• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

An Open Letter to That Ex-MFA Creative Writing Teacher Dude

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
There's this article floating around about a former MFA teacher highlighting some things he believes about writing which Chuck Wendig has picked apart. One of the first points the MFA teacher makes is "You have to be born with talent to be a writer." So you can imagine how that went...

Here's the first article by the ex-MFA Creative Writing teacher: Things I Can Say About MFA Writing Programs Now That I No Longer Teach in One - Books - The Stranger

Here's Chuck's response: An Open Letter To That Ex-MFA Creative Writing Teacher Dude « terribleminds: chuck wendig

Check it out and share some thoughts. Do you think the MFA teacher has any valid points? What do you think of Chuck's response? What's your response?
 

Russ

Istar
I found another semi-rebuttal:
» Vocational Gratitude and the MFA: A Rebuttal of Sorts to Ryan Boudinot

I am happy to share my thoughts about Mr. Boudinot and his article.

To put it bluntly, I think he makes two points I agree with and the rest is just mean spirited pretentious drivel that is factually false. It just strikes me as a childish cry for attention and not much more.

Before I say anymore I should say I used to teach in an MA in genre fiction faculty (which now grants MFAs as well- it appears they were upgraded by my leaving ;-) ), my wife has a degree from the same program, and many of my friends teach in these programs and are graduates of these or similar programs.

To respond to some of his points more specifically:

"Writers are born with talent" - some people are more talented than others. But who cares. Talent is no guarantee of success. In fact talent can be a handicap for some things like writing or any other craft that is hard to master. There are plenty of talented people in all sorts of endeavours that never leave a mark because for various reasons they never have the discipline to harness and shape that talent. Hard work with just a modicum of talent can make you a successful writer. When you put talent together with hard work the results can be breath taking. That this chap thinks he can define who is the Real Deal (note the caps) with any certainty just proves his narcissism.

"You have to start young"- This is just stupid and factually false. There are many amazing writers, far more successful than this chap ever will be who started later in life. Tons of them. In fact, some people hold the reverse to be true. That one cannot be a strong writer until one has lived enough of life to have something to write about. I think that is also not bang on but more likely.

Students who ask if they are real writers are not- I guess Ryan wants us to think only people with an iron will and massive amounts of self esteem are real writers. Self-doubt and humility are great qualities. My wife is about to publish an article with interviews with ten great writers of the second half of the 20th century she interviewed. I have read the interviews. Many of them talk about not believing they are real writers, their fear of rejection and their humility. Humility is a highly underrated virtue in the age of the selfie. Many great writers have it. Many great writers want positive feedback and seek it in their writing. Many students seek it from their instructors. I am glad Ryan is not teaching anymore.

Nobody Cares about your problems if you are a s***y writer- okay he has a point. In all these programs there are a certain unfortunately large number of people writing memoirs who really are doing therapy, or seeking attention and not writing. It is a bit of a running gag in programs like these. It would not break my heart if they killed the memoir category in MFAs and MAs altogether but they are big money makers so I think they are here to stay.

Anyone who claims to have useful information about the publishing industry is lying to you, because nobody knows what the hell is happening.

Just because Ryan has no idea what is happening doesn't mean nobody else does either I just finished reading two large studies of how certain types of marketing are working in the publishing industry (both indy and traditional), and there are literally billions of dollars flowing through the traditional publishing industry every year. If Ryan thinks those people don't study and manipulate the market, and base their decisions on data, he is an idiot.

IT's not important that people think you are smart- this paragraph I agree with completely. In fact I would suggest good writing makes the reader so immersed they don't think about the writer at all.

Overall I think he is a jerk, and is really just seeking attention (a follow up interview claims this piece "broke the internet". Right. Now he is competing with...oh well you know).
 
Last edited:
Here's the problem I have with both the original and the response blogs. Their tones are both over the top. This excess of indignation, disgust, and self-importance take away from the actual points they're trying to make. It's annoying to continually read blog posts like this. Perhaps it's because they get views, but still the point gets muddied in the emotion--real or feigned. I think both authors would be better served by taking a more reasonable approach to their points.

However, the first author is glaringly wrong on several points. Especially the "you either got it or you don't," the getting started when you're a teen, and reading literature points.

The you either got or you don't to me is especially egregious. No one, and I mean no one, is born a good writer. Our language skills, generally, are informal and don't translate well into either prose or poetry. Some people may have a knack for it, but I often attribute that to them having stories read to them or them reading stories rather than having a natural talent. Rather, it is a skill learned through effort and hard work. Sometimes genetics come into play, but it's not as important to have good genes as it is in the sports world. Every writing skill can be learned and applied by anyone of sufficient intelligence and necessary hard work.

The teen one is just demonstrably false. Brandon Sanderson didn't start writing until his twenties. Look at him now, just a few years later he is published, allegedly working on a movie deal, and is a NYT best seller. There are many people like this, and it seems most writers don't start really writing until they are older. (This comes by way of Writing Excuses. Can't remember the episode off hand though.)

Last is the being a serious (read only classic literature) reader. Often times the writing in some of the classics is archaic. Dickens especially, even though I really do love me some Charles. Even still, some of the "classics" are just plain boring. I read boring crap every day. I don't want to read more boring crap. I can't stand The Great Gatsby, Lord of the Flies, Tess of the D'urbervilles, Pride and Prejudice, and Frankenstein. They bore me. But I love Dracula, Crime and Punishment, The Inferno, East of Eden, Hamlet, Richard III, and others because I find their stories interesting. But I don't read a lot of classics in large part because they are mentally taxing. I get enough mentally taxing walls of text at work and school thank you very much. But I read about two novels a month on average. I am a serious reader, I just may not read "serious" books. That I feel improves my writing just as much since I pick books not just because they're popular but because I feel like they can teach me something about the craft. To me, picking up books to learn and not just consume is the hallmark of being a serious writer-reader. It doesn't have to be every book, just a critical mass of books.
 
I can't say I've seen any scientific studies on this, and I'm not sure how you would set one up, but I wouldn't be surprised if writing teachers who think anyone can learn to write produce significantly more writers than ones who think there's some kind of innate, magical talent. (Then again, in my brief experiences with writing classes, I learned a lot more from watching how the other students wrote than from hearing the teachers tell us how we ought to write.)
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
The first article just feels like the ramblings of a frustrated teacher that's been beaten down by life. With that type of attitude, he probably shouldn't be teaching.

One thing to consider. Is the student's inability to grasp a subject matter the student's inability/unwillingness to learn or the instructor's inability/unwillingness to teach?

Obviously both factor in, but from personal experience, a dedicated and/or 'talented' teacher can make the hardest subject matter feel easy and be a pleasure to learn. And a I-could-care-less and/or incompetent teacher can make the most simplest subjects nearly impossible to grasp and feel like torture. I've sat in classes where I knew exactly how to solve a problem, but when I listened to the teacher lecture about how to do it, I became confused as hell.

When I took writing in college, I was a pretty raw writer. I made the mistake of trying to follow each and every 'rule' I came across. What I wrote was generally very mediocre at best. But my writing instructor was encouraging, patient, and never once made me feel as if I shouldn't be writing or that I should be ashamed of what I've written. He had a literary background and was an editor for a literary magazine, but he never let those standards be the only standards. He pushed the class towards being better writers not better literary writers.

Did I make mistakes? Yes. And he called me out on them. I didn't necessarily understand the lessons he was trying to teach right then, but in time as I matured, the lessons became clearer and began to resonate with me.

During the year end one-on-one critique, he said that if I continued to work hard, I could become a very good writer. He pointed to one of my pieces and said it was the one that stood above the rest. That piece was one I wrote without concern for following all the 'rules' I'd learned. It was a piece where I just wrote what I wanted to write the way I wanted to write it.

So yeah, I agree, that article is kind of poisonous. Wendig's responses generally fall in line with how I feel about each point in the initial article. I'd be curious to see where his "Real Deal" writers ended up and where the "uninteresting" writers ended up.

Honestly, how many teens and twenty-something's have anything deep and interesting to say? I'd wager not too many. Most haven't experienced enough of life or have gained enough perspective to have anything interesting to say. But then again, what's wrong with just writing something light and fun?
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I tried a little to get into the MFA teacher's shoes. I could see why a teacher might think some of those things about students in a course. Seven out of eight times, you either go into a course like the ones he teaches with the attitude that lets you succeed or you don't, and that's everything. Very few people go in without talent and pick it up mid-course.

But that's a very small window of time. He's a sheltered brat if he thinks his experiences as a teacher are the end all and be all of it.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
After reading the articles, I see some truth in what the professor said. However, for someone supposed to wield a mastery of language, it's poorly delivered because the thinking is incomplete.

"Writing is thinking. To write well is to think clearly. That's why it's so hard." - David McCullough

Well, It seems like Chuck had to finish professor's thoughts to full completion. I agree with Chuck. There are kernels of truth in the professor's words, sold as the whole cob. Take this one, for example:
Writers are born, not made.

The professor states a belief in innate talent...the Real Deal. I agree with him, partially.
I believe in talent, but talent isn't everything. In fact, it's of minimal importance.

As Stephen King says...
"Talent is common as table salt."
I don't know if anyone can be a good writer. However, it's folly to think there aren't A LOT OF PEOPLE who have the necessary attributes and abilities.

Maybe talent is some intangible variable, separating the Nabokovs and Hemmingways of the world from the rest. I'm not sold on that, but as a believer in talent, I consider it a possibility.

Regardless, writers aren't some ultra-rare and specialized breed. There's plenty of others with the same potential and capabilities. What separates good writers from the chaff is desire and effort. Which takes us into the professor's next point...

Find the time to write.
It's hard to argue that point. If you want to be a professional writer, you'll find the time. It's a choice.

The professor also claims writers should begin in their teens.

Hmmm...I've been interested in writing since the 7th grade, when a teacher praised me for writing a good story. Is that beginning in the teens? Was I a writer then? No... I didn't get serious about writing until another 25 years flew by. Also, consider this quote:

"Imagination grows by exercise, and contrary to common belief, is more powerful in the mature than in the young." - W. Somerset Maugham

I'll side with Chuck wholly on this point. I'm much more creative now than my boy self, writing that 7th grade emulation of a Jack London story. Why? Because I have the benefit of life experience and years of flexing creative muscles in earnest.

Lastly, the professor states a belief that good writing is...
...motivated by the desire to give the reader a pleasurable experience.
I agree with that contention. However, it's incomplete, if we're discussing fiction. As Chuck pointed out, we need to tell a story. I'd say, the truth lies in a combination of those two ideas.
 
Last edited:

Mark

Scribe
This has really hit some raw nerves across the internet, but less so for me. I agree with some points and disagree with others.

The age thing is wrong. There are examples of older writers succeeding. Daniel Defoe didn't write his first novel until he was in his fifties. There are more examples.

And it's stupid to say that not reading 'The Great Gatsby' means any more than you've not read 'The Great Gatsby.'

It's also quite clear that he's not suited to be a teacher. He makes stupid comments about students asking quite reasonable things.

But, I agree that you need a love of reading to write fiction (perhaps for nonfiction a like would be enough). I've actually met writers who don't read (and it shows in their writing). I even met one writer (on a fb group) who claimed to hate books and reading. Very strange, from my POV.

I think people have talents for things (not just writing) but it takes a lot more than talent to gain success.

An artist needs talent with images; a boxer needs talent (and a certain body); and I think a writer needs a talent with language, and a love of reading. I think it's ok that different people have different talents. A lot of people were upset by his comments on talent, but I think that if you have a love of books and language, there's a very good chance you have a talent for writing. The real question is how you want to develop it.
 

Caged Maiden

Staff
Article Team
I don't usually respond to this sort of article, not because I don't have opinions, but more because it's a topic that has no right answer. I think what happened here was a person embittered by a career-worth of angst opened the door a crack to air grievances (and maybe to be helpful) and the door knob slipped from his grasp when the internet ripped the door open. I'm not looking for a fight, just expressing the somewhat limited opinion of one writer who doesn't take things personally. :)

The original article seemed more over-simplified than anything else--as if he tried to cut to the chase and give general, sweeping statements rather than elaborate on specifics that could have pinpointed his real feelings. That sort of opinion-barrage can come off as arrogant, haughty, or more probably as a superiority complex.

One might make the statement "Talent is born, not made" (or whatever) and to an extent, it's true. But it isn't the end all be all. I have a generous dose of dexterity and I might have made a great dancer, but I certainly wasn't drawn to dance. Am I a natural dancer? Who knows. I know I'm not a natural writer, though. I was born with intelligence, artistic vision, and tenacity, I suppose (because I see those qualities in my parents), but I certainly wasn't born a good writer. Nature and genetics play a role in one's potential however.

For him to say you cannot create talent where none naturally exists (as I chose to read his statement) isn't true or false. If a person has a creative mind, eloquent voice, and thesaurus-like vocabulary, he might make a great writer, but if he's got no drive, who cares? On the other hand, a person may have all the desire in the world to be a good writer and publish their story that rivets them to their seat, but if they suck at the technical stuff, never complete a manuscript, or publish a weak first draft and it meets with harsh negative feedback, again, who cares?

To look at the original article, I don't see hate or regret coming out, I see a simplification of huge concepts--ones that feel confrontational when put...not delicately. My point is it depends what one is trying to define. I'm not sure he was trying to define anything (he didn't seem to be talking about "success" as a concrete goal). I think he was complaining about writing the same way I complain about costumes. I throw up in my mouth a little whenever I see someone wearing a costume obviously made from a bed sheet (or whatever other tragic fabric they used rather than buying the appropriate thing).

Yep, I'm a costume snob. I've invested a huge amount of energy, money, focus, and time into my craft and I'm proud to be top notch at what I do. But I have never EVER put down anyone's work, to them or anyone else. When I disapprove of certain things (like the bed sheets) I have a laugh with close friends and say a couple rude things about no one specifically, and I get on with my own business.

I guess I'm saying I get it, what he was trying to say. But when you pride yourself in your hard work and the sacrifices you've made to become great at something, your words must be selected carefully, or they'll offend. If I simply said, "Only an idiot would sew their bed sheet into a shirt and think we don't all know it's a bed sheet," it might very aptly describe how I really feel, but my true sentiment encompasses more than that mere statement. I also understand not all people have the resources, obsession, attention to details, goals, etc. I have. Hiring me is a great (if expensive) idea when one wants an awesome costume, but not necessarily the best choice for everyone. In fact suggesting "don't sew that yourself because it'll look awful and you could just hire me..." would be ludicrous because I'm well-acquainted with the joy and pride that stems from making something for yourself. I wouldn't ever want to rob someone of that feeling.

Okay, it might seem my train has skipped its track, but I assure you, I'm still talking about the article. There is no right way to write. There is no right way to costume. I spent a long time developing my own methods (for both), and I'm still learning even after all these years (19 costuming, 14 writing). If I were a teacher of costume and I taught at a college level and people continued to bring their bed sheets to class every semester, I'd probably wear my patience out at a startlingly rapid pace. I think that must be how this teacher felt. I read tons of crits. I've read hundreds of first drafts...and they all pretty much suck. Mine too. Most of those people have talent, what they don't all have is the rest of the package you need to be a writer...things like really tough skin, a drive to succeed against the odds, a personal responsibility for managing business and marketing yourself, and the list can go on forever. I have some of those flaws, so I feel comfortable mentioning them.

At this point in my life, I've learned enough about the world and people to realize most folks are dreamers. Yep. Dreaming it big but not doing much. Some people go to a writing class in hope they will come out a professional writer. Some already believe they are brilliant and just need the "paper" to confirm it. I'm not judging. I've never been to college and maybe I'm missing something big by not attending. Perhaps that's where you really ought to learn how to write. I'm not convinced as of yet. For me, writing begins in the soul and mind. I see things, I write things. It's not much more complex than that. In fact, the simpler, the better.

Some of the points he made were congruent with observations I've made in the last few years, things like "no one cares about your problems if you're a shitty writer". While I understand what he meant, his paragraph felt more like the letting off of steam than any concrete advice. Basically I say this same thing, but in a kinder way: you can have the best story in the world but if you can't hook the reader, it doesn't matter--no one will read it. OR this battle in chapter two is awesome but if you lose the reader in your ten-page prologue, they'll never get a chance to read it. OR I liked the concept better than the execution (I use that one a lot).

As much as the original article felt over-simplified and a mad rant from a bitter old teacher who was tired of the same old bed sheet costumes, Wendig didn't offer up much more in his reply. The reply was amusing and I agreed with plenty of it, but I agreed with a similar percentage of the original article.

For a "tell it like it is" kinda guy, he didn't have a lot of sympathy for the original post. The retort felt argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Which isn't a complaint from me, really.

In closing, I just want to say that this wonderful internet has limitations. In fact, written words have limitations. Ones we strive to overcome every day, as writers. I too have written articles I considered on point, only to have someone tell me I don't know a damn thing. I just let it go. Who cares? Some folks just like to argue, even when they have no real point. Sometimes two people will argue, from the same side of the table. I mean, on any other given day, these two could have had each other's backs. That's the power of the internet. Someone takes offense, and then more people, and then more.

I didn't think the original post was offensive. Why not? I'm secure in what I'm doing. If he says you need to be born with talent, I'll say, "Good thing I was." If he says you had to be a writer in your teens to amount to anything, I'll say, "Well, I used a pen and could spell...guess I'm good there, too. Besides, look at all the people who got going later in life. I'm ahead of the curve!" I guess I just mean that if you are a talent-less writer, you don't keep going. I'm too shy to be a dancer. Or a singer. Or a hundred other things. But I like to draw and paint and I'm a stupid-good costumer who designs bad-ass clothes and tailors them to perfection, so when people pay my "yeah, I've been doing this a long time" fee, they feel hot and show-stopping. When I write, I write for me...and maybe anyone who likes to read stuff I do. I'm not a talented writer...I spent a lot of time working hard and I left my feelings at the door, where they belong in this business. If more people did that, articles delivered with curt details and in haughty tone, wouldn't offend tons of aspiring writers.

It's only after you get really secure in what you're doing, you feel included in the elite bracket of your craft. Unfortunately, writing is a really tough way to assess one's aptitude and success. What I consider success might be vastly different from what another person calls success. In costuming it's much easier--you can see the difference between one person's dress and another's, and it's obvious who spent more time, money and skill to make the item. Writing is tough. Styles are really unique. From the original article I gathered what he felt constituted "great writing" was a use of obscure words, an almost academic style, and a strong and personal voice that amused the reader as well as telling a story.

While I can appreciate that (because I really do and I opened a few works he mentioned and began reading, and was pleasantly surprised...) I don't think his scale is quite as impartial as he'd like to think. That style he seems to find exemplary of fine writing and natural talent, feels nothing more than thought-provoking honest writing with a healthy (if not gratuitous) amount of thesaurus-abuse. I still enjoyed it, but I think this is another prime example of where one person's opinion is taken in its harshest context by overly-sensitive aspiring writers and condemned for its honest but admittedly arrogant approach.
 
Hi,

Yeah I saw this a couple of days ago over on Chrons and commented. My thought is that teaching's a hard job and it wears people down. He's simply reached his limit. When he says no one cares about your problems if you're a shitty writer I think that's where he's coming from. What he really means is don't come to me with your troubles unless you've got something amazing to offer.

As for the rest it's all an attempt to make things black and white when they just arent. Yes people are born with talent. But I don't think anyone's born with none or alternatively so much that it overcomes laziness and a lack of interest. Yes if you start younger you'll probably develop into a better writer. But that doesn't mean you're doomed if you start later, just that the odds against you are a bit higher.

And yes reading does absolutely help you become a better writer. If you don't read you've really stacked the deck against you. But does what you read make you a better writer? I doubt it. Does reading Proust make you a better romance novelist than say reading romance books? It's unlikely. Just as it's unlikely that reading romance is going to make you a writer of great literature. As they keep saying, write what you know. I doubt Dosteyevski could have written a good page turning action adventure / sci fi. And I doubt Barbara Cartland could have written Crime and Punishment.

Cheers, Greg.
 
Top