1.12.2006
Here we go again (Iowa yay! Iowa boo!)
Even as I link to this Galley Cat piece, I regret yet again lifting the lid on such a fruitless squabble and re-releasing those noxious fumes, but there are some who like to get their ire up every quarter, and this is a blog about the topic in question, so here you go. In brief: An MFA Handbook has downgraded Iowa out of the top ten MFA writing programs. Now that I think about it, this could be a brilliant publicity stunt to boost sales for the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
I've been reading Kealey's blog for months now and I read the Handbook last weekend. To be fair, Kealey bases his "rankings" primarily upon funding for students. I think he is more than fair in his description of The Writer's Workshop. He is looking from the outside in, after all. Spend some time on his blog and you'll see what I mean.
I recommend his book and blog to prospective MFA applicants. Heck, in the EarthGoat interview with Lan Samantha Chang, it's clear that competitive funding is an issue she wants to address during her reign.
As a Sox fan, it kills me to say this, but I think it is the only way:
I suggest we all take play out of Derek Jeter's book. After all, we do "play" for the NY Yankees of MFA programs. Have some class, nay INSIST on how classy you are. Don't acknowledge the "Yankees Suck!" chants. Don't get mad when a man holds up his button-nosed child so she can scream at the top of her lungs about how you swallow semen. Just take your swings, all the while saying to yourself, over and over, under your breath: "Mystique and Destiny, Mystique and Destiny, Mystique and Destiny."
Fair! Fair! There's no way in hell the New York Yankees play fair. Putting aside for the moment that the Yankees have over $200 million to spend each year on their players (even as some other teams don't have much more than a tenth of that amount), they don't even always follow the rules of the game (consider the infamous A-rod slap of the 2004 ALCS). That, and they make their players shave everyday. No, sir, that doesn not meet any definition of "fair" with which I am familiar.
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! More baseless assaults on our program by jealous outsiders. Don't you realize the harm you're doing to my resume and earning power when you attempt to damage the Workshop's reputation? It is one step away from outright thievery!
I always enjoy the legend that people that graduate from Iowa are somehow industry "insiders" on a predetermined path to New Yorker glory.
If only that were true -- really, I sincerely wish it were true, considering my mortgage payments, unpublishable novel, and fairly shredded ego.
But I guess something has to explain publishing and the powers that control it (considering JT Leroy, "A Million Little Bullshits," and "The DaVinci Diet").
I think you should read the book (or at least the blog), Charlemagne. Tom Kealey earned an MFA from UMass and was a Stegner fellow at Stanford. I don't think his evaluation of Iowa has anything to do with jealousy.
I'll be applying to MFA programs in the fall and I found his book extremely helpful. If you read it, Charlemagne, you'll find that he concurs with your argument that "Writing is
a). NOT ABOUT MONEY
b). An art form one does because it
1). Makes one happy. Or sexy.
2). Fufills your need to speak your grand ideas to the world."
Iowa is a great program; no doubt about it. Kealey says as much. But the inequity of funding drops it out of Kealey's top 10, because that is HIS top criteria. That's no reason to get hypersensitive and defensive.
Tom Kealey, author of the Creative Writing MFA Handbook, has posted some additional information and a response to some of the blowback he's had tossed into his mailbag.
Just a quick note: I think there's at least one person in this thread and maybe over at Kealey's place too that is more interested in fucking with people than in being honest. Just keep in mind that the internet is really easy venue for wholesale fabrications.
edit- i posted twice.
I told you guys Dick Cheney should have been the new director. He'd have had this foetry on their last legs by now.
I'll bet Beast writes some really deep shit and is getting published all over.
Rogue's poetry, though? Sylvia Plath's zombie rose from the grave just to tell her to grow up and quit with the whining.
I've got your whistle!
Touche!
And ananonymouswwgraduate eats poop!
Double Touche!
I'm a little late to the party here, but I can't help but ask why we aren't thinking about Kealey's completely skewed criteria: the sole thing he's thinking about is funding (actually, he says that the "two criteria of this handbook" are "location and funding," but goes on to say he can't say much about location as it's relatively subjective). So, from the beginning we're not talking about: a) quality of instruction; b) community of writers/poets (i.e. how your colleagues contribute to the experience); c) the actual work of recent graduates and professors (published or un-, since publication is clearly not the only guage of 'success'). Kealey's right to shed light on the role of funding... it's there. You have to eat. But if one really makes a decision based on how many hamburgers can be purchased on a TA salary, well... what do you expect? Stop whining and a write me a fucking poem.
, while an important
Am I the only responder to this post who has read Kealey's book or blog beyond the snippet about WW? Kealey advocates location and funding as the two top criteria for choosing which programs one APPLIES to.
After receiving acceptance letters, he recommends readjusting the criteria to include:
"a) quality of instruction;
b) community of writers/poets (i.e. how your colleagues contribute to the experience);
c) the actual work of recent graduates and professors."
Some of these criteria (a & b) are difficult to guage without discussing them with current students. After acceptance, he strongly suggests contacting current students from the programs to to ask precisely these questions.
As for the importance of faculty in the decision-making process, it is farther down his list because
a) strength of writing does not always equate to strength of instruction
b) writing faculty won't necessarily remain in place during your time in a program.
It iseems the affordability of WW was not clearly understood by Kealey. But the WW website left me wondering, too.
I think it speaks well of the program that so many of you are defending it so strongly, but I would hope some of you would spend some time putting Kealey's WW profile in its proper context before slamming him and his book.
I actually kind of like the mudslinging. I haven't heard the word "gosh" used seriously for some time. Fight with a preacher, don't ask. One has to hope this Nate (if that is his real name) has a thick skin. Really, besides the time to write, the great boon was making "literary friends." And that will happen anywhere unless you're obnoxious and enjoy insulting people anonymously.
Saltwater Farmer- for me, at least, there's two things going on here: responding to Kealey, and responding to anonymous internet jackasses who have decided that all us here are iniquitous tools of the man because of where we spent two years writing and talking about writing. It's unfortunate that legitimate discussion and criticism of the writers workshop can't really exist without the accompanying static, but that just appears to be the package-- at least on the interpoo.
I also am late to the party, but that won’t stop me from offering up my thoughts in manifesto format – and because it’s in manifesto, stream-of-consciousness, unedited format, please forgive any typos.
I’m going to act as if everyone’s interest is sincere (like Saltwater Farmer’s), but I suspect many visitors here (you know who you are) would hate Iowa regardless. Or, as they say, if it isn’t funding, it’s funother. Ha! Okay, I’ll stop.
Anyway, to begin, I wonder whether we can all agree on what I see as a basic truth: there are many ways to become a writer and many ways to become a successful (whatever that means to you) writer. While you have to get an MD to be a doctor, you do not have to get an MFA to be a writer. And this isn’t just a technicality – in the world, many, many successful writers do not have MFAs. So the first question you should ask yourself is whether you feel that the MFA experience or the MFA degree itself will help you in any meaningful way as a writer, and, if so, how. When I applied to MFA programs, I was not at all sure whether an MFA was the best way for me to move myself along as a writer. I had a regular job and managed to write by taking night courses. I ended up applying to five MFA programs. I got into two – Iowa and a second-tier one. I made it to the final round of another top program (which I only know because I had fucked something up on my application and they had to fix it before final decisions were made), but was ultimately rejected there and at two other good programs. So that leads me to the second self-evident truth that every would-be writer ought to know: there is a great deal of subjectivity involved, not just in MFA applications, but in the world of writing. You aren’t totally awesome and set just because you get in somewhere like Iowa, and you aren’t a total loser because you get rejected. One of the best writers in our class, in my opinion, was someone who had been rejected the year before. Someone I know from my night writing classes was also rejected, and I think she is a fantastic, fantastic writer. (Even in my MBA program, the guy who graduated first in our class had been rejected the year before – and that’s a process that should be more consistent, I would think.) In any case, I believe in Frank’s old maxim: (this is paraphrased) to be a writer, you have to have both talent and character, and character entails keeping going when things absolutely suck for you.
When I got into Iowa, I couldn’t believe it. I lucked out and was offered one of the two-year fellowships, which was great and is something I will come back to later on in the funding discussion. Nevertheless, I wasn’t at all sure it was the right move for me. I was worried about the super-competitiveness I had heard about; I was worried about being in Iowa, since where was that?; and I was worried about something I’d heard from a graduate, which was that there was “grad-student-poverty-elitism,” as she called it – in other words, people going to great lengths to seem poorer than the next person, and that didn’t sound all that fab to me because I was 30 and not about to go back to eating rice for every meal.
So I called every former student, current student, or friend-of-a-friend or cousin-of-a-roommate-who-had-a-friend-of-a-friend-who-had-gone-to-the-Workshop I could find. I asked about the atmosphere, the experience, the faculty, the town, what they thought they’d got out of it, what they would do differently, etc. Gradually, it started to take shape for me and I decided to go. Still, though, I was worried about the alleged hyper-competitiveness. But a couple of my former night-class teachers had gone to Iowa and made the point that you can affect your own atmosphere, and I found that to be entirely true – from the get-go, I felt as though people in our class (and the ones above and below) were mature and professional and, despite all of our innate neuroticism, the place did not devolve into some of the scenes of horror, despair, and recriminations we heard of from Back in the Day.
It is my opinion that those horror stories were the result of funding – yes, it used to be worse. Apparently, there was not enough funding to go around, and so people would come in with funding their first year and then get blanked for their second year and have to work three crappy jobs to get by. Once there was at least enough to go around, people improved. More on this to come, but first, I have some other points to make.
First, there are myths beyond the hyper-competitive reputation. The biggest one of these is that there is a “Workshop story.” This is total crap. It is almost as much crap as the person on Kealey’s post who claims that there is a “Christianist agenda” at Iowa now, which is not just crap but completely fucking insane – Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulter insane. Anyway, the faculty at Iowa have wildly different aesthetics, and Frank always let in people with a variety of styles (and I assume Sam Chang will do the same). And I found this to be quite valuable, even though getting totally skewered – nay, disemboweled – by one faculty member in particular was not that pleasant in the moment. I loved the diversity of opinions from the students, too – many of whom now post here and still have diverse opinions. In the real world, people are going to have varying reactions to your work, and it’s good to get used to this.
Another myth is that Iowa grads have a quick and easy path into literary magazines and getting their novels published. I do believe that the Iowa name on your cover letter helps get your story read at some places – and that’s a useful thing – but it does not get your story published. Believe me, I wish it did. But all of these conspiracy theories are hilarious to me (even though I do love a conspiracy theory).
What did I like about the Workshop? I liked the pool of outstanding peers and would encourage any applicant to consider this over the perceived quality of the faculty (and I agree with Kealey’s point that quality of writing does not always – or even often – correlate with quality of teaching). I liked that Iowa City was inexpensive, had lots of interesting and often free things to do, and was a place where people really respect writers (which is nice, if not representative of reality) - working on your novel is a totally legitimate pursuit as far as Iowa City residents are concerned. I liked that I had plenty of time to write and the opportunity to take workshops from so many different faculty members.
Now, if I were in charge of the Workshop, here’s what I would change. I know for sure that there will be disagreement with me here, but I shall press ahead because I have a meeting in 30 minutes.
First, funding. I would make all funding equal and I would make tuition free. The former would require raising money, but I think the latter could be squeezed out of the UI somehow – the university gets so many advantages out of its having the Workshop that it should be willing to do this; some people already get free tuition. I would make funding equal because I think the angst surrounding second-year funding (both the application process and the decisions) is not useful. Let me tell you, it was GREAT not to have to be involved with that. People have to apply with one semester’s worth of work, which seems kind of high-stakes for when you’re just getting going. You spend a lot of time worrying about funding instead of writing at a time when you should be hitting your stride. I think the programs that offer up equal funding are savvy to do so.
Second, the application. I like how Iowa counts the stories you submit above all other components of the application – and it should stay that way. But I would propose that a couple of other things factor in, and let me preface by saying that I propose these for a simple reason: to help make sure that people who are admitted will actually get a lot of work done while they’re here. Obviously, this program is competitive, and because we have all agreed that taste is at least somewhat subjective (which means that there are people who are admitted who could have just as easily been rejected, and vice versa), it seems important to me that you should be an engaged member of the program once you are here. (This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, incidentally.) So I would suggest that recommendations address whether the person is disciplined at writing on their own and committed to being a productive member of the workshop (which means thoughtfully reading and commenting on others’ work as well). And I would also require that every applicant have spent at least one year NOT in school. This is something that I recommend to my finance students and I feel very strongly about it – I can’t think of any exceptions to my belief that you should spend at least a year in the world working, volunteering, etc. I think even just one to two years in the real world will make you appreciate what a place like Iowa offers (ie, time to write) properly and help make sure you get shit done. This isn’t foolproof, of course, but I think it would help. And if we’re giving everyone equal funding and perhaps eliminating some teaching responsibilities, then you need people who can manage their time and kick their own asses.
Third, the workshop format. I know people here will disagree with this, but I was always astounded that only two stories (or novel excerpts) were required each semester. I think it should be three. When Frank made our workshop do this my first semester, I thought that people took some big chances on their third stories that were very interesting. I also think that the workshop should help you learn to work, not just work on your craft, and that requiring more output would help beat good habits into you. I would also allow no revisions to be put up. I’ve thought a great deal about how to teach revision (because I struggle with revision), and I suspect that it works best in conference with your instructor or first readers a bit after your workshop. This would, of course, require that instructors be more available for conferences, which I wholeheartedly support.
Fourth, vocational preparation. Teaching comp as an adjunct is slave labor and I’m very glad that I happened to have experience that I could fall back on for pay after I graduated. People should have other skills that they can use to work flexibly and still write on the side after they graduate. So maybe Iowa could let its writers take a series of courses in web design, or do a joint MFA and master’s of library sciences, or learn some other career that is flexible, pays all right, and uses a different part of your brain than writing. Some people love teaching and it doesn’t interfere with their own output. But that is hardly true for everyone.
I think that’s it. For now. I look forward to our guest commenters’ flames.
You're so right, Matt! It's so clear now. What we should have done is refused to come here, or better yet not applied in the first place! Ah, but hind-sight. Sigh.
Still, even though we had already made the mistake of uprooting our SO's and families and dogs and so forth to accept the cruel and worthless invitation, we at least should have had the courage to repudiate the soulless and identical "workshop" stories we were all forced to write by our dark overlords. Week after week after week of removing anything that resembled plot, flattening characters, fuzzing up the diction to be more acceptable to the LIterary Establishment ... as I look back now, I don't see how I was such a fool. But no, we were too mesmerized -- too busy sucking up to them! The Tractor Beam was too great -- or it would have been, had the very concept of "tractor beam" not been sneeringly dismissed by them as "genre."
It is tragic that the eye-opening wisdom of these critics has reached many of us us too late. I could have already saved myself three semesters of anguish if I had killed myself the day I learned I didn't get a TWF! Killing myself now would just be adding to my pathos, and yet ... maybe there would be a poetic justice to that. It could be my Magnum Opus -- written in blood rather than ink! My poor wife. Or wait, I could kill SER instead! Putting her out of her misery would simply be a mercy killing at this point. Then in prison I could reform monastically while shoring up my street cred and taking up Real Writing -- and YES! even write about it! I have a lot to think about.
Just where those who could have told us all this and saved us so much time and roboticization got their trance-shattering knowledge about the ugly crimes of the WW is mysterious -- but is it enough that they have decided to share it with us sad hordes of "prestige zombies" at long last? We shall see. For now, I guess we can only thank them for this Pyrrhic enlightenment.
Oh Matt, Wehateiowaww, and bababooie, don't take out your frustrations on others who, in the grand scheme of life, are closer to you than you would probably like to admit.
But, all three of you still eat poop!
Triple touche!
Observations that will probably draw wrath from anonymous surfers w/ chips (gouges?) on their shoulders:
1) this is a silly, but amusing childish argument--Iowa rules! Iowa sucks!--probably the product of paranoia and over-professionalizing literature
2) this is primarily a fiction discussion as the "workshop" poem syndrome and lack of diversity (in style) are less applicable to the poetry workshop--at least most recent grads would tell you this--oh, but wait, everything's subjective, as matt's undergraduate wisdom assures us. so take it or leave it.
3) scatology is alive and well [yay poop! te amo, El Gordo]
Ah, I should have realized that the only correct response was "Iowa bites!" I will adjust my talking points, although I fear that this may cause me to lose my longstanding and lucrative sinecure as spokesperson of the Workshop, not to mention my fast track to the Iowa Short Fiction Award (do I even have to apply?).
I do appreciate the experimental readings given to my comment on this posting, and feel confident that this will better prepare me for any future interviews I have with Sean Hannity. But I do wonder the following: if it is common knowledge that Iowa isn't good at dealing with experimental fiction, AAIWW, then why on earth would you (who presumably want to focus there) deign to attend? The Workshop conspiracy must be farther-reaching than I thought, perhaps engaging in midnight kidnapings and brainwashings and other effective (if temporary) mind-control exercises.
To "a prospective student" - I don't have firsthand knowledge of this because I have never asked for a recommendation. Also, despite my coronation by Matt, I am not really the spokesperson for the IWW. Others will be able to tell you more. My gut instinct would be that what your friend says is partially true. I do know Jim McPherson seems to be at the Hy-Vee every day mailing out recommendations. As for the tension, it's not among people who attended the Workshop together; if you look at other threads not related to the always-controversial debate "Iowa yay! Iowa boo!", I think you'll get more of a sense of what it's like - lively disagreements at times, but also a great deal of respect for one another.
And herewith, an unsolicited guest manifesto!
I stop by this blog every once in a while for one main reason: to drop in on an ongoing conversation about writing and the writing life. As an editor at a sports magazine, I am surrounded by people who care about the written word, but not necessarily about literary fiction or poetry. This blog is written by a group of people who seem to care very much about literature and who take the time to debate the fine and/or fuzzy points of it – the sort of points that most people can't be bothered to think about.
Being allowed to follow along seems like a tremendous luxury to me. Here is a community of people who care about the same sort of things that I do, and that the world at large mostly doesn't. That's why I'm here. The people who seem to be here just to throw stones and whine, I don't know what your deal is, but you just seem like bitter cranks. Your complaints about Iowa seem political and petty. You are defining mainstream how? As something people might want to read? You can't mean it literally, as the common approach, because that negates the elitism/exclusivity that you're complaining about. As for unfair advantages, I don't have an MFA at all, and I have a pile of good publishing credits. Publishing is hard work. Rejections happen. Get on with it.
It seems like the strength of the Iowa program may come not from the Dark Side of the Force or whatever is being alleged, but from having fostered a community of people who care about and discuss what good writing is and should be – yes, that's subjective, thus the discussion – and who spend their energy working on their own writing, rather than tearing down that of others. Doesn't that seem more likely than some sinister literary conspiracy?
mdn:
welcome! and thank you for bringing the topic beautifully full circle. to wit, a summary:
the iowa alums who loved the workshop loved it for the community of writers that gathers here in ic. that's the number one best thing about the program, hands down. we are disappointed that the kealey book primarily on funding in its initial selection criteria, because that fails to reflect the community aspect. that said, i think we'd all agree that the funding situation here could be improved, though it has improved in recent years. it would be much nicer not to have to deal with it at all. this is something that will likely have to happen in the future, since wonderful programs like michigan and ut (among many others) are committed to a more egalitarian (or at least predictable) funding system.
so, to those who are seriously considering mfa programs and are trying to decide how to make decisions, take everything into account. think about what's most important to you, be it funding or community or teacher attention, and make that the basis of your application process. use all the resources you have--kealey's book, your own research, communication with people in the programs*--and make educated, balanced decisions. if you're worried that workshop people are producing formulaic fiction, read what they're getting published and determine for yourselves if there's some sort of community aesthetic. don't worry so much about what people bitch about on blogs, and just hope that the people who seemed inclined to nastiness don't end up in a program with you.
good afternoon, and good luck.
*SER and i coordinated efforts in contacting alums during our application process (though, as those of you who know us can imagine, she was wildly on top of it and i piggybacked on her hard work), and we found two interesting things: 1) everyone we wrote to gave us copious feedback, both good and bad, all honest, and 2) everyone we wrote to told us to come here, even the people who'd clearly been miserable. strange, but true.
Belatedly putting my two cents in about rec letters:
I also got excellent rec letters from several professors, which helped me land a great visiting CW prof job the year after I graduated. Both visiting and current faculty write letters. No, I was not a TWF.
About experimental fiction: It's not Iowa's primary focus. Most of the people who come here want to write realism, AND YET I know first-hand that most of the people responding here wrote experimental pieces while they were students. Including me. The last one I wrote got a middling-poor review from one prof, one good review from another, and a complete rave from the last, for the EXACT SAME story. Now if that doesn't speak for differing aesthetics, I don't know what will.
If you're honestly asking:
I think that Foetry makes the workshop (and other MFA programs, btw) a convenient and caricatured symbol of an issue within academia that, honestly,has plenty of other manifestations with both higher stakes and graver consequences. I don't know why this is, but on the other hand, I don't exactly wonder why there isn't a site devoted to the injustices of Classics or Library Science awards. It just wouldn't fit into such a compelling narrative. Literature is both academic and pop cultural- maybe that's it. I don't know.
The point is- the object of your disaffection might be bigger than you think.
Swink took down their guidelines on their Web site, so there's no way at the moment for me to check what rules were used. But I just want to be clear. Professor X2 and/or Professor X3, are you alleging that Swink and Charles d'A are guilty of fraud? Do you suspect them of fraud? You really think that Charles d'A really gives a hoot where some entrant went to school -- to the point where he'd risk his reputation? I just want to make sure I understand what is being alleged here, anonymously. Of course if it turns out to be that C d'A couldn't have known who wrote the winning story -- which is how most story contests are run -- then of course there will be an apology to him, right, and to Swink magazine? Not to mention to Sarah Strickley, whose moment of achievment is being questioned, anonymously? Sure there will.
Foetry? Really?
My last comment said more than that about using that site as evidence in an argument, but I'll just leave it at:
Foetry? Really?
Poop.
Yes, if he'd only had more quality feedback like that in workshop, Ian wouldn't have to rely his connections to get where he is today -- that is, Easy Street. You'd be great in class, I can tell, professor x5. At least he wrote something. And it wasn't parody, fyi. It was satire.
First, I think this must be the post with the most comments ever on Earth Goat. A round of Cristal for everyone!
Second, regarding the presumably sincere question of UT vs. Iowa, I will weigh in since I once asked the same questions. I believe the reason UT wasn't ranked highly on the 1997 US News list was that it had not yet received the big bucks from the Michener estate and had therefore not yet kicked into high gear. I think it's a very impressive program, and I am envious of the dual-major structure and the screenwriting option. Three years, equal funding, and no TA-ing are also attractive features. I do know people who have been admitted to both, so it is possible. Michigan also seems to be quite smart with the way it goes about funding and teaching opportunities. UT's $17,500 or whatever would not be a great wage for Austin, but it's better than trying to live in NYC.
As for Foetry, I think they originally had some legitimate points but have lost their credibility by going so far off the deep end. It seems obvious to me that all contests should be blind and all contest rules clearly spelled out. Professionalism should be the rule, not the exception. But would the universal adoption of such rules persuade Foetry that there is no cronyist conspiracy? I doubt it.
Finally, I liked Ian's satire. Of course, I like anything he or anyone else here does, because despite the vicious competition over every last morsel of funding or approbation that fraught our days at Iowa, we are united in our fealty to a Masonic code of loyalty and secrecy. Oh, you should see the rituals! I've said too much.
Dude, you totally know what ProfessorX5 eats.
It's poop, by the way.
In Spanish it's called mierda.
Touche!
Eh? What's this about Julia?
The professors have become tiresome.
As for you, Rev. Ames, you just ... stop it! We are not, you stupidhead! There's no stupid Bible class! (Here Grendel breaks down sobbing)
I can't speak for Julia, but as someone who teaches an adult ed class to supplement my meager income as a writer (meager despite the sundry benefits of being in a secret society that rules publishing from behind the scenes), I will say that there is no shame in marketing. You market on the basis of anything that might net customers. So damn right she lists all that.
(But I'm confused: is an MFA from Iowa the preferred route of sycophantic hacks into the big time, or is it a desperately useless piece of paper that, laughably, only results in adult ed classes?)
Not to prolong a conversation that really just deserves to end, but some of the Iowa-haters in this thread don't seem like they'd be happy in any MFA program. Because honestly, the similarities outweigh the differences- tremendously so. Those commenters should just join a writer's colony, preferably one without internet access. (I have the feeling they'd get more done that way.)
Prospective student, you didn't ask me, but let me just throw this out: the TWF competition is about the quality of the writing, but subjectively, through the eyes of the faculty at the time.
Everyone submits a story or two, which can't be the one(s) you applied with, somewhere around the beginning of the second term. The faculty reads them and pick the TWFs, the handful of the best, depending on the amout of money they have on hand. Like any writing contest.
The thing is, based on surveys in later years, having been selected as a TWF does not predict writing success. In other words, jkust because you'r ea TWF doesn't give you a greater chance of becoming a successful writer, and just because you weren't a TWF doesn't give you less of a chance. That's because the talent is pretty evenly spread, and whatever jumped out at the faculty at the time may not hold true later, or for journals, or agents, or publishing houses.
As for TWFs on this blog, actually, without naming names, most of the active posters were not TWFs, but got regular teaching assistantships, meaning they taught rhetoric, literature, and/or creative writing to undergrads for their paychecks (TWFs teach higher level classes in their genre -- poets teach poetry writing, etc.). Some posters here were TWFs, though to be honest, I have trouble sometimes remembering who was and who wasn't a TWF, which may itself say something about TWF's importance.
Bottom line, if the TWF system is still in place when you get here, and there is some reason to think it may not survive much longer as we know it, it's not something to worry too much about. Certainly it's nothing to obsess over, although some have and do. You'll either get it or not, but in the long view, supposedly, it doesn't predict success in writing one way or the other. The main thing is to write, write, write, read, read, read, write, write, write. The atmosphere and freedom are the main things. Hope that helps.
Grendel handled that well, but to avoid accusations of dodginess, I'll just say I more or less agree. The fact that you have to reapply for funding (for your second year) at the end of your first semester sucks, there's no question about that. I won't really defend the current system, and if you read through this thread and others on the topic, most of us are at best ambivalent about the current funding system. I'm glad to see it might be revised by the new director.
Just remember that prestige is the biggest difference between many of the appointments. I won't pretend that at the time I wasn't disappointed that my application wasn't chosen as one of the seven best, but I made only about $1000 less than the TWFS my second year as a TA, if I recall correctly, by picking up a third class. So things worked out okay for me.
For students like myself who sometimes had financial trouble, the workshop office was VERY supportive. I got a mysterious scholarship at one point in my first year, and I know Connie helped at least one other student find a job so he could afford to stay on. For all the talk about this stuff, that support is easy to overlook. I arrived to Iowa with $200 to my name and a broken down chevy. I took on some debt because my girlfriend was working a crappy social service job and we needed it for living expenses. But it turned out okay. So long as you arrive with some savings and a commitment to making it work, you should be fine.
In most "measurable terms," an MFA is an entirely useless degree. I don't think the kind of certainty you want is possible.
I wrote a lengthy response last night that got lost, but here's the recap:
1. If any outsiders are still reading this thread in earnest, you should question the motives of the negative (and largely sweeping and wild) criticisms of the Workshop, which haven't been stated by anyone posting said criticisms. (Is it to get angry responses from grads? Check. Or to dissuade people from attending Iowa? If so, why? Would someone explain in a rational way?)
2. The Iowa WW is not a perfect MFA program -- probably none exists. Most all grads posting on this blog have conceded that the disproportionate funding is a flaw (read the first post to the thread!). But this does not change the fact that the majority of people in charge at Iowa, faculty and admistrators both, try their best to make it the best program it can be, or the fact that the majority of students try their hardest, or the fact that it's a studio program rather than academic, or the fact that it's located in Iowa City, an amazing town.
3. I wrote that ABR essay that's been linked to, and it's a flawed piece. I still stand by much of it, but specifically the representation of funding is misleading, which is one of several aspects of that essay I regret. That the "critics" of the Iowa MFA have turned me into a "defender" of the program is amusing, to be honest (as I said above, it's not perfect . . . but the more negative representations on this thread are irresponsible and vague, at best).
Pocono -- I think you owe an apology --
for speaking with a mouth full of Poop!
Yee Hah!
In all sincerity, I wrote that essay to point out a few flaws at Iowa and to suggest some simple remedies. Some frustration colored the essay's tone; if I wrote it again, I'd point out that students who attend Iowa should probably expect to study realism more than experimentalism, generally calm it down, and more strongly emphasize that the problems with funding, while a bit unfair, don't even always impact second year funding. This last one is the detail you're complaining about, isn't it? Sorry about that.
I think ProfessorX4 has just proven something -- he, she, or other knows where to find the Poop!
Because ProfessorX4 eats it.
A lot.
It makes people nervous.
To me, the most innovative writers out there are either writing sci fi- China Mieville, Carol Emschwiller-- or else are playing with the issues of modernity in a way that is striking and novel, even if it falls under "realism"- Percival Everett, Ali Smith, etc.
I don't think any of these writers would be laughed out of the room at Iowa. I think that many if not most would recognize them as the greats they are. But you know what? ANY committee-- and a workshop is in many ways a committee-- is going to include naysayers. So fucking what? Don't be such a delicate flower. If you really want to turn fiction upside down, then take your licks.
Earnest innovation seems really hard, no matter where you go. It involves risks and many revisions to achieve clarity of vision. So I wouldn't be surprised if people working outside of convention have trouble in any workshop. If only because they have to "test" every single decision they make that strays from the tried and true (and sometimes tired) manners of convention. To expect an experiment to be successful on the first try is silly. There's often a lot to criticize in rough drafts, and probably more than usual in "innovative" writing. Given a high level of discourse, all these flaws will be drawn to your attention. And if you're truly being innovative, no one anywhere will know what you should do to fix these flaws-- no one but you. So you'll probably also get a higher rate of useless advice.
But again, I don't think any of these problems would be specific to Iowa. I think it is the workshop model. I think it is the nature of sharing your work with a group who wants to help you make it better. Outside of a self-consciously "experimental" program like Brown, anyway. And even there, I have to wonder how they operate.
Are you seriously telling me that this hilarious thread isn't going to make it to 100? That's disappointing.
I was going to try to wait and be 100, but oh well.
I wanna be 100! I wanna be 100!
I can't believe I missed it by just one. TLB, you bested me yet again!
Post a Comment