Elif Batuman's Review of "The Programme Era"
By Anna Irene Brue Posted in Blog on October 13, 2010 0 Comments 2 min read
From the Stoops of the South Bronx Previous The Art of Marina Abramovic and the Prophesy of Matthew Arnold Next

Released from the London Review of Books, Elif Batuman digests Mark Mcgurl’s book, “The Programme Era: Postwar Fiction and the Rise of Creative Writing” in her piece “Get a Real Degree.” The following are a few excerpts and thoughts from the author.

“The world of letters: does such a thing still exist? Even within the seemingly homogeneous sphere of the university English department, a schism has opened up between literary scholarship and creative writing: disciplines which differ in their points of reference (Samuel Richardson v. Jhumpa Lahiri), the graduate degrees they award (Doctor of Philosophy v. Master of Fine Arts) and their perceived objects of study (‘literature’ v. ‘fiction’).


Literary writing is inherently elitist and impractical. It doesn’t directly cure disease, combat injustice, or make enough money, usually, to support philanthropic aims. Because writing is suspected to be narcissistic and wasteful, it must be ‘disciplined’ by the programme…As long as it views writing as shameful, the programme will not generate good books, except by accident.


Many of the problems in the programme may be viewed as the inevitable outcome of technique taken as telos. The raw material hardly seems to matter anymore: for hysterical realism, everything; for minimalism, nothing much. The fetishisation of technique simultaneously assuages and aggravates the anxiety that literature might not be real work.


In the greater scheme, of course, the creative writing programme is not one of the evils of the world. It’s a successful, self-sufficient economy, making teachers, students and university administrators happy. As for literature, it will be neither made nor broken by the programme, which is doubtless as incapable of ruining a good writer as of transforming a bad one. That said, the fact that the programme isn’t a slaughterhouse doesn’t mean we should celebrate, or condone, its worst features. Why can’t the programme be better than it is? Why can’t it teach writers about history and the world, and not just about adverbs and themselves? Why can’t it at least try?

When ‘great literature’ is replace by ‘excellent fiction’, that’s the real betrayal of higher education.”


Previous Next

keyboard_arrow_up