<p>@ mephist0: I agree. It sort of defeats the purpose of creative writing, but I've never taken any creative writing courses, so I can't really speak from experience. (Well, one course, but I'd call it more of a speedwriting class rather than a . . . creative writing class). That being said, I'd be interested to hear what they actually teach in such a course. Plotting, structuring, characterizing, worldbuilding (for those fantasy/sci-fi writers)?</p>
<p>Of course, the best way to become a better writer is just to . . . write more. And read more; it's amazing how much you can learn just from paying attention to how other authors craft their own stories. It hardly requires a class . . .</p>
<p>IMHO, the best creative writing programs are structured as workshops--with craft supplementary lectures/lessons, of course, but workshopping is the most important aspect.</p>
<p>UIowa is nationally acclaimed as the top creative writing school in the country. Their playwriting program is also great. They just gave me a huge scholarship.</p>
<p>However, much of Iowa's fame comes from its grad program. Undergraduates CAN participate in the Writing Workshops, though.</p>
<p>I maintain that a creative writing degree is not mandatory for any career, but does anyone know about the program at JHU? Is it graduate or undergrad? Major or minor?</p>
<p>Phead, every single top graduate program in Creative Writing offers an undergraduate program. Iowa is no exception. It may not be a separate major, but the classes in Creative Writing will be abundant and the faculty will be top notch. </p>
<p>Well, for one, you could teach creative writing with an MFA. Usually, those who study writing are as well-read as any English Lit grad student. Nevertheless, when someone goes to grad school for creative writing, it probably means that he wants to write for a living.</p>
<p>And two, I'm pretty sure that hard data could prove you wrong; a creative writing degree correlates to a better chance of being published. A program in creative writing will definitely afford you the time to study your craft, which means you'll, hopefully, grow as a writer and become stronger, which will improve your odds of publishing (at least in theory). If creative writing programs weren't helping writers become Writers, the programs wouldn't be popping up at institutions all over the US.</p>
<p>It increases the chances yes, but it doesn't guarantee anything. If you want to go and plan to teach creative writing, sure that makes sense. But it doesn't seem smart at all to go just for creative writing and expect to become a writer because of it. I understand minoring or maybe double majoring, but as your primary major, I think it wouldn't be smart to go in with the idea that if you finish you'll become a published writer. It's like going to film school basically. Except no one hires writers based on their education, they hire based on their work which can be done without shelling out the 40K a year to go to JHU just for that.
And college is a business. If people will pay for a Creative Writing major, they will make a creative writing major even if it doesn't work. Sure, people graduate and become writers, but they had the skill with or without that degree. A literary agent once told me not to go to school for writing. It was her own opinion sure, but she's a published author who also decides who else gets published so I respected it.</p>
<p>Your points are valid, Gina, but what IS guranteed in any profession? Just because you major in Economics or Finance doesn't mean you'll get hired just because you have a degree. You have to be skilled, which is what you gain from secondary and graduate schooling. This applies for creative writing as well. Sure, some people are naturally gifted, and they write beautifully without training, but a vast majority of writers on the market today are trained artist. The same idea applies to other fields in the arts and sciences: some of the best stockbrokers out there never went to graduate school; they are just naturally talented.</p>
<p>If you believe that writing cannot be taught, that's fine, but I disagree. In many ways, you're making an argument against all of the arts. By saying, "but they had the skill with or without that degree," you essentially say that art can't be taught. Try saying that to a pianist, or a vocalist, or a composer. What makes writing any different?</p>
<p>I agree about the 40k+ a person could pay for a degree in Creative Writing. Paying that much money for a degree is foolish considering the oppurtunities available for funding. PLENTY of great mfa programs waive tution for their students and award stipends, so it is best to find a program that does this. (I'm lookin at mfa programs right now, and Funding is my top concern.)</p>
<p>Of course it's true to an extent with all professions, but more so with things like writing, acting, and music. The difference with these is the fact that ultimately money-making opportunities come from quality of produced work, not schooling. Where a person getting his first job at a law firm does not need to show cases he's one, and a doctor getting a first job does not need to show surgery's he's completed, a writer needs to show something they've made already. All the schooling in the world can't guarantee you can write a book.
And there's also the question of financial security. It is much more likely for any other major to get a job out of college than it is for a publisher to agree to publish a person's book before age 22 (or about 26 if in grad school).
And as for the arts being taught, the fundamentals can be taught. How to create more art cannot be taught. A vocalist or a pianist can be taught, because they are preformers, not creators. I'm lumping people who compose and preform into the composing category because it is closer to writing. A composer can be taught the parts of music, and how to play an instrument, but they cannot be taught how to write a beautiful song. The same way a writer can be taught the fundamentals of grammar, plot, point of view, etc. but no one can teach them how to write a beautiful story.
And while I believe a strong background in the fundamentals can be important, it is NOT a good idea to make this your only skill. If I end up in a school with a creative writing minor, I will take it. Not because I think it will make me money, or guarantee that I become a published author, but because I thoroughly enjoy everything about writing, and because I want the practice. Practice is important too, but you can practice writing while getting a degree in something where there is a higher probability that you will make money that you probably enjoy just as much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
while getting a degree in something where there is a higher probability that you will make money that you probably enjoy just as much
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know several published writers; one took up writing as a second career only after astronomy, her first love; the other recently quit a technical writing job and her increased creativity is astounding. For those people considering a BA/BFA/MFA in Creative Writing, I think many day jobs will not be JUST as enjoyable; however, they will usually be tolerable, and that's a realistic tradeoff.</p>
<h2>This debate is really hard to pan out because there is no hard data to support either of us. I believe those who have talent and recieve an MFA are just as likely to be published (not necessarily become famous), as a Law grad student is to pass the bar exam and get a job as a lawyer. You believe that because writers are creators, as opposed to workers in a technical field, that they have a lesser chance of finding financial stability. </h2>
<h2>You assumed that being published = financial stability. That is not the case at all. I believe their goal is to simply be published. The data we would need is: how many people with MFAs in Creative Writing have published at least once? How many use their writing as their primary income? How many "writers" wish to be published and/or use their writing as their primary income? How many people with MFAs in Creative Writing are employed elsewhere? Until we gather this data, I think both of our arguments flop. (Not to mention, you also assume that it takes beautiful art to achieve financial stability as a writer. What about formulaic romance/genre writing? Can that be taught in your eyes? Is it beautiful?) </h2>
<h2>Oh, and about performers and creators...hmmm... that is a HUGE theoretical debate waiting to happen. Gina591 said:</h2>
<h2>"And as for the arts being taught, the fundamentals can be taught. How to create more art cannot be taught. A vocalist or a pianist can be taught, because they are preformers, not creators. I'm lumping people who compose and preform into the composing category because it is closer to writing. A composer can be taught the parts of music, and how to play an instrument, but they cannot be taught how to write a beautiful song."</h2>
<h2>You misspeak. Here, you call pianists/vocalists performers and creators, which you've set in opposition to one another. You say pianists/vocalists can be taught because they are performers, not creators. This implies that creators cannot be taught. Then you lump pianists/vocalists with composers, who you claim are creators, not performers. The contradiction is aplenty. Is a vocalist a hybrid between technique (performer) and talent (creator), just as you've stated a writer is, blending grammar and style with imagination, arousing this "art"? </h2>
<p>Can a creator/performer (artist) be taught or not? And what is "beauty" in the arts? Who determines which art is beautiful and ugly, for that matter? I do not believe either of us have the tools to unravel this debate.</p>
<p>You just re-enforced my point. You can get published and not achieve financial stability. So why waste years training for something that you in all likelihood would not be able to support you.</p>
<p>Also I meant that I'm treating just singers and musicians as one and musicians and singers that also write their own things as creators.</p>
<p>But other than that, you're right it's an unsettlable debate without data that probably has never been collected.</p>
<h2>Why train to write? Better yet, why write at all?</h2>
<h2>Do you feel that creative writing classes should exist, if they have no purpose? Do you think writing novels should be anyones profession? Who should be allowed to write without being critized? If no one tries, if everyone is as sensible as you, there would be no novels to read, no movies to see, no music. Someone has abandon their sensibilities and create.</h2>
<h2>"So why waste years training for something that you in all likelihood would not be able to support you."</h2>
<h2>I "waste" this time because I adore my craft. Sure, it would be wonderful if fortune came with it, but that isn't my goal. Just as for athletes, the goal isn't to win the gold medal. It is to run your fastest, to play your best game of hoops, to hit the best backhand of your life, and that takes years and years of practice. Would you agree?</h2>
<h2>Funny expansion: along your line of thought, the world should get rid of sports programs in high schools across the nation because most of those athletes are wasting their time; only a select percentile will ever make money playing basketball, so why should all of them waste their time playing games? Maybe the worser ones should go study car mechanics, or learn to program computers. "This is captitalism; enough with your art; go and be productive," I could imagine your thoughts. </h2>
<p>No, I'm saying that writing should not be your primary focus. Or if it is, you should at least have a secondary focus. If you want to write, write, but don't put all your eggs in that basket because it's full of holes. I'm saying it doesn't make sense logically to only be trained for a career that very few people can sustain themselves on. That's all I'm saying. You're making it into so much more because you seem to feel personally attacked.
But you're done with school, you have a masters in creative writing, what do you do to support yourself? What money do you survive on while you're waiting for your training to get your book published?</p>
<p>Im a student at the UofChicago, where I study the concepts behind beauty, especially beautiful writing, so I love little debates like this. Your argument is practical, mine is theoretical and expansive. I don't know if you noticed that. If no one makes it their primary focus, if no one risks, then no one writes.</p>
<p>You do what everyone else with an academic degree does when they're fresh out of grad school. You get a job or you go back to school for another degree. Or you teach. Or you wait tables till midnight. Bartend at the pub. There is ALWAYS a way to support oneself. Maybe students shouldn't go to LACs because its less likely they'll get a job once they graduate. Vocational schools for everyone? </p>
<p>Oh, and no, I do not at all feel personally attacked. lol But, it does bother me when people underestimate the consequences of their thought processes; we all forget that what we say means so much more than what we say.</p>