i've noticed a rising hatred towards the mfa amongst non-mfa holders who enjoy culture in recent years. is this hatred warranted? i can't deny that i hold some skepticism that this idea isn't just everyone hopping on the same bandwagon of thought. not that it's unfounded or not empirical, i think there's compelling evidence that the best artists don't come from the mfa. but i'm still doubtful about whether the criticisms shot towards the mfa are entirely valid.
No.7181
Anonymous
2025-08-19 06:20:46
Multi factor authentification?
No.7182
Anonymous
2025-08-19 06:21:12
master of fine arts, I assume
No.7184
Anonymous
2025-08-19 10:08:44
Hearing MFA creative writing students talk about literature is always very interesting because it seems they have essentially a lay-person's understanding of the field. They're reading Ferrante and Moshfegh and Rooney and their even-worse imitators. You don't see this very much in people studying Music, visual arts, etc. where even undergrads quickly start seeking out the avant-garde. You DO also see this in Film schools.
No.7186
Anonymous
2025-08-19 10:25:58
Personally speaking, an MFA sounds interesting to me, because I enjoy nothing more than reading and writing all day. However, I think it's obvious that they would create poor writers. I'll admit to knowing close to nothing about the MFA process or standards or even what exactly they do, except that it's a course/degree in "writing," but I don't think anyone who wants to write could hope to become a writer by learning to write. Maybe by learning to read. The academizing process sequesters the scholar. Good for someone who is nose deep in textbooks, bad for someone trying to make engaging, interesting, and intelligent artwork.
No.7187
Anonymous
2025-08-19 10:37:13
I know at least this course in England seems to have produced some pretty serious writers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEA_Creative_Writing_Course
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEA_Creative_Writing_Course
The idea that you can teach someone how to write is as fatuous as the idea that you can teach someone to be a fast runner or to be tall.
You either are born with it, or aren't.
You either are born with it, or aren't.
No.7195
Anonymous
2025-08-19 12:07:51
>>7179 (OP)
Take comfort in knowing most MFAs won't amount to anything and will spend their lives drowning in student loan debt.
Take comfort in knowing most MFAs won't amount to anything and will spend their lives drowning in student loan debt.
No.7202
Anonymous
2025-08-19 18:43:59
I dunno about an MFA for writing but fantasize about getting a degree in arts. I would like to learn how to paint
No.7207
Anonymous
2025-08-20 03:28:10
>>7194
You were born holding a pencil? Also, who decides who has it and who doesn't?
You were born holding a pencil? Also, who decides who has it and who doesn't?
>>7194
yeah sure, as with every skill there’s a genetic component in terms of ability, but i think that the type of reading done during a child’s critical language acquisition phase has more of an influence, followed by continuous reading after that and regular practice of writing. and don’t forget about breadth of knowledge/life experience. those things are far more important than just innate ability.
yeah sure, as with every skill there’s a genetic component in terms of ability, but i think that the type of reading done during a child’s critical language acquisition phase has more of an influence, followed by continuous reading after that and regular practice of writing. and don’t forget about breadth of knowledge/life experience. those things are far more important than just innate ability.
>>7212
The type of literature a child reads is mostly determined by what he wants, since ordinary people who read the books they are obliged to read have very minimal skills in writing. You can't make a dull, or even just ordinary student into a great writer by making him read good literature.
>>7213
>All it takes to run faster is to run more
It's hard to believe you actually think this.
Is the only reason you never won any competitions for running because you didn't put in the effort? It is a comforting idea. But genetics is what's fundamental.
The type of literature a child reads is mostly determined by what he wants, since ordinary people who read the books they are obliged to read have very minimal skills in writing. You can't make a dull, or even just ordinary student into a great writer by making him read good literature.
>>7213
>All it takes to run faster is to run more
It's hard to believe you actually think this.
Is the only reason you never won any competitions for running because you didn't put in the effort? It is a comforting idea. But genetics is what's fundamental.
No.7222
Anonymous
2025-08-20 21:02:07
I think the MFA question is basically a question about norms and values. Do we want to value things that can be formed (form, technique, etc) or things that transform (ways of seeing, new audiences / contexts)? Obviously the first can be taught in an MFA, but it comes with the risk of producing insular academic art. An MFA program could provide a shelter for the second type, but it's a small shelter. Really if MFA programs are going to promote novel approaches, then they either have to dish out faculty positions as a longer-term shelter (deeply unlikely) or act as a startup-like launchpad for people who arrive pre-prepared (also unlikely, and a prime case for the Matthew effect).
>>7216
Culture and educational environment obviously make a huge difference in determining ones literary taste and trajectory. This is obvious to anyone who has ever left their country and interacted with others.
A person with innate ability may very well be hampered by the environment around them if it is particularly deprived of literature and access to reading.
Culture and educational environment obviously make a huge difference in determining ones literary taste and trajectory. This is obvious to anyone who has ever left their country and interacted with others.
A person with innate ability may very well be hampered by the environment around them if it is particularly deprived of literature and access to reading.
No.7226
Anonymous
2025-08-21 02:26:11
>>7224
absolutely. and this doesn't just go for writing, but for anything with educational involvement in general. my grandfather was an academically curious type who had not just the desire, but the capability to make a life out of academia or the arts. instead, the cultural revolution arrived and the schools were shut down; he never got the chance to finish middle school. spent his life as a peasant farmer from the dirt-road village he grew up in.
only the lucky ones make it out of such squalid conditions. i'm thankful my mother did, and honestly she wouldn't have if the chinese government didn't take on a no-nonsense egalitarian model of education.
i was raised in small-town america and i can tell you that many from the high school i attended did not continue onto higher education. most went into the trades, ditto a prestigious college or university program. not only is there a massive socioeconomic divide within education, the urban-rural divide is real.
this applies to libraries too: the single-floor rusty old house that i frequented weekly as a kid holds nothing against the 20+ libraries my university had, including one 16-story behemoth. the culture shock was something too, but i've digressed enough.
absolutely. and this doesn't just go for writing, but for anything with educational involvement in general. my grandfather was an academically curious type who had not just the desire, but the capability to make a life out of academia or the arts. instead, the cultural revolution arrived and the schools were shut down; he never got the chance to finish middle school. spent his life as a peasant farmer from the dirt-road village he grew up in.
only the lucky ones make it out of such squalid conditions. i'm thankful my mother did, and honestly she wouldn't have if the chinese government didn't take on a no-nonsense egalitarian model of education.
i was raised in small-town america and i can tell you that many from the high school i attended did not continue onto higher education. most went into the trades, ditto a prestigious college or university program. not only is there a massive socioeconomic divide within education, the urban-rural divide is real.
this applies to libraries too: the single-floor rusty old house that i frequented weekly as a kid holds nothing against the 20+ libraries my university had, including one 16-story behemoth. the culture shock was something too, but i've digressed enough.
>>7224
No-one in the modern world is deprived of literature or access to books. Even poor Third-Worlders have access to more literature through their smartphones than pre-internet book-collectors would ever have had. Almost all the best books are in the public domain by now.
Re culture and educational environment, people who don't have the genes for literature produce kids who don't have these genes either. The arid culture they create is a byproduct of this. If they had a child who actually was genetically strong in this area, and they weren't, the child would apply themselves and go and get books under their own steam.
Comparing the situation in reasonably free countries with China during the Cultural Revolution, which was an emergency period, is just inane
No-one in the modern world is deprived of literature or access to books. Even poor Third-Worlders have access to more literature through their smartphones than pre-internet book-collectors would ever have had. Almost all the best books are in the public domain by now.
Re culture and educational environment, people who don't have the genes for literature produce kids who don't have these genes either. The arid culture they create is a byproduct of this. If they had a child who actually was genetically strong in this area, and they weren't, the child would apply themselves and go and get books under their own steam.
Comparing the situation in reasonably free countries with China during the Cultural Revolution, which was an emergency period, is just inane
No.7228
Anonymous
2025-08-21 07:30:52
>>7227
having the time to read, the guidance to find good books, learning how to read novels - all these things are not available to everyone
having the time to read, the guidance to find good books, learning how to read novels - all these things are not available to everyone
No.7234
Anonymous
2025-08-21 11:15:42
>>7227
>No-one in the modern world is deprived of literature or access to books.
>...
>If they had a child who actually was genetically strong in this area, and they weren't, the child would apply themselves and go and get books under their own steam.
Before the age of 13 or 14 it is not reasonable to expect a child to know that so-and-so public tracker or internet archive provides free books. That happens to be the period when reading and writing strength is most active and vulnerable to delay. Yes, a prodigy may be able to teach themselves to read as pre-teenager children, but they will not get very far if they have little access to physical books, or older figures who can help them with electronic books[1]. They can teach themselves, but they will never be GREAT WRITERS. They are forever at a disadvantage. They may have access to books and live in a "literary society" (as much as such a context can exist in the US) but be hampered by other circumstances, which prevent them from actually having personal time and sitting down with the book in a quiet space.
Users have started this thread not about general literacy rates or how many "advanced readers" can get their hands on some 100 IQ Tor tome series, but writers of high literary caliber. Societies used to produce them at a much higher rate than before. You keep pulling the conversation in a different direction because you want to go on about how the minorities you hate around you are so dumb and don't read.
>Re culture and educational environment, people who don't have the genes for literature produce kids who don't have these genes either.
I think it is extremely clear when you look at the gyres of history, in broad strokes, that the periods in which literature and culture flourished as strong institutions are those in which the bulk of "classic literature" or just plain good writing comes from. It is not a mistake. I reject the lazy, pseudoscientific categorization of great writing talent as something akin to a sports statistic like leg length, passed down in inherited genetic markers[2]. There is no "good writing genome", you cannot locate or deduce such a thing in a genomic sequence. You motion to science as a justification for your beliefs but keep it at arms length, as I'm sure you find the request for a scientific basis for writing talent as pedantic and reddit-y. Again, this thread started with discussion about Masters of Fine Arts, people who spend their adult lives refining a craft-- something which may ultimately start with some sort of innate ability but is obviously superceded by human-created improvement at some stage.
I also think literature is a little more different than other arts such as music or painting in that it does require a more significant environmental structure. One can spontaneously learn to draw their environment well just by looking, but the same can't be said for literature. No one will spontaneously develop a whole language unto themselves without having had contact with it from external sources; and if they did, we wouldn't understand it, thus nullifying the whole point of literature.
>Comparing the situation in reasonably free countries with China during the Cultural Revolution, which was an emergency period, is just inane
The other anon made a comment about the Cultural Revolution; obviously, my comment was tacitly referencing the current state of affairs in the US. You thought I was bashing on the dumb browns and not you yourself, whoops!
---
[1] Do not continue to lecture me about shit available online, I have been collating and distributing it since you were a child watching Spongebob on television
[2] In your cohort, this excessive rhetorical crutch of always going back to discrete genetic markers as numbers to be tallied, is a development that started with video games and mutated with recent-era internet bigotry to form the new human biodiversity, except one layer removed from the older, more thorough bigots of yore, and all the more pathetic for it.
>No-one in the modern world is deprived of literature or access to books.
>...
>If they had a child who actually was genetically strong in this area, and they weren't, the child would apply themselves and go and get books under their own steam.
Before the age of 13 or 14 it is not reasonable to expect a child to know that so-and-so public tracker or internet archive provides free books. That happens to be the period when reading and writing strength is most active and vulnerable to delay. Yes, a prodigy may be able to teach themselves to read as pre-teenager children, but they will not get very far if they have little access to physical books, or older figures who can help them with electronic books[1]. They can teach themselves, but they will never be GREAT WRITERS. They are forever at a disadvantage. They may have access to books and live in a "literary society" (as much as such a context can exist in the US) but be hampered by other circumstances, which prevent them from actually having personal time and sitting down with the book in a quiet space.
Users have started this thread not about general literacy rates or how many "advanced readers" can get their hands on some 100 IQ Tor tome series, but writers of high literary caliber. Societies used to produce them at a much higher rate than before. You keep pulling the conversation in a different direction because you want to go on about how the minorities you hate around you are so dumb and don't read.
>Re culture and educational environment, people who don't have the genes for literature produce kids who don't have these genes either.
I think it is extremely clear when you look at the gyres of history, in broad strokes, that the periods in which literature and culture flourished as strong institutions are those in which the bulk of "classic literature" or just plain good writing comes from. It is not a mistake. I reject the lazy, pseudoscientific categorization of great writing talent as something akin to a sports statistic like leg length, passed down in inherited genetic markers[2]. There is no "good writing genome", you cannot locate or deduce such a thing in a genomic sequence. You motion to science as a justification for your beliefs but keep it at arms length, as I'm sure you find the request for a scientific basis for writing talent as pedantic and reddit-y. Again, this thread started with discussion about Masters of Fine Arts, people who spend their adult lives refining a craft-- something which may ultimately start with some sort of innate ability but is obviously superceded by human-created improvement at some stage.
I also think literature is a little more different than other arts such as music or painting in that it does require a more significant environmental structure. One can spontaneously learn to draw their environment well just by looking, but the same can't be said for literature. No one will spontaneously develop a whole language unto themselves without having had contact with it from external sources; and if they did, we wouldn't understand it, thus nullifying the whole point of literature.
>Comparing the situation in reasonably free countries with China during the Cultural Revolution, which was an emergency period, is just inane
The other anon made a comment about the Cultural Revolution; obviously, my comment was tacitly referencing the current state of affairs in the US. You thought I was bashing on the dumb browns and not you yourself, whoops!
---
[1] Do not continue to lecture me about shit available online, I have been collating and distributing it since you were a child watching Spongebob on television
[2] In your cohort, this excessive rhetorical crutch of always going back to discrete genetic markers as numbers to be tallied, is a development that started with video games and mutated with recent-era internet bigotry to form the new human biodiversity, except one layer removed from the older, more thorough bigots of yore, and all the more pathetic for it.
No.7235
Anonymous
2025-08-21 12:20:05
>>7227
the point of the anecdote regarding china and rural america was not to compare apples to apples, but rather explain how background and childhood experience can have an immense impact on future. this is very well documented and there is no bigger correlation regarding achievement in life than childhood background and experience. if i go onto the nih website right now, i can find over 100k studies solely about this subject.
but anyways, you seem to forget that internet technology hasn't always existed. i notice in your reply you keep talking about now, now, now. that in the modern age, there is no excuse but genetics. not only is the way you describe the modern world as a free-flowing exchange of ideas not true for, quite frankly, most of the non-elitist world, it's an incredibly western-centric train of thought that ignores the troubles of accessibility that the average person in this world faces. like i said earlier, the writers and people who make it out of these circumstances are primarily supported by luck.
not to mention if availability was holding back great writers, the golden age of writing should be upon us right now. yet it isn't, partially because of the cultural issues that come about from having so many more distractions, but maybe also from the fact that seeking out good literature doesn't require a glorified decentralized communication network? that literature stems more from the culture and the environment, instead of pure availability?
it definitely can't be solely based on the intelligence of a child out of the womb, the flynn effect would prove otherwise yet finding good literature written within the past ten years is definitely a more labored process. we can even see this change with the shifting of the author spotlight from more literary authors towards more dubious ones, from the titans of their time: john updike, david foster wallace, william vollmann, zadie smith, johnathan franzen, is there anyone today even comparable to this set? heck, it feels just a measly two decades ago that these names were household names, yet the a-list has been bastardized. ocean vuong? hah, you're a funny guy. (tying this back to mfas, wallace is the only writer of the earlier list to hold one)
the point of the anecdote regarding china and rural america was not to compare apples to apples, but rather explain how background and childhood experience can have an immense impact on future. this is very well documented and there is no bigger correlation regarding achievement in life than childhood background and experience. if i go onto the nih website right now, i can find over 100k studies solely about this subject.
but anyways, you seem to forget that internet technology hasn't always existed. i notice in your reply you keep talking about now, now, now. that in the modern age, there is no excuse but genetics. not only is the way you describe the modern world as a free-flowing exchange of ideas not true for, quite frankly, most of the non-elitist world, it's an incredibly western-centric train of thought that ignores the troubles of accessibility that the average person in this world faces. like i said earlier, the writers and people who make it out of these circumstances are primarily supported by luck.
not to mention if availability was holding back great writers, the golden age of writing should be upon us right now. yet it isn't, partially because of the cultural issues that come about from having so many more distractions, but maybe also from the fact that seeking out good literature doesn't require a glorified decentralized communication network? that literature stems more from the culture and the environment, instead of pure availability?
it definitely can't be solely based on the intelligence of a child out of the womb, the flynn effect would prove otherwise yet finding good literature written within the past ten years is definitely a more labored process. we can even see this change with the shifting of the author spotlight from more literary authors towards more dubious ones, from the titans of their time: john updike, david foster wallace, william vollmann, zadie smith, johnathan franzen, is there anyone today even comparable to this set? heck, it feels just a measly two decades ago that these names were household names, yet the a-list has been bastardized. ocean vuong? hah, you're a funny guy. (tying this back to mfas, wallace is the only writer of the earlier list to hold one)
No.7441
Anonymous
2025-09-10 23:45:23
People say winning the lottery is a curse, they say your family turns on you, you burn through all your cash, you're robbed, murdered, and then you kill yourself. None of this is true, lottery winners are actually much happier, healthier, and engaged in their personal relationships.
That's all to say, it feels good for a non-MFA to hate on MFAs, but you offer anyone the chance to have a couple years dedicated to reading, writing and nothing else, they'd take it in a heartbeat.
MFA programs haven't pumped out any great writers of late, but neither has the non-MFA route. People should view the MFA system soberly when they enter, get what they need out of it, and block out bad influences. An organized education, whether that's in creative writing or in literature, is in the past of almost every great writer to some degree.
That's all to say, it feels good for a non-MFA to hate on MFAs, but you offer anyone the chance to have a couple years dedicated to reading, writing and nothing else, they'd take it in a heartbeat.
MFA programs haven't pumped out any great writers of late, but neither has the non-MFA route. People should view the MFA system soberly when they enter, get what they need out of it, and block out bad influences. An organized education, whether that's in creative writing or in literature, is in the past of almost every great writer to some degree.
i think it says something that a lot of the literature i enjoy nowadays comes from outside the west, the effects of rampant consumerism is more to blame than mfa programs for the steep steep decline in the quality of published content
No.7452
Anonymous
2025-09-11 14:16:12
Also forget where it was mentioned but there's an MFA-like program for novelists in the UK, at one of their newer universities, which seems to actually be good
Has an unusually high amount of alumni who write actually readable books
Has an unusually high amount of alumni who write actually readable books
No.7453
Anonymous
2025-09-11 15:36:38
>>7451
i've been reading a lot of chinese literature as of late, i really really like mo yan's work
i've been reading a lot of chinese literature as of late, i really really like mo yan's work
No.7454
Anonymous
2025-09-11 17:33:28
I'm an MFA hater turned MFA curious, mostly because my post college activities have revolved around bouncing from job to job. I'm not really naturally talented at anything other than reading or writing, so it's up my alley. Does anyone here know anything about the process? Also, maybe this is delusional, but I am really curious about the Writers' Workshop in Iowa. It has interested me since high school.