October 2

18 comments

Mark McGurl: the program amidst the apocalypse

I’m reading Mark McGurl’s The Program Era, which chronicles and analyses  the amazing rise of creative writing programmes in the United States. It’s a fascinating account, with McGurl placing the main origins of creative writing in the progressive education movement of the 1920s, and describing how the first classes sprang up, such as the Drama 47 workshop at Harvard. He is excellent when he points out the strange but inescapable bind in which modern creative writing takes place: an emphasis on both individual creativity (“find your voice”) and an impersonal dedication to craft (“show don’t tell”). And a truly great point is his argument, made with such calm poise, that the central story in creative writing fiction, or indeed in twentieth century American literature, is the immigrant story, or the “difference story”—in which writers must, in order to embark on a fictional project at all, single themselves out from the great horde of America, and explain, implicitly or otherwise, how they are marked and separate from it, whether through culture, race, orientation, or just plain weirdness (Thomas Pynchon).

However, a reader can sympathise with McGurl’s anxiety that he has chosen a field of study none of his colleagues may respect (the pseudo-subject of creative writing), and also admire his obvious erudition, while at the same time disliking his tendency to put twentieth century writers in their place, either through a tone of “can you believe it?” wryness, or through the workshop-esque advice he offers Nabokov for improving Pale Fire.

That tone makes the book feels oddly self-contradictory, proposing one thing through argument and another through performance. As a conscious argument, McGurl explains that he admires the phenomenon of creative writing principally because it affirms the idea of a general creativity within all of us. Yet as a performance, the book is a familiar application of that worldview that often seems de rigueur in the Humanities—the Marxist faith in superstructures, false consciousness, and halfway-hidden economic forces. Individuals are always caused, in this model, by something that is not an individual, and any disagreement with or adjustment of this worldview is only more false consciousness. Hence, for me, it is hard to feel comfortable with McGurl’s amused air, as if the whole literature thing is little silly, from Shakespeare to Toni Morrison to Joe Nobody taking his hour in a classroom to answer a writing prompt. To McGurl, the field’s own interests, what he calls, “the therapy of enchantment… the aura of rarity… the supposed benefits of sympathy-training” are just ridiculous, idealisations that have “clung to and justified literature for so long.”

One might point out some of the limitations of such a scholarly worldview. It tends to privilege modern times as the only real times, as its primary interest is showing the effect of capitalism, in its many forms, upon the individual. Yet Western literature spends much of its time looking back to early modern Europe and considerably earlier periods, and as soon as we remember this, we remember that telling stories and reciting poems dates back all through recorded time. There is no need to cling to and justify this: if there is anything universal in humanity, telling stories in heightened language must be part of it. And there must surely be a good reason why we do this—why we write poems about stealing camels, about lost love, about the creation of the universe—or nothing else we do can have much worth.

McGurl writes,

Instead of testifying to a permanent condition of disadvantage in the face of physical necessity, or to the relentless humiliations exacted by social institutions, or to a perpetual process of wounding at the hands of history, “personal experience” is redeemed in this manner as a proud and vibrantly reflexive textual presence.

My response will seem overly dramatic, but there have been political movements in the recent past that would have precisely agreed with this, who considered story-telling to be mere illusion, a deceiving opiate that prevents us from getting on with the real business of making the world a better place. Many of these movements, when they put this philosophy into practice, did not maintain a good record of making the world a better place; the opposite, in fact. And while Nabokov or Philip Roth may indeed not be good examples of it, much “great” “literature” does produce a feeling that is neither the stricken worry of the liberal, nor the satisfied solipsism of the dandy, nor the unthinking hero-identification of teenage boys watching Transformers 2. Watching the climax of a play like Arcadia, or reading the final lines of the Iliad, or absorbing the singsong narration of Morrison’s Jazz, or listening to Stephen Dunn read his poems aloud, one can experience something larger than oneself, and then know that what is unreal is the self that is listening, the small angered wretched personality, not the art—the art is the real thing, reaching to one’s truest places, allowing one to make contact with, and perhaps even be, for a short time, that larger self. To feel this way is also to know that if everyone in the world could share this feeling, and keep on feeling it, then history as we know it, as we fear it, would end.

The feeling doesn’t last—it can be broken by a rude bus driver outside the theatre, or one’s lover sending a text message during the poet’s Q&A—but it is the end goal that many poets and novelists, when they have written about literature, have described. Read Shelley, read Blake. Or go to Florence, and see Michaelango’s David, that incredible thing one cannot really call a statue, more a sort of intrusion into the universe, a gleaming perfection that is surely saying something, only one is not quite sure what.

Looking at art from this angle, some of the contradictions between personal expression and hard practice become less significant. Something like David makes both of those ideas about human creativity seem too small.

Of course, this is not to claim that the apocalypse occurs every time Joe Nobody submits a story to a workshop. And there is enormous sociological interest in determining why, at this time in history, Joe is willing to pay so much money for an education not even its teachers say they believe in, and why Joe does not want to exercise his creativity in some other way, like oil painting, prayer, or—even—business or law. However, I don’t think we can fully understand Joe without starting to understand the thing that calls to him, the great legend that feeds into all the smaller myths that form and fuel our schools and resumes.

Since publishing The Program Era, Mark McGurl has become a champion of the creative writing industry and post-WW2 American fiction, defending both against critics like Elif Batumen.  Living writers may feel concerned, however, to have such a luke-warm defender, who, when he tries to sum up the value of post-war fiction, describes it merely as “interesting reading.”


Tags

apocalypse, critical theory, Elif Batumen, Mark McGurl, Michaelango, Northrop Frye, Wall Street protests


You may also like

  • If you are going for most excellent contents like myself, only visit this
    web page everyday since it provides quality contents, thanks

  • Awesome article it’s really useful.

  • Your method of describing the whole thing in this paragraph is
    actually good, all be able to simply know it, Thanks a lot.

  • Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared
    to be on the web the simplest thing to be aware of.
    I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while people consider worries that they plainly do not know about.
    You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as
    defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take a
    signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

  • Great site. Lots of helpful info here. I’m sending it to several pals ans additionally sharing in
    delicious. And obviously, thank you to your effort!

  • I must thank you for the efforts you’ve put in penning
    this blog. I really hope to check out the same high-grade content
    by you later on as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has
    inspired me to get my own website now 😉

  • My brother suggested I might like this website.
    He was totally right. This post actually made my day. You
    cann’t imagine just how much time I had spent for this info!

    Thanks!

  • The other day, while I was at work, my sister stole my iPad and tested to see
    if it can survive a 40 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation.
    My apple ipad is now broken and she has 83 views.
    I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it
    with someone!

  • Hi there! This article couldn’t be written much better!
    Looking at this article reminds me of my previous roommate!
    He always kept talking about this. I most certainly will forward this post to him.

    Fairly certain he’ll have a good read. I appreciate you for sharing!

  • Link exchange is nothing else but it is just placing the other person’s weblog link on your page
    at proper place and other person will also do same in support of you.

  • I do agree with all of the ideas you’ve introduced for your post.
    They are very convincing and can definitely work.
    Nonetheless, the posts are very quick for novices. May
    you please prolong them a bit from next time? Thank you for the post.

  • What’s Happening i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It
    absolutely useful and it has aided me out loads. I am hoping to contribute & aid other customers like its aided
    me. Good job.

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

    Get writing today: join my free course

    All you need is an email address: work at your own pace as you write a new short story.

    >