I Don't Care About Your MFA: Writing Vs. Storytelling

[Heliotrope]

>The more you know about something, the less creative you are

I don't buy this one at all, sorry. As an academic, I do recognize that I spent most of my professional career in expository rather than in creative writing. So I would buy the argument that pretty much any graduate-level work is going to emphasize the former rather than the latter.

But I don't believe creativity is some delicate flower easily crushed by the blundering beast of formal learning. Creativity is as tough as a badger. It does not die. I side with Hemingway and others who essentially said, if you can quit writing, you aren't a writer.

Nor do I believe learning the mechanics of a craft lessens one's ability to innovate in that craft. The facts simply don't bear it out. True, any number of people in a field go into it thinking they are going to be creative and revolutionize their world, only to find out they are merely mortal, after all. But I still say that's on them. One can blame the education, but doing so misses the mark.

That said, I do think it is a mistake to go into some graduate program thinking that it's somehow going to make you more creative. It isn't. You will learn technique. That's it. You can learn technique outside of school as well. Most of the time, it's a less efficient and reliable a path, but many have trodden it with success.

I agree with Skip. I don't believe it to be a double-edged sword for a minute.

We can look at other charts (like the Dunning-Kruger effect) that says the less a person knows about something the more confident they are.... the more you learn the less confident you get until you become a master and that confidence comes back.

I've seen it a hundred times where someone with very little skill in story writing thinks they are the most creative person in the universe... until they actually start to learn about what it takes to write a real story. Then they realize pretty quick that it takes a lot more than creativity.

Creativity alone does not make a person a writer, or an artist, or a computer programmer. You have to develop the skills and the techniques along with the creativity. Educating yourself will only help that, not deter it. Whether you do that youself, or in a classroom, is up to you but at some point it needs to be done.

 

[Devor]

I'm sorry Skip, but I'm not making this up. Learning is a barrier to creativity, and that's in the research. Creativity is the process of making an answer, often the wrong answer. If you spend too much time learning the answers, even the right answers, you're not developing that making-the-answer skill. With a PHD you learn all the answers, but you don't develop your own creative skills.

 

[Heliotrope]

I'm sorry Skip, but I'm not making this up. Learning is a barrier to creativity, and that's in the research. Creativity is the process of making an answer, often the wrong answer. If you spend too much time learning the answers, even the right answers, you're not developing that making-the-answer skill. With a PHD you learn all the answers, but you don't develop your own creative skills.

Hahahahahahahahahahahhaha.... Are you kidding me? You are kidding, right? Do you have a PhD? You do realize the point of a PhD is to create your own thesis? To prove you own ideas and thoughts? To branch out from what has already been done and show a new idea and defend it?

I'm sorry, Devor. That is simply, just, not, true.

 

[Devor]

Hahahahahahahahahahahhaha.... Are you kidding me? You are kidding, right? Do you have a PhD? You do realize the point of a PhD is to create your own thesis? To prove you own ideas and thoughts? To branch out from what has already been done and show a new idea and defend it?

I'm sorry, Devor. That is simply, just, not, true.

Okay, sure, if you say so then.

 

[Chessie]

Honestly, I just posted this as a way of encouraging others to focus more on story and less on the words. Sometimes we get stuck on everything needing to sound and look perfect and forget the bigger picture. Every writer is different. Follow your own creative process. If that means studying it at college level then that's a personal choice. I would never deter anyone from continuing education. But there are also other ways to learn storytelling outside of the classroom. Freedom of choice is something I highly respect.

 

[Chessie]

No, more the description of her writing. Lots of words, lots of description, interesting characters...

better stop while I'm behind.

And here I thought you were refering to the picture. Funny how all 3 of us thought entirely different things.

 

[skip.knox]

I would be interested to see the research, Devor, if you can provide some references. It certainly goes against my personal experience.

As a writer who is also a historian with PhD, I absolutely recognize that grad work focuses one in different ways. I said something to that effect already. I also know that I could not have written Altearth stories without such a deep background and, had I lacked that, I'm reasonably sure I would not have written anything to completion. One of the things grad school teaches you is how to finish. I guess I should be more specific: it's what graduate work in history teaches you. I cannot speak to other disciplines, though I have my suspicions and prejudices.

 

[skip.knox]

>It all depends what it's worth to you (degrees, that is)

True dat. I have always told my students not to go on in history because they want a job. They should go on only if the actual graduate work in itself seems worth the expense and effort. It's not about the degree, it's about the study spent getting there.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that learning opens up more opportunities for creative expression. The more you know, the more tools you have to work with in shaping the ideas that you do have. I have many more ideas floating through my brain than I can ever do anything with. If I'd learned earlier in my life more of what I know now and am still learning about the craft of writing, I could have done more with my ideas and probably would have written a full-length novel by now that I felt was publishable. I've written several novels and short stories that I chose not to publish, because they lacked something. I didn't have the training at the time to know exactly what was lacking. The feeling that something was lacking only motivated me to read more and more books, magazines, and eventually blogs and forums on the subject of writing.

A big part of the reason why I'm on this forum is to continue to learn. Another reason I'm here is to share what I've learned, with the hope that some of what I say may be of value to someone else -- regardless of what stage I'm at in my own writing journey. A third reason I'm here is because fantasy is in my blood, and I'm hoping to become a welcome part of a community specifically geared towards writing fantasy fiction. I'm still not sure how that is going, what with being called a fraud in another thread, because I "haven't done it yet." Someone with an MFA who hasn't published a novel yet would be a fraud then too? Anyone who is trying to write has a right to go about it in their own damn way. Get an MFA if you want. Don't if you don't. Sit and write for ten hours a day or just one hour a day or one hour a week or one hour a year. Study however much you want or don't study at all. If you're trying, if you have some experience, it might be worth something to someone else, but only if you share.

You can have lots of ideas and be highly creative, but you still have to execute your ideas, and that's where knowledge of what works in the craft and what doesn't comes into play. Again, this is my opinion only, but it's based on five decades of reading and writing fiction and over three decades of self-study on the craft of writing.

 

[FifthView]

I think that students are like horses.

Some will drink. Some won't.

Some will drown.

I think that on the one hand, generalizations always seem to have a dishonest heart. But on the other hand, that, too, would be a generalization.

 

[Devor]

I would be interested to see the research, Devor, if you can provide some references. It certainly goes against my personal experience.

Yeah, I'll post a source.

Research Reveals Your Expertise Can Undermine Your Success | Inc.com

 

[skip.knox]

Thanks, Devor. What that article provides is a couple of anecdotes, a whole lot of unsupported extrapolation, and an article about getting research grants in medicine. Seems pretty far from the current discussion. But this ain't the place for quarreling. The other guy is always entitled to his opinion, just so long as I get to enjoy my Truth. ;-)

 

[Devor]

Thanks, Devor. What that article provides is a couple of anecdotes, a whole lot of unsupported extrapolation, and an article about getting research grants in medicine. Seems pretty far from the current discussion. But this ain't the place for quarreling. The other guy is always entitled to his opinion, just so long as I get to enjoy my Truth. ;-)

Yeah, it's not my original source, which I wasn't able to find. But they did talk about their research finding that expertise makes you more negative towards new ideas, which lines up spot-on with my experiences. And if you google "barriers to creativity," you'll see that learning is prominently listed among them, because established behaviors and ideas often have to be broken in order to find innovation.

If you look deeper into the science of creativity, you'll see that it's a skill, on par with intelligence, that very few people are taught to hone effectively. If you spend your time in a Master's Program, not only are you learning behaviors that are difficult to break, but there's the opportunity cost of losing time that a writer would otherwise spend honing their own creative abilities.

I'm not saying, and have not said, that an MFA has no value, even to a writer. I'm only saying that expertise has a downside in making people resistant to new ideas in their field. It hampers creativity.

Finally, creativity happens the most in people for whom worlds collide. For instance, to take you as the example Skip, you could bring your expertise in history into the fantasy genre, and potentially make solid, innovative use of it there. BUT, I wouldn't expect you to be very creative inside the field of history - in fact, I imagine a lot of creativity in your field is frowned upon. Focusing heavily on one field, writing, doesn't open up worlds.

I honestly believe that almost anyone who reads much about creativity as an academic subject would argue that a high-level degree in writing would make you a less creative writer - stronger in other ways, perhaps, but generally less innovative in your field.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I don't want to argue anything academic because I am not an academic, but a creative soul with no amount of consistency or structure to almost everything I do. For me, the more I learn, the more creative I feel I am. When I first started writing, I dreamed up some stuff and I wrote it down, but it's all shit and should never be read, ever. But fifteen years later, I've learned a lot about writing, and am currently on a strict diet of story-telling learning ONLY, and just recently, I think I've finally broken through my own barriers and gotten truly creative.

I was hampered by my own feelings--this is what it SHOULD feel like to write, this is what a REAL writer does, this is what I HAVE to do in order to get better, etc. and on and on. I wasn't creative, I was constantly bound by rules I didn't understand, afraid of doing the wrong things because I didn't know what was right or wrong.

Now, I've spent the last year trying to be MYSELF for the first time, the thing I would probably consider the LEAST creative thing I've done since beginning this journey. Yet...I'm definitely being honest, and folks are seeing it as creative. Or clever, at least. I don't think "creative" is a word I hear very often (but then again, having written something "creative" feels an awful lot to me like "having a nice personality" which is shorthand for "got nothing nicer to say"). Either way, what is considered creative? I think that's where this conversation is getting messed up. Was I more creative when I was throwing shit on a page without any guidelines? It was still shit. No one would have read it and remarked about my creativity, they would have called it what it is. And I do understand we're talking about MFA, an advanced degree, and I'm not a college student, let alone a graduate, so my personal experiences are in somewhat a more "life experience" direction.

I love gardening, and I'm a costumer. I've been gardening since I was a kid, and I've been sewing for more than 20 years. The first thing I do when I sew something is open up the pattern, look at what's there, and immediately decide what to keep and what to throw out. True. I totally throw out the instructions about every time I make something. In fact, I usually don't use patterns at all. Is it creative? No. I'm an expert. I don't need patterns for some stuff. I know what a sleeve looks like, how to make a skirt fit, how to tailor pants. I don't need a pattern to tell me where to cut or how big to make a dart. I don't use pins for cutting, either. It's just time-wasting to me. When my friends come over to sew with me, or learn how to make something, I look like a nut case, I'm sure, crawling around on my floor, cutting things with no pins, no markings, and using what I call "patterns" (usually scraps of paper I've drawn with markers and which contain no markings or seam allowances or anything). But I can pretty much do whatever I want. If I want to gather something, I add in what looks like the right amount to get the shape I'm after, and I don't worry about what the pattern looks like. If I want to change a sleeve, lengthen a leg, shorten a bodice, I just do it. I don't need paper to tell me what to do. Same with tailoring. I don't care where commercial patterns put seams or darts. If I want them someplace else, I do it. I love getting a unique look by moving seams. But could I do any of that stuff if I wasn't already super experienced? Nope.

Now, gardening...there's something that sounds wholly creative, and yet, the more creative I am, the worse it turns out. I wish I was more knowledgeable and less creative. Last year, I planted things in all kinds of weird locations. When I was young, I planted an invasive species in a small corner of the garden and they took over the yard, edging out the grass in places. Oops. I plant things too late because I'm "inspired" to plant on a given day. I mix things and don't pay attention to what needs which kind of light, because I just get creative and decide I like certain colors together. Basically, my garden is a mess and it looks like my early books. Chaotic and disarrayed. I mean, I get plenty of crops for my table, but deep down I know if I gave it a whole lot more effort, my garden would be more productive and more beautiful, and maybe the envy of my neighbors. But honestly, I don't care enough. I can't keep it all straight in my head, I get disappointed when a crop gets decimated by bunnies or aphids, and I don't have the personal drive to become a plant expert. So every year is a crap shoot and I put in just enough effort to enjoy myself without risking my feelings if things go ass up by the second month of summer.

Writing is like any other endeavor. You must decide what effort to give, what you want to know, what you want to do, and how much to follow or break the rules. For years I've been writing like I sew, but the major difference is that I have to WEAR the shit I sew, and when I have things that don't work out so well, I rip seams, alter garments, sell things off to other people who the garment actually fits, etc. and with writing, the final product is meant to be enjoyed by someone other than me. So, I have to keep that in mind. I can't liquidate a book I made from the wrong fabric and now don't want to iron incessantly. I can't find someone who will use a mediocre story as a LARP accessory a few times a year, and it's worth the price to them.

I want to learn more about story-telling and writing so I can break the rules spectacularly and with a purpose. It's a whole hell of a lot better than blundering around like an idiot (which I'm sure I still am), because I don't have a clue what I'm doing (because I don't). To me, creativity should have a purpose.

 

[Devor]

Either way, what is considered creative? I think that's where this conversation is getting messed up. Was I more creative when I was throwing shit on a page without any guidelines? It was still shit.

Fair question.

Typically we say creativity to mean "different," and innovation to mean "different but useful/better," although they're often used interchangeably to mean the second.

Most research on creativity is based on organizations, where you can take experts from different fields, put them together, and come up with something creative. Even if they aren't creative in their fields on their own, they can cross worlds as a group to produce innovation.

There's a common trend in two-person teams where one person would be wacky and creative, and the other person would have the role of reigning it in and focusing that creativity into something more innovative. If I were to hire a ghostwriter to write a novel, for example, I would probably consider an MFA a huge plus for that reason.

But writing usually tries to put everything on one person, so your personal creative skills count a lot more. You've got to play both roles - the wild and wacky, and the reigning in.

If a person has a high level of creativity, meaning "different," but lacks many of the other skills involved in transforming that creativity into innovation, their writing would suck, no question. On the other hand, somebody who lacks creativity, but possesses all the other skills, would have a lot of trouble standing out from the rest of the field.

((edit))

I wanted to add, though, that creativity is at its best when there's a real problem, when there are limits, and not just on that high-end concept level. For instance, let's say you have a character who's a janitor, and you want that character to stand out a little more developed. A creative idea, for example, might be having that character carry a set of brass knuckles because he works a second job as a bouncer, although "they're just for show, people like a touch of danger and tension before they let loose in the club." That little thing could open up a lot of opportunities for the character.

Despite the language, being creative isn't necessarily about being super "out-there" and wacky on an Alice in Wonderland drug trip. In fact, the more narrow the question, you more you need those creative skills.

 

[Chessie]

My goal for 2017 is to write at pulp speeds and see where that takes my creativity. I'll let you guys know if I crash and burn.

As for Maiden's question, which I love btw because the conversation is really about creativity, I say write what moves you and do it at YOUR own pace, with your own process. Every writer is different. We don't write the same stories or even have the same process. This is why rules--what rules? I once got slack here for saying I don't rewrite. Ha. I don't. But my process is what works for me, and my worst work has come out of intensive rewriting sessions. My best work is created by a daily sitting session where I let my gut, characters, and story drama evolve as it will. I revise and edit as I go along, then the script goes through copyedits etc after. Another writer will work best in a different way, with a process of their own. This is why there aren't any rules except "produce your best work always at any given time".

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

This is a really interesting discussion. Or it looks like it. I have t actually read everything that was said. So I'm sorry if I'm totally off on what this discussion is about but...

I think something that's often overlooked is that creativity is a practice. People almost universally think of creativity as something you either have or don't have. That's not true. It's a skill that can be honed and developed. It's a way of thinking and viewing the world and living, really.

But is learning, even academic learning, in any way antithetical to creativity? Hell no.

I do think that a standardized approach to learning skills and applying them can inhibit creativity. I believe that our society's emphasis on efficiency and productivity...really, the values of our society as a whole can abridge creativity. Altogether I don't think the academic world is a very fertile environment for fostering creativity.

But I don't think that being more educated makes you less creative. Expanded knowledge will, if anything, make a creative person more creative. Now, I do think to retain your creativity at a healthy level you'll have to maintain some level of nonconformity to the rules, which will be detrimental to you while pursuing education. You'll have to prevent your education from training your brain to follow only certain channels. So maybe there is a conflict there. But I still think learning about writing can really help a writer. Learning about ANYTHING.

But does being more educated make you MORE creative? The answer is no, I'm afraid.

Since creativity is a skill that can be improved, it's strange how we don't teach it. Teaching writing seems to be all about mechanics, but why can't we teach creativity? It would have to be a whole lot different than normal teaching, I think, which might be the problem...

But I'm not even in college yet so what do I know.

Speaking of not being in college...

That article (which the discussion seems to have swerved away from quite a bit?) made me think about stuff. (Teen angst? I'm not THAT petty and angsty, am I? I don't think I've ever been angry at the whole world for not recognizing my 'genius'. For real!) I want to go to college, but I have no idea what I want to do with my life other than write, so...I've always assumed I would study creative writing or something, but I do NOT want to be an English teacher.

So I'm thinking about what field of study would help me most as a writer. Maybe an English major isn't necessarily it?

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I actually don't feel like this writer ever got over her teen angst, lol. She's still just pissed off that everyone is getting more recognition than her, it sounds like.

This is the part that scares me. When I read about people who are making a living writing, usually it seems like they no longer are enjoying it. They're no longer making art that comes from the soul, it sounds like. They're just putting stories together to please an audience and it sounds like...a really thankless existence. I mean, why do these people seem so angry-but-resigned when talking about their story? This lady is definitely at least a little bitter and angry-sounding. It always sound like the story of "How I Let Go of Creativity and Inspiration and Learned To Reduce Writing to a Dull Audience-Pleasing Science." It always sounds like publishing beat the joy of writing and producing your own ideas right out of them...

Maybe if the tone of all these testimonies from published writers wasn't so...vaguely bitter I would feel better about it.

Maybe this is just my teen angst showing but it makes me dread being published. I feel like this is why sincere originality is so hard to find on the market. Writers bowing to the almighty dollar...It's not like we don't all have to eat (I too would rather not starve/live on ramen noodles) but still. Geez.

 

[Chessie]

I actually don't feel like this writer ever got over her teen angst, lol. She's still just pissed off that everyone is getting more recognition than her, it sounds like.

This is the part that scares me. When I read about people who are making a living writing, usually it seems like they no longer are enjoying it. They're no longer making art that comes from the soul, it sounds like. They're just putting stories together to please an audience and it sounds like...a really thankless existence. I mean, why do these people seem so angry-but-resigned when talking about their story? This lady is definitely at least a little bitter and angry-sounding. It always sound like the story of "How I Let Go of Creativity and Inspiration and Learned To Reduce Writing to a Dull Audience-Pleasing Science." It always sounds like publishing beat the joy of writing and producing your own ideas right out of them...

Maybe if the tone of all these testimonies from published writers wasn't so...vaguely bitter I would feel better about it.

Maybe this is just my teen angst showing but it makes me dread being published. I feel like this is why sincere originality is so hard to find on the market. Writers bowing to the almighty dollar...It's not like we don't all have to eat (I too would rather not starve/live on ramen noodles) but still. Geez.

So, from your impression of this one author, you assume that all writers making a living from their fiction aren't making "art"? Lol.

You can't...just...no. Nope. Sweeping generalizations like that are the reason publishing myths prevail. Many full-time writers love what they do. I've definitely never met one that hated what they did.

Furthermore, in order to make a living writing books, you have to write a lot of them. That's how you stay afloat. Books= time = $$. You do realize that writing to an audience of people who have $$ is what keeps authors fed, right? ...

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

So, from your impression of this one author, you assume that all writers making a living from their fiction aren't making "art"? Lol.

You can't...just...no. Nope. Sweeping generalizations like that are the reason publishing myths prevail. Many full-time writers love what they do. I've definitely never met one that hated what they did.

Furthermore, in order to make a living writing books, you have to write a lot of them. That's how you stay afloat. Books= time = $$. You do realize that writing to an audience of people who have $$ is what keeps authors fed, right? ...

No sweeping generalizations here. Just from my impression of this author, and others I've heard testimony from (that have largely dissolved to white noise in the back of my head)...I thought it was pretty clear from what I said that I wasn't only going off what this one lady said and applying her words to all authors ever.

I haven't met a vast number of full-time authors, but it's a vibe I get. From lots of articles and testimonies, not just this one.

What I mean is that...it seems like authors who make a living from it sometimes follow the audiences demands to the point of smothering genuine creative expression. as in, the stories you really love to write might not please an audience, so you have to learn to prioritize the audience. It seems to me that to make a living you have to somewhat push aside the things that really excite you. It seems that way. And things I hear from articles I read seem to confirm this.

Not being a published author, I wouldn't know for sure. I was literally just stating my impression/feelings, not preaching my feelings as absolute truth. Or attacking published authors or anyone.