From: willdorr@nlbbs.UUCP (William Cutlip)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Creativity, Creative writing classes
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:02:31 GMT
Organization: The Northern Lights BBS, Portland, ME  * 207-761-4782 *

cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes: 

>Okay.  Neither of you are foolish enough to claim that all, or no, 
>academic writing teachers are doddering idiots. Bill thinks most 
>are. Tom thinks some are. Hardly a recipe for a resolvable 
>argument. 

>Bill, do you think an unsuccessful writer _can't_ be a successful 
>writing teacher?  Why not? 

I do not think that unsuccessful writers cannot be successful 
teachers; I have not said that most writing teachers are doddering 
idiots. 

Tom, of course, says that I have. 

If you read this thread backwards, Curt, you will find a posting 
wherein Naughty Nancy (I think it was) questioned the value of her 
creative writing class. She said that her CW teacher was, in some 
sense, inhibiting or restricting her creative development. I 
gathered from her missive that the teacher's approach was rigidly 
academic. 

My response (as nearly as I can recall) was something like, "That is 
in fact the way the thing works. Your teacher is not necessarily 
there because he or she can support her/himself as a writer. The 
western literary tradition must be preserved at all costs, 
especially that portion of the canon covered in your teacher's 
postgraduate work." 

Note that I said, "Your teacher" -- Nancy's teacher, a specific 
teacher. I then said, "The western lit tradition must be preserved 
at all costs" -- which, I still say, is a specific reference to a 
specific musty/dusty conservative academic mindset. It's real; it's 
out there; it exists. 

I then described a specific teacher (a medievalist) who forbade the 
writing of metafiction in her classroom. I published one of those 
forbidden stories, and pointed out that my teacher had never 
published fiction. In a later posting, I made another specific 
reference to another specific teacher who discouraged the writing of 
science fiction in his classroom. 

Now follow this thread: 

Nancy asked for some degree of support and/or validation because her 
writing teacher -- described as authoritarian and pedagogically 
orthodox --  was squelching her creative spirit. It seemed to me 
that the question was, "What is the value of this experience? Will I 
still make it as a professional writer, even though I don't seem to 
please my writing teacher?" 

An accurate paraphrase of my response would be, "I know that story 
and it goes like this: There are _A_FEW_ teachers out there who are 
so steeped in the canon of western literature that they cannot 
tolerate anything else. These people are preservationists, not 
teachers, and conservative academic preservationists have no 
business teaching creative writing in the late 20th century." 

I included the fact that I had published a story that my teacher 
disliked -- something that my teacher had never done -- to say that 
the publishing world is not by any means enthralled to the Auld 
Order, so don't worry: If you're any good, you'll publish, whether 
the Reverend Gudge approves or not. 

If I have erred anywhere, it was that I failed to spell everything 
out for the cognitively challenged. Speaking of which... 

Enter Tom Maddox, stage left, "...astride his cayuse, a baleful 
glitter in his eye; at a gallop, mud-spattered, high in oath." His 
posting -- an overblown and inflated rhetorical null, a textbook 
example of non sequitur -- was essentially a "defence" of writing 
teachers everywhere: the people Tom swears I was referring to. 

Wham! Swineprints all over my pearls.

The phrase that apparently aroused the little bastard that rules 
Tom's soul was, "Your teacher is not necessarily there because he or 
she can support her/himself as a writer." Tom is now morally, 
emotionally and professionally commited to the idea that the only 
possible interpretation of that phrase is a universal condemnation 
of writing teachers everywhere. 

What do you think, Curt? Is that what I meant? Read all those 
postings thoroughly, take your time, think about it. 

While you're at it, can you show me exactly where I have said, "Most 
writing teachers are doddering idiots"? Look at the words, think 
about the context. Did I really say that?     

"Writing is reading and reading is writing," says A. S. Byatt -- a 
statement that I heartily endorse. Good writers are also careful 
readers; the same can be said of good writing teachers. Do you 
agree? If so, do you believe that Tom read my original posting 
carefully, impartially, with a view to helping me as a writer? If 
not, what does this say about Tommy the Certified Writing Teacher?  

>Gah. Yet another Tom Maddox flamewar. Somehow literary talent and 
>raw invective don't mix. 

"Another" Tom Maddox flamewar, you say. I take it then that this is 
not a rare occurance. Have you asked yourself what Tom is doing on 
this net -- indeed, what is his reason for being? The answer is that 
Tom desperately wants to be admired. He is (in short) a wanker, and 
you are his unwilling witness. I am just another person (in a long 
string of such persons, apparently) that Tommy has a need to feel 
superior to. 

Tom seriously believes that he has lighted upon this conference like 
an eagle on a discarded peanut. "A real writer," we should say, 
"with a job and everything. Give us more of your words, O Man of 
Letters!" 

It is Tom's intention that we read about his "literary luncheons" 
with Connie Willis and be very impressed. He wants to be admired for 
echoing Chuq's opinions, and respected for his endless sucking up to 
established scifi personalities. 

He believes that all the above gives him the authority to act as 
some sort of paraliterary enforcer in this conference. Look at his 
postings, note the moral posture: "I'm merely goading you into 
acknowledging the truth. You've done that, between irrelevancies and 
evasions, so I'm satisfied." 

I give you Tommy the Teacher, sole arbiter of the truth, a force in 
this land. 

Can you imagine yourself sitting in this man's classroom? Can you 
see yourself saying, "I don't agree with that assessment, Dr. 
Maddox"? You wouldn't dare -- not necessarily out of fear, but 
simply because you value your time. 

I should say that I have learned some things of value from Tommy on 
this net. I have, in the past, responded to casual and innocent 
postings with an abrasive and artificial erudition. Having seen Tom 
at work, I realize that I have been a complete asshole. Please 
forgive me. I most certainly do not want to be like the honorable 
General Sir Thomas Maddox in any way. 

Also, I've benefitted greatly from a reading of Tom's book -- 
"Hello," I think it was, or "Wahoo," the subtelties of which were 
laid on with a sledge hammer. It was an uplifting read, really. If a 
plodder like Tommy can supplement his income by selling such 
dreadful bilge to actual grownups, imagine what a person with a 
little art in his or her soul could do. 

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .     

           "The success of fools in the university world 
            is one of God's great mysteries."

                  -- John Gardner, from *The Art of Fiction*