I mean, should we be forced to take LitCrit classes? (via).
We should, I think. Not that we have to like them. See, my brain works better if I have to read theory, particularly if I find something I disagree with (you should see my marginalia).
Some argue that for creative writers, this LitCrit stuff is just so much jumping through hoops. Well, jumping through hoops is something we have to do to survive in the real world — and reading and writing literary criticism, no matter how frustrating, is certainly more fun than showing up at the office Monday – Friday, coiffed, besuited and perky at 8:30am. Ever filled out a self-evaluation? Really. Personnel-speak makes academic jargon feel like heaven.
I tend to agree. Studying theory can be a useful exercise – particularly when you don’t entirely agree with it.
During my MFA coursework, though, I remember also wishing that we had been required to take one fine arts course which was NOT a writing course, whether it be a visual arts studio class, or a photography workshop, or a music composition seminar, or dance – something to let us experience creation in a completely different medium. I think that it would have been helpful to learn from other creative practices, and that my writing (and criticism) would have been richer for the experience.
The very existence of the idea that reading and/or analysing anything pre-19th century is useless to a “contemporary” writer because the language is too “archaic” is more than enough reason to keep lit crit classes in MFA programmes.
I think litcrit classes can be opportunities for creative writers to look at their work and the work of others working in their medium from a different angle, one that is interesting and as valid as any other angle, and because of that can help them understand, possibly, things that occur in the creative process from an outside eye, which sometimes can aid in so many other processes–breaking out of writing tics and habits, comprehending thematics that aren’t always apparent to us without a specific language like litcrit to talk about it, etc. In any case, I think it’s good to think critically about any subject. I know studying literary criticism has aided and continues to aid me in my development as a writer of fiction. Thanks for bringing the subject up.
I agree with Imani. Listening to my fellow students rip Dickens for his female characters was surreal at best. Rock bottom was the “New Historicist” class, required, where only secondary text analyses were presented. Marilynne Robinson’s “Housekeeping” was analyzed until it lay on the floor in bloody shreds…only none of us had read the book, save the prof. She never asked that we read it, much less require it.
The best I can offer is in the hands of a good teacher, lit crit can assist thinking. In the hands of poor teachers, you are left with brainwashed students or people like me, who ended up loathing literary criticism as it seemed little more than a vehicle for jealous would-be writers.
The one thing I really liked about Armand’s article was how he noted how much time and effort LitCrit courses take up. I spent an enormous chunk of time struggling to keep up with the PhDs in my latest LitCrit course (Pitt does not offer MFAs any kind of basic theory/criticism courses), and I could have spent that time working on my manuscript. Or, I could have spent that time and energy working with an excellent faculty member who wasn’t at Pitt for very long.