Recently, Kelley and I have been discussing ways we might be able to help other writers learn their craft. One of the things that puzzles and disturbs me as I ponder this notion is how many ‘writers’ think that a course of instruction of some kind–a workshop, a masterclass, an MFA–will provide the magic bullet, the secret decoder ring, the perfect and instant solution…
You can’t become a brain surgeon unless you study at middle school, high school, college, medical school, in practise. Two dozen years of study. Tens of thousands of hours. You can’t become a writer unless you read tens of thousands of books, and write not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands but *millions* of words.
I’ll say that again more clearly: the only way to learn to write is to read and to write. A lot.
I think writing classes are like therapy: if you need more than twelve sessions, you are fucked. And time-wasting. And money-wasting. Because the point of therapy is to find out where you need to do the work, and then go home and do it. That is, the therapist doesn’t fix you, you fix yourself. So endless therapy is pointless. Endless writing classes are similarly pointless. Go read. Go write. Then take a short course (a weekend, say) to hear someone else articulate some of the lessons you’ve already learnt by trial and error. Read some more, write some more. Take a class with a different teacher. Get over your shock that there are as many ways to approach fiction as there are writers. Read even more, write even more. Take another class. Get over your horror that the person teaching the class very probably knows less than you. Read and write once again, with very close attention.
Congratulations. You are now officially a beginner.
I’ve never studied for an MFA, so those of you with experience of such things should speak up and give your input. But I’ve taught post-MFA students, and it’s my belief that an MFA teaches students two things: how to get an MFA, and how to then go out and get a job to teach others how to get an MFA.
I think if you are young, or otherwise new to the game, an MFA can be useful: a structure to underpin your own learning, a way to spend two years not having a job, an excuse to borrow money from the government to support you while you write. Your student cohort may even provide emotional and practical support while you learn your craft and, eventually, practise your art. Your teachers may help you network with agents and publishers when the time is ripe. But it won’t teach you how to write. You will do that. And you will do it by reading and writing.
It’s simple. It’s just not easy. And if you are doing it alone it can be very nearly impossible.
I think I could help a beginner writer (one who has already written the million words) to find a less circuitous path to her or his writing home (or style, or voice, or whatever you want to call it). But does that count as teaching? I don’t know. Perhaps it counts as guiding, or mentoring. I believe (today, anyway–I feel tremendous ambivalence about the whole subject) that only the writer-to-be can do the initial work, only the writer-to-be can ensure the gradual formation of The Writer, and that this occurs on an inarticulate level. I think it’s only the writer-to-be who reads the novels and ponder them and is moved and changed by them. Only the writer-to-be feels the pinprick burn under her breastbone that grows and grows until it’s a fireball that must be loosed.
So, you tell me. Can creative writing be taught by others, or must it be self-taught? Vote in this poll, and then drop a comment. I’m intensely curious.
I've done a few writing workshops while I was in college/grad school. Two of them were amazing — one on fiction, one on creative nonfiction (essays, memoir). Those teachers rocked: Marilyn Sides and Kyoko Mori. They created workshop environments in which everyone there was there to learn and to support one another. Those workshops taught me how to take criticism — and I think that is something that every writer needs to learn. It helps to learn it in a supportive environment, rather than via rejection letters.
So I think that some of the skills required to be a writer, such as learning how to take criticism, can definitely be taught. However, it's delicate. I've also been in a workshop in which the students were mostly there to curry favor with the instructor, and that was not a good environment for really digging into the writing. I didn't learn much there, except how annoying it was when a writer thinks she's better than everyone else.
I'm surprised to be in the (so far) minority saying yes. I believe creative writing can absolutely be taught. I think most can agree that painting, for example, is an endeavor that requires study under teachers. Even the giants of Art attended art school or apprenticed to a master to learn their craft.
Why on earth do we expect people to learn to write without guidance, example and advice? It's nonsense to think talented writers can't (or shouldn't?) learn from others.
A talented painter or writer will do things with what they've learned that are exquisite, exciting and unexpected. Because they do does not entitle us the conclude that writers must therefore develop self-taught.
:::I'll say that again more clearly: the only way to learn to write is to read and to write. A lot.:::
I'll have to respectfully disagree with this statement. This is not the only only way to learn to write. It is a necessary condition for becoming a good enough writer to be published.
All the classes in the world won't help a writer who doesn't put her butt in the chair and work at it. All the writing hours in the world won't help a writer who refuses to listen to advice and tips about writing — that is, a writer who refuses to be taught. Sadly, they are out there.
The writers I know are constantly looking for ways to improve. What are others writers doing, what's her process, will it work for me?
Of course writing can be taught. But I think the real question is whether a given person wants to learn.
I see your question as being a two-parter. Can good writing be taught? Can creativity be taught? And maybe a third – can passion be taught/bought/found?
I’m not a writer, so I can’t speak to that. But I’ve often considered the creativity question. My father is a talented musician. When I was a kid they made me take piano lessons for many years. As soon as I was old enough to strike a bargain, I quit. I was a decent piano player, but I only played by reading music – I never learned to play ‘by ear.’ I also played trumpet (my idea) through 10th grade. I did not have a great talent for either one. But I was competent and could’ve been better if I hadn’t stopped playing the piano because of rebelliousness and laziness. And now I am sorry I quit.
My point is that yes good technique can be taught. And practice makes us better.
I don’t know what it is that makes a great writer – I’m sure you would have more ideas about that than I, but I doubt that it can be taught. I do think that you could teach people to be better writers than they already are – good writers.
Creativity taught? I have my doubts. But I do believe that these things are like the proverbial rubber band, like a muscle that needs to be stretched and trained to reach it’s maximum.
I think that not very many people are as smart or as disciplined as you are. I think most people could benefit from some type of coaching. There is no escaping the work, the practice. The 10,000 hours that Malcolm Gladwell refers to in his latest book. But, I do think that people can be helped with that too. Help with technique and goal setting and accountability and honest feedback. Structure. Maybe even figure out a way that some of the experience they already have can contribute to that 10,000 hours. I think that being a good writer is about a lot of things and that a good mentor/coach would probably need to address other aspects of life/being.
I think people have all different kinds of goals for their writing and that they can be helped to get there. So absolutely, positively, YES.
Oh, and those student loans? They are not money from the government here in the US. They are from banks (at not great interest rates), but they are guaranteed to be paid by the government. A significant difference.
Really thought provoking post.
I voted 'yes' to creative writing being something that can be taught, however I want to add a big 'but' to that.
I think a good, generous and patient teacher can assist people in improving their writing skills. If you show your students what a cliche is, how to find new ways to say things, show them the difference between writing that comes alive as opposed to something that just lays there, those students will benefit from that knowledge.
But…I believe a truly gifted creative writer is born, not made.
I answered yes and no to the poll because as usual I believe the answer is a combination of both viewpoints. Yes the skills and techniques of writing can be taught. No the actual creation of writing cannot. In the west we often confuse learning with knowing. I believe they are quite different in that for me learning is an intellectual exercise, but knowing is more like grokking in Stranger in a Strange Land. It's an integration of what you've learned such that it becomes a part of who you are and you are capable of demonstrating it's effective use in your life. I believe someone can teach you how to write, that is you can learn the skills and techniques that have been helpful to successful writers. But you will not know how to write until you have written enough to find that space where the words are waiting to get out. For me it's just like anything else in life, doing research and learning technique is necessary, but at some point you have to jump in and do it until it becomes part of who you are.
I think of a writing “teacher” as more of a mentor, if he/she is any good. Locate and point out the student's weaknesses, suggest books to read. Too much of it is just about good feelings. Good feelings don't make good writers.
malinda, I believe a good teacher can help a student learn how to approach their work critically, that is, help her or him to get there more quickly than they might have done on their own. And a good teacher can point to certain techniques that a writer might know, but not have articulated to herself clearly. But, again, to me this is more of a mentoring, guiding process than teaching.
carolyn, there are a lot of self-taught artists in the world–some of them very good. Ditto musicians. I do think the occasional class ('occasional' being the operative word) can prove enlightening to someone who is already embarked on their own learning. There again, I think many people who come to creative writing classes began their own learning when they read their first novel, at age eight. (Oooh, another poll: how old were you when you read your first what-could-recognisably-be-called-a-novel?)
jennifer d, I wonder if musicianship and writing could be put in the same conceptual basket… The making of much music, after all, involves the body–lung/mouth/finger coordination, say. Or it used to. Now much of it is keyboard-based (like typing). Hmmn. Interesting.
marie, yes, I teach writers, I believe I help them–but more and more I think I'm more of a guide than a teacher. Is there really a crucial difference? I honestly don't know. It's one of the reasons I wanted to have this discussion; I learn so much from hearing other points of view.
shereta, eh, you and me both. Ambivalence is the word of the day :)
I'm a veteran of various forms of therapy, and can testify that long term therapy can be beneficial *if and only if* you find the right therapist. Someone on your wavelength.
I am also a veteran of writing courses. The two things are not coincidental. I have one year long course under my belt, plus a half dozen or so day or weekend dos.
The year long course was excellent for all the reasons you describe. And it did not teach anyone to write.
Short workshops and talks are also good, when you're in the mood for them. They tell you the same thing every time. More or less the sum total of all that can be said objectively about writing as a craft can be comfortably fitted inside a two day session. But they can also be a great way to gain analytical distance on a piece of work you've been intimately involved with for longer than is healthy. And they get you out of the house, which is also useful.
But none of these things are about *writing*. They're not about teaching raw journalism, or blogging. The essence of all these courses is *story-telling*. So can story-telling be taught?
The analogy between the writing course and therapy is a good one. They are both about the search for something only one person can find: a kind of identity. The search for a single story is itself about identity.
In fact, for some of us, the quest to be a writer is neverending. It is nothing more nor less than the search for the next story. If I find it, I am – while I contain the totality of it – a writer and a story teller. Until I find that next story, I remain a dreamer, aspirant, fighter, searcher – and sometimes (in the context of a stable identity) those can also be good things to be.
But identity is so much stronger and easier to grasp when part of a wider orbit. A circle of like minds, or the nurture of one of those rare, liberating families, or the empathy of a true mentor will provide this.
In other words, writers are born not of courses, but of relationships. And so the right *teacher* could in many cases be the difference between success or failure.
…And really have to take up the “tens of thousands of books” line. Would disqualify most, I suspect: a mere 10,000 books works out at 1.14 books every single day over stated 24 year period. Thousands of books: okay.
anonymous, yes, identity. V. thoughtful comment, thank you. And, yes, I got my arithmetica a bit wrong. (Though I have often exceeded the one-book-a-day thing–when ill or in hospital, for example, I've read five books a day–I've often read a lot yes. So, yes, 'thousands', not 'tens of thousands'.)
elizabeth, I think I see what you're saying, that feeling good isn't what it's about (yes? no?), but I also believe that feeling is at the heart of the writing and reading experience.
As someone just finishing an MFA, I think what you say is mostly right. What the MFA has done for me, besides give me a credential, is to make me feel more certain of myself. I've gotten reactions to my writing from a number of professional writers and from other aspiring writers. But it could easily have gone the other way for me. I do think I'm a better writer now than I was when I started it, but it was not, as you said, “a magic bullet.” I had to do the hard work. I had to think about what I was writing and why, and compare it to the work of others. And to believe that my process was as valid as anyone's, and that what I had to say and my way of saying it was interesting and significant. I had to push myself, to try to reach beyond what I knew I could do. The MFA and all the teachers helped, but it didn't make me what I am. I would divide my classmates into two categories: those who could write well before they came to school and who made progress, and those who couldn't and for the most part, still can't. (But now they can teach, so there's that.)
Yes. I think it can, Nicola, but it depends on the student and the desire to communicate with words. I've been writing for a long time and I hope I will always be a beginner.
Sometimes at workshops/seminars where people pay lots of money to learn writing, the instructor is allowed to utter about two sentences before a hand shoots in the air and an urgent voice cries out, 'How will this get me published?'
For many this is their bottom line. Can't help that. Many are looking for the secret to big paychecks, limo rides, rubbing elbows with celebs etc. This has nothing whatsoever to do with writing.
If you decide to teach or lead a workshop or seminar, I'll would be first in line to sign up. You have so much to teach and what I would/could learn from you would influence everything.
I have an MFA, so that's where I'm coming from with this. Prior to going for an MFA, I didn't get a great deal out of writing classes, so signing up for an MFA was a leap of faith. I was not disappointed. That doesn't mean an MFA necessarily teaches writing.
Malinda mentions the ability to receive criticism as something that can be taught. But not everyone is open to learning it. As Carolyn notes, there is always the “writer who refuses to be taught”. I think a lot of people emerge from an MFA more or less unchanged, because they are impervious to criticism and unwilling to examine their writing honestly.
If you are really commiting to learning and self-improvement, there's a great deal about writing that you can be taught. Of course, if you're truly committed to learning, and self-improvement you could probably learn those things from reading and writing. However, I do believe that you can learn more quickly and efficiently by being told and then applying than by winnowing the insights out of your own private practice. Far more quickly.
I guess you can think of teaching writing like rain. If rain hits a tarp or asphalt, it's not going to soak in and help any flowers grow. And as to the presence and quality of the 'seeds', I don't think talent can be taught either.
Also, I found mentoring a lot more useful than workshops. Intelligent, knowledgeable advice helps you learn more by doing, so I think you're right on with the 'guiding/mentoring' concept.
I'm being difficult again and claiming you left out: it depends on the person and also all of the above.
I think that creative writing cannot be taught at an MFA level, but it can certainly be 'mentored', brought into sharper focus, etc.
I used to believe reading and writing and reading and writing alone would make a decent writer, but then I met people who practised both copiously yet their writing… well, it lacked grab, sometimes even basic grammar and structure and was painful to read. Enter the advice of mentors and peers to point out the weak limbs and leaky gashes and offer possible solutions and techniques: the writing improved exponentially over a one-year period. Guidance and the apprenticeship of craft helps turn blunt practice swords into sharp blades or maybe even lightsabers; the catch is you have to bring your own material to the blacksmith's shop and expect to get burned a few times. Community and the consolidation of discipline are also great assets of the mentoring process. I've commented on this before, in the “perfect writing class” post.
Then there's the issue of making the aspiring writer aware of the fact that audience matters — I bet the concept is non-existent in some minds. Here's where guidance, whether in the form of a one-on-one mentor or a workshop, proves extremely valuable. Try walking into a room full of furious people because you force-fed them the most misogynistic or racist story ever, or walk into the same room but this time full of blank faces and painful silence because your story was so convoluted no one got it. If those experiences don't make you at least consider audience the next time you sit down to write, I don't know what will.
To answer your other poll: I read my first “novel” — if PLATERO Y YO counts as such — at age 6.
I agree that storytelling is a lifelong learning process. I remember asking my mom to tell me the same story every night for a week or two when I was a kid before we moved on to a different one. What I don't remember (I was in kindergarten) is what I did with those stories, but she does. She says that whenever we went to the bank, I'd walk straight to the security guard and spend the entire half hour or so talking to the guy while my mom inched her way to the front of the long line of customers. One day, my mom got curious and asked him what we talked about. The guard replied that I told him stories. I must have been such a curious parrot — not a creator of stories but certainly someone who could appreciate their value enough to hoard them. Too bad I ignored the storytelling bug for decades after that. Luckily, I couldn't help but continue to read and sponge up stories obsessively.
I voted yes because I do a little of that teaching. But timing is really important. Sometimes you're not ready to hear or use certain lessons.
I'm a huge proponent of the million word theory (goes along with the 10000 hours of practice theory). I passed that a couple of years ago, right around the time, interestingly, that I made my first sale.
The most important thing, though, is to figure out what you want to say and use craft to express it. I see many many competent writers come through my slush pile. Why don't they sell? They have nothing to say. They haven't dug into their own psyches and souls to find their own message. Voice is pointless without meaning, but I see writers constantly focus on “Voice” first.
Tough question. I've been through a lot to learn how to write, from library books to online workshops to community college courses, University courses, then Clarion, and another SF/F novel workshop, and an MA in creative writing. About nine years now of seriously learning how to write, and I just got my first print story out earlier this year. I've gotten the most use out of a one-on-one situation with an experienced, knowledgable writer, but even then, I had to be ready to hear it.
Clarion made me feel like part of the writing community without being published yet, and gave me access to certain networks, which has been a huge help. I did the MA for similar reasons, but one thing that irked me about my program was that while it was great in a lot of ways, it also advertised being able to write a publishable novel at the end of two years. It's not true; the grads that sold novels were the ones who'd done a heck of a lot of work before they got there.
If it can be taught or not, a lot of it depends on the person doing the learning. Some don't need classes; they absorb it naturally. Me, I'd rather get feedback to know what's wrong so I can fix it because I can't see it myself. And I did need the classes. They gave me the tools, so that when I got to the mentoring stage I was advanced enough to be able to fix things.
Mentors and teachers can tell you what needs fixed, but you're the one that has to train your brain to think about writing in a slightly different way so you can do it right next time. And that, no one can teach you. Things like getting rid of bad writing habits (like telling too much, or not enough emotion) takes a lot of brain power to absorb that, process it, and then practice until you get it right.
I was a music major as an undergrad, so I get the music perspective too, and you're right in that there are a lot of similarities. My sax teacher said once that a huge part of his job is psychology. Sure, he can tell you where to put your fingers and mouth, but when it comes to the actual playing, he has to help his students get past the little mental blocks like why they can't get a rhythm right, or stage fright, or why they don't trust themselves to lead an ensemble. That's mentoring; there's all kinds of advice, but it has to be tailored to the individual student to really make a difference.
Writing is like that, like overcoming writing blocks or butt-in-chair resistance. It's mental and usually has a deeper reason than “I'm lazy or I have ADD.” Sometimes you have to fix yourself before you can fix the writing. A mentor might be able to help, but it's the student that has to change their way of thinking. No one else can do that, and it's hard.
There's the old adage (Charlie Parker, I believe) that said, “If you don't live it, it ain't going to come out your horn.” I think you can teach people how to put words on a page and give them the tools on how to structure a story, but you can't teach them what to put *in* the story. There's plenty of well-written stories that are publishable, but there's nothing memorable about them because they're lacking soul, for a better word. Makes me think of a couple people I went to music school with, who had perfect pitch and were just naturally good at everything, but they were dull and their music a bit uninspired; they never thought outside the box or really came up with anything new. They played what was on the page just like their teachers told them to. They don't look deep in themselves or the world because they don't need to.
You can't teach people about life, either, that, they have to do themselves and muddle through the best they can. And when they live, they have something to say, and that's what goes into the stories and music.
So (from my perspective, anyway)–teaching = giving students the basic writing tools. Mentoring = helping the individual student be the best writer they can be. The creativity is up to the student.
anon@12:13, yes. Some people are just quite…willful in their inability to learn.
j, eh, you're talking about the magic bullet crew, probably the same people anon, above, named as those who don't/can't learn. Learning, after all, involves nasty work.
joy, I know several writers who could be so much better, who believe they just have to 'get their work in front of the right people', who would rather believe this than pause, honestly assess themselves and their work, and then begin the process of improvement.
lonelypond, you're right. (Though there is an option to tick every box if you want, an 'all of the above' by default.) But sometimes fewer choices lead to deeper thoughts. Sometimes not, of course :)
karina, yes. But I find only grownups can do that, can understand something from another perspective. And only grownups can be writers. And it's not something one can teach. One can point at it, and encourage the beginner writer (and beginner human being) to connect the dots but, sadly, many never make it.
ssas, I don't think you can figure out what you want to say until you know who you are, to some degree.
But this notion of Voice has always intrigued me. So many people use the term to mean different things. Looks as though I'll have to do another post about all this soon…
Oh I think you're absolutely right on needing to know who you are. And I'd love to hear your take on Voice. Such a slippery little eel, that one.
Technique can be taught, like in painting, photography, etc, but what takes something beyond the basics employed to meet a standard in a field is up to the creator. In this case, the writer, and no, that can't be taught. The painter has to have a good eye, and maybe the writer has to have a good ear. Be able to listen to stories so that they appreciate where the meandering nonsense leads and what it all mean.
I don't know, but the intangibles in life are what make magic.
tcastleb, jennifer from p, that's the thing: I'm really not sure anyone can teach someone the techniques. I'm not convinced you can separate technique from content. Sort of like form and function…
ssas, Voice, oh, yep, frisky little eel, that one. I'll pin the sucker down sometime this month.
I see your point about separating technique and content. But I still think technique can be taught to some extent. Some people will not have the aptitude to learnt it fully. And creativity can be coaxed out, but only insofar as it is there in the first place.
I still say people – artists/writers (sorry but I don't think writers are in a special category all by themselves) can be helped to improve. Some will be lousy, some good, some will create 'magic.' And those that can only be mediocre writers deserve the opportunity to become the best they can be – even if that best is only mediocre. That could make them happy. Why not help them get there? I don't think the person being taught/mentored/coached can know how far they can go until they try.
And hey, lots of crappy writing gets published as we all know. Lots of people read that crappy writing. You would be doing all readers a service by helping some writers improve on some of that.
In journalism school they taught us, for example, how a newspaper article was structured. In English literature, we learned about theme and plot and metaphor — how to recognize them, how to build them. In that sense, yes, you can “teach” writing.
I suspect that, beyond the basics, you cannot teach creative writing, only nurture it.
Ah, an excellent + succinct answer by DianneorDi. Teachers can also be dangerous things; like so many endeavours, you find your furnace, get heated to the point of white hot explosion, plunge in the cold water and see if you survive. It's just you and the water; no one can help you with that moment. Or lead you to the forge. But edges can be sharpened. I sat through a short story writing class in college, and everyone (+ the teacher's ego) interfered, muddied and distorted. I'm a little fascinated and a lot put off by writing as the group experience it seems to have become…sorry, I think I crossed the succinct and overly metaphorical line awhile ago…I blame the jazz.
“a structure to underpin your own learning, a way to spend two years not having a job, an excuse to borrow money from the government to support you while you write.”
Er, . . . did you forget the part about all the angst ridden sex?
I'm going to say it MUST be taught, at a certain point– I mean, at least to get you to put your feet on the ground. I am privy to some of the papers academic friends have to grade– I mean, yikes.
I've seen this debate a number of times. Behind it lurks the idea that it's a question with a binary yes/no response. The answer to the question is: it depends on the writer.
The simple advice – to write well you must write a lot – is an excellent maxim.
However, workshops, MFAs etc. can help a student along, if they do nothing else but encourage the writer to write. It's how they structure the teaching that's key. Different people respond best to different methods, and not all courses are alike, so again generalisations about the usefulness of these courses are impossible.
I've been to Clarion West, I've completed a M.A. in Screenwriting, and I'm part of a fortnightly screenwriting/playwriting group that meets to read, discuss and analyse our work and what's being produced. My best experience was Clarion West. It pushes writers to analyse other people's work and see the problems (and the merits), plus it also has the important emphasis on the practical side of writing. Yet, even I can see that this hothouse experience is not for everyone. Most things in life are about timing. If you are ready for the likes of a MFA or Clarion/Clarion West then you are going to benefit – if you are not ready then it might even hinder your progress.
So, yes, I think that courses/workshops can be helpful but there is no way to predict which one will suit the student. The writer alone must make that decision.
The initial desire to create something is the simplest part of the process. It's the work to realise it, and (perhaps) sell it that's important. I believe it comprises of hard-graft, an obstinate desire to stay the course, and the ability to endure repeated rejection. These character traits do not arise easily – they are learned through experience.
To be a better writer you must write a lot, but you also need to submit your work to publications, take criticism, learn from it, evolve, experiment, remain eternally curious, seek allies, and always be vigilant for opportunities and those brilliant flashes of inspiration to strike, which you've encouraged for years. These are all components to the process that need to be practised, and sometimes taught.
It's rarely a simple solution. For some people taking a MFA or a handful of weekend workshops will teach them some of the extra tools they need, while for others it's only the solitary slog in front of the computer. It depends on the writer, and his/her unique requirements.
My apologies for a rather long response.
Let's back up a little. Why did Nicola come all the way to the US to the Clarion writers conference all those years ago?
There in lies all the answers she needs to this question.
It was that or martial arts camp in Holland. I needed to get away, right away, from my life for a while. Clarion wrote back first.
Check out Marge Piercy's poem, 'For the Young Who Want To.'
Let's back up a little. Why did Nicola come all the way to the US to the Clarion writers conference all those years ago? There in lies all the answers she needs to this question.
(*waves to sweetie through the internet to apologize for talking about her now in third person*)
Nicola didn't come to Clarion to learn to write. And as far as I can tell, Clarion had very little to teach her about writing.
If the only real answer to a question is from our own experience, then often the answers are very limited indeed. If Nicola were to have taken her own answer as “the” answer, she wouldn't have ever bothered to teach; and many writers today would be the poorer for that.
I grew up with the saying, “if the pupil hasn't learnt, the teacher hasn't taught.” It didn't take long after I started teaching myself to realize that it is not a one-way process: it's not input in, output out.
In fact, there's a school of though in higher education now that says, essentially, that teaching (intellectual teaching that is, not the see-one, do-one, teach-one beloved of medical schools and other forms of practical arts) is impossible. All a teacher can do is to provide the resources for the student to learn. That means, in part, pinpointing what is important. One thing a student cannot know is what matters in a field. Without some guidance, how is the student to work out where to place her attention? One of the functions of a teacher is to point out to students what counts and to distinguish it from trivia. Another is to show them that, in any analytic task, there are a variety of valid perspectives, some of them inherently contradictory. But the teacher cannot simply transfer to the student the critical skills to decide which of those perspectives to embrace; that takes hard intellectual work on the part of the student.
When it comes right down to it, teachers can “teach” all they want, but a student not prepared to engage in effort won't learn — or not very much. No matter what the subject is, the teacher is not a parent bird, the students are not chicks, and knowledge is not nicely chopped up bits of worm to be dropped into their open beaks.
wendy, that's all so very true. The magic bullet/cut up worm school of thought…
Any skill can be taught. No skill can be taught without additional work (i.e., practice) from/by the student.
Your brain surgeon, after all, didn't just pick up a book, read for a while, and then start using a scalpel until she got it right.
Voicing can be taught. Dialogue can be taught. Theme can be taught. Plotting can be taught. Creating characters can be taught… so, at what point do we say that these add up to “fiction writing?”
Obviously one cannot teach talent, cannot teach inspiration, cannot teach passion, cannot teach the Burning Soul of an Artist. But method? Technique? Process? Tools? Why ever not?
John Irving said that the things he learned in writing workshops he would have eventually learned anyway, but that the workshops provided him with a “short cut”, saving him time.
So, perhaps what, say, a six-week intensive bootcamp like Clarion does, is to cut down, to some degree the number of millions of words one has to write before one knows what one is doing.
ken, cut down, to a degree, yes. But only to a degree–still gotta write those million words.