Literature," so yes, we're trained (and expected to) read intensively and produce close readings. Which, fair enough, because by the time you're taking your qualifying exams, you've been immersed in this environment for three or four years. To do otherwise would invalidate your studies up to that point. But...
the ability to survey a field efficiently and to generalize without being reductive
Absolutely, this is the intent, it's just not the expectation. Is that unreasonable? Absolutely as well. As for any suggestions, I'd scrap the current exam structure and have students write three "state of the field" essays, of the sort you find in the yearly American Literature supplement, because that would circumvent the close-reading problem, as no one produces close readings in those essay, they merely recapitulate what they take to be the point of other people's. The problem with that, from an advising standpoint, would be that in order to grade such a work honestly, the committee would have to have read all those books and essays as well, and that's not likely to happen.
That's an interesting suggestion; I'll think more about it. But my first response is this: it presumes that the purpose of the exams is to prepare you to write the dissertation, which is not a crazy thing to presume since the exams are what come right before the dissertation, but the real purpose of the exams, I think, is to prepare you for teaching. And teaching, I'd argue (I'm in English lit, too), requires sensible generalization as much as close reading. It's great to have a set of subtle observations about focalization in *Sound and the Fury* and another about some amazing passage from *Invisible Man,* but those don't add up to a lecture course. For the lecture course, you need a coherent and robust story about US literature, and developing such a story is what preparing for exams should be about.
But I don't want to belabor this point: we're on the verge of arguing about what literary scholarship should do, and for that we should spare everyone here and meet up for a drink at MLA or something. I do have more questions about why you think that Irvine is so toxic (since, like Lord Castock, I'm not at all persuaded by that loathsome Mimms essay, and I'm not quite seeing what you're saying with your own example), but I don't want to press you to say more than you should publicly.
And thanks again for the link to your post: maybe I should show it to my students and tell them that if they ever start feeling like this, they should let me know.
205: My computer remembers better than me, so when I try and run a pseudonym, I end up having it linked to my blog
I don't understand this at all. But okay.
Or I say something that only I'd say, a half-reference to something I've written that, even sans link, outs me.
Babe, I'm just chuckling about this now. It sounds like you just don't know how to speak anonymously. You're a writer! Can't you pretend to be someone else? You can talk about yourself (your own postings) in the third person if you need to.
Well, it's fine as it is, as long as it doesn't get in your way.
it presumes that the purpose of the exams is to prepare you to write the dissertation
Which is what, in the student handbook, it says they're for. And yet they don't do that in the least: it's all about proving mastery of a particular theoretical niche and familiarity with a particular period, plus a demonstration that if you're given three lines from Poem X, you can one-up Cleanth Brooks. It's not ideal. But you're right about the cross-purposes of the exam-as-dissertation-preparation and the exam-as-teaching-preparation, because the skill sets required to write a dissertation and teach a survey course don't overlap in the least. I was lucky enough to be mentored by someone who valued Trilling and Rahv and so I was handed those "broad swathes" arguments that are so useful in lectures, but I don't think that's the norm ... and yes, I'll stop now, and suggest we continue this via email before we bore everyone else to painful, anonymous death.
I don't understand this at all. But okay.
It "Remember[s my] personal info" even, or especially, when I don't want it to. This is a personal failing.
It sounds like you just don't know how to speak anonymously. You're a writer! Can't you pretend to be someone else?
I can, but only poorly. I'm as deft as Philip Roth'd be trying to focalize a novel through a woman's perspective. Sometimes you just have to recognize and embrace your limitations.
207: Honestly, speaking anonymously in front of people who've known you for a while is really really hard. I'm not unusually good at this, but most people who are around here in a fair amount, if they show up presidentially and keep talking for any significant period of time, they're blatantly obvious. I think SEK is absolutely right about the security issues.
(I don't guess everybody presidential immediately, but well better than half on extended exchanges.)
I've occasionally thought about raising some stuff here presidentially, but anything I'd go presidential for, it's not nearly anonymous enough for me. If there were a different Unfogged with a similar enough community that I'd get the same sort of responses, but they didn't know me there, that's what I'd need.
(It's the time I killed that hobo. I'm still working through some issues around it.)
If it's the bumper, drive it into a cement pillar or something before you take it to the body shop.
but most people who are around here in a fair amount, if they show up presidentially and keep talking for any significant period of time, they're blatantly obvious
True a lot of the time. I still think it's an honorable challenge to speak presidentially, altering your voice as necessary. One wouldn't want to fall into a vocal rut.
Oh, it'd be a challenge. It's just not something I'd count on being successful about if there were anything riding on it -- which, for someone who's still employed at the place he'd be badmouthing, there is.
213: Right. I wasn't talking specifically about this thread though, as I mentioned in 202, but generally, about adopting a pseud for a variety of purposes.
If there were a different Unfogged with a similar enough community
Unfogged just needs an Ultimate Crisis, then we can have an Earth 2 and Nick, you're welcome, I'm now the biggest comic nerd here.
altering your voice as necessary
This is much more difficult than it seems. When you spend years cultivating your voice, knitting around the edges to perfect it, it's difficult to escape. It's an earned failing, I acknowledge that, but to whatever extent the pros outweigh the cons, it's not a bad thing to be unmistakeably you. I mean, Kotsko's piece that he didn't write? He wrote it, we knew he did, and it was a brilliant performance. But it's not like he escaped himself.
Also, I'm not being argumentative here. I'm just outlining my limitations in public, because why not?
When you spend years cultivating your voice, knitting around the edges to perfect it, learning to mix metaphors with abandon, it's difficult to escape
Your garden doesn't have a knitted border?
Right, right, SEK, I know, but still. You can manage to not talk like your cultivated voice, can't you? After all, is ogged blogging elsewhere under another voice and name? Maybe!
In any case, it's fine to own your name and voice if that's what works for you.
learning to mix metaphors with abandon
I'm going to plead technicality, because you can knit soil, but fair enough.
After all, is ogged blogging elsewhere under another voice and name?
I don't know, but if he is, he should email me back, damn it. That said, parsimon, I think you just have too high an opinion of my skillz. Some people are capable of writing in someone else's voice. I've got four registers I can write in, but they're all recognizably me, even if they have nothing to do with me as a person.
219: Okay, babe*. I'm not very good at it either. I just always admire those who try. And it needn't be someone else's voice, just not the construct you currently have. For some reason I'm finding value in noting that an online identity is indeed a construct.
* Sorry for this term if it's unduly close or comfortable. I use it to signal friendship.
I don't know why ogged should email you back if he has another online identity. That doesn't make any sense.
and Nick, you're welcome, I'm now the biggest comic nerd here.
Heh, I doubt I'm second. If I were a bigger comic nerd I wouldn't keep getting corrected when I comment about them at your place (though, I suppose, Gary Farber doesn't comment here much so somebody else will have to fill the spots at the top of the standings). I'm a serious nerd about some topics but I've always felt like merely a casual comics nerd.
Speaking of which, you never did post the follow-up promised here (I realize that it's unhelpful to mention dangling conversational threads. As somebody who goes through stretches of completely abandoning my own blog I have experience with the feeling of starting to think about something that would be interesting to blog about and then never having the energy to pull it together into something coherent. So I acknowledge the likelihood of prodding a sore spot and apologize, but I was always curious to for the follow-up to that post (and, also, to know if your students come up with any interesting songs related to Blankets))
For some reason I'm finding value in noting that an online identity is indeed a construct.
No disagreement there, it's just that, like LB said, I'm unintentionally inflexible at this point, such that when I even try to stretch, I pop recognizably.
That doesn't make any sense.
That joke's a decade old, and I'm probably the only one who gets it at this point. Except for that other fellow, who doesn't go by his own name anymore ...
If I were a bigger comic nerd I wouldn't keep getting corrected when I comment about them at your place (though, I suppose, Gary Farber doesn't comment here much so somebody else will have to fill the spots at the top of the standings). I'm a serious nerd about some topics but I've always felt like merely a casual comics nerd.
We are not the Farber, that goes without saying. I envy him his knowledge, but not the tribulations he went through to acquire it. (He and I compete in this regard, friendly like.)
So I acknowledge the likelihood of prodding a sore spot and apologize, but I was always curious to for the follow-up to that post
It's another half-composed aborted post, that follow-up is. Like most bloggers, dissatisfaction drives what I publish and what I don't, and I never could frame that follow-up to my satisfaction. But if you want to talk about sore points, it's not like someone's ever been a complete asshole to you by not having purchased and set up his scanner and writing about Wandering Star yet, even though it's only been how many years? I believe you have the moral high ground here.
(One day, I'll buy a new one and set it up, I promise.)
(Also, my students' responses to Blankets were far less interesting than yours. You actually made my class look worse in comparison, and I'm sure they were annoyed when that was reflected in their grades.)
You actually made my class look worse in comparison, and I'm sure they were annoyed when that was reflected in their grades.
My apologies to your students, but I also think this reflects the fact that the assignment is, as you noted, deceptively difficult. As I said in my comment at the time, the assignment requires the students to do three things: (1) Select a theme which is present in Blankets and a song which also reflects that theme. (2) Argue for why that theme is a central one in Blankets (3) Explain how that theme shows up the song.
(2) and (3) are genuinely difficult tasks. (2) is harder than it might be because any song is likely to have a limited number of points of congruence with the book (unless you happen to think of the perfect song). So they will have to do some work to abstract out one thread from the book. (3) is difficult because most people just don't think about music that way.
I appreciate that it's a challenging assignment, and it is.
Also worth noting, I'm quite the ringer for that particular assignment. Not only do I know a wide range of songs, I'm personally inclined to think about songs in terms of mood and themes and to think about how to explain that.
I suppose the final thing which could make it stressful for a student is that it isn't an assignment in which writing more is likely to be helpful. It's not something where you can try to reach the goal by process of accumulation; they have to start by clearly identifying the elements of similarity and then being judicious in finding ways to support that argument -- they more things from the book they try to include the more likely they are to undermine there own argument by bringing in things which don't match.
. . . writing about Wandering Star yet, even though it's only been how many years? I believe you have the moral high ground here.
Eh, I still find Wandering Star interesting and hope you will write about it at some point, but you are honestly under no obligation to do so. As I said at the time, you were only obligated to read the comics, which you did. Anything beyond that is entirely up to you.
Nick, all I'll say is that I wish I'd had you in a couple of staff meetings. Your understanding of the assignment's more complete than the people I sold it to, be it fellow teachers or students.
I still find Wandering Star interesting and hope you will write about it at some point, but you are honestly under no obligation to do so.
I disagree. You were the kindly host, I was the rude guest. But I claim poverty, which hopefully forgives the slight. But no, I really do have quite a bit to say about the books -- half-wrote a long post about them vis-a-vis Ender's Game -- but I'm too attached to the visual aspects of books to write about them without visual evidence. (My Dark Knight Rises posts are pretty much in this vein: I write about what I can see, because that's the only evidence I trust.)
You're very kind, and this reveals both a strength of the hivemind -- I am probably more inclined to think about that assignment than your average co-worker would be, and a weakness -- it's difficult to take advantage of the hivemind in staff meetings.
. . .half-wrote a long post about them vis-a-vis Ender's Game
Oh . . . WANT. I tend to describe it as a fan response and homage to Star Wars but the comparisons to Ender's Game comparisons are interesting as well.
For what it's worth the entire series is now available online. The images aren't as good as what you would get from a scanner, but they are all there.