Junot Diaz on POC in MFA programs

Here is the piece in The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/04/mfa-vs-poc.html

I was in an English literature/creative writing program in the early 1990s, and I can remember only one assignment of a book-length work by a person of color, which was Dust Tracks on a Road by Zora Neale Hurston. I cannot recall being assigned anything written by a person who was not born in the UK, US, or Western Europe. Granted, that may be a function of the classes I chose to take, but the core canon definitely excluded non-white, non-Western points of view.

I don't know if things have changed. Judging from the comments on Diaz's piece, I'd say not very much.

From the piece: "In my workshop there was an almost lunatical belief that race was no longer a major social force (it’s class!). In my workshop we never explored our racial identities or how they impacted our writing—at all. Never got any kind of instruction in that area—at all. Shit, in my workshop we never talked about race except on the rare occasion someone wanted to argue that “race discussions” were exactly the discussion a serious writer should not be having."

Does discussion of race matter when teaching literature and writing? Should it?

I was in an English literature/creative writing program in the early 1990s, and I can remember only one assignment of a book-length work by a person of color, which was Dust Tracks on a Road by Zora Neale Hurston.

I spent my early twenties (mid/late '90's) stealing all of my lit major friends' college syllabi. I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case any longer. Things Fall Apart, Their Eyes Were Watching God, How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents, Almanac of the Dead, 100 Years of Solitude, Beloved and Song of Solomon, Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit and Sexing the Cherry. Those are a few of the titles I'd ended up reading that come to mind off the top of my head.

What weight or whatever that they carried within the courses they were taught (or how representative those courses were of all universities), I can't really say. The reading lists may not have been completely balanced, but they seemed to display slightly more balance than Diaz's.

I don't have an MFA—my wife does. But the purpose is somewhat different. The goal of reading is not the usual goals of a literature class, really, but to develop your own writing. I'm not sure how that focus changes things, but I think it does.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/19/junot-diaz-attack-creative-writing-...

The goal of reading is not the usual goals of a literature class, really, but to develop your own writing. I'm not sure how that focus changes things, but I think it does.

Hmm. Interesting thought, but...

Are you saying that if we separate the mechanics of the writing from the content of the writing, then there's a reason that minority writers would be less present(ed) than otherwise?

Or does that make it more important to read a diverse selection of works? As a reader, I don't want to read exactly the same book by different writers. And that's a complaint I've seen leveled at MFA programs, that they produce writers who all write the same sort of book and it's boring.

When one buys into an MFA program is one, in some sense, buying into that particular paradigm of what good writing is? (As in, does one shop for an MFA in much the same way Tim Spalding chooses to shop at Whole Foods?)

Are you saying that if we separate the mechanics of the writing from the content of the writing, then there's a reason that minority writers would be less present(ed) than otherwise?

No. I think there's a case to be made that diversity is particularly important in such a context. One cannot develop one's own voice unless one sees many voices. And, depending on the students, it might be useful to have your students grapple with issues of their own identity and how it feeds into their craft. So that's in one direction. In other direction, questions of canon and redressing historical imbalances in the canon are less important, because you're reading for different reasons.

I'm not sure I buy that, though. Because unless you're reading "bad" writing to see what separates it from the good, arguments of canonicity and "good" writing should largely overlap. Unless you'd argue that there are terrible books that should be part of the canon for reasons other than their importance/inherent "goodness" of the writing.

Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong, but... What would the reasons be for including a book in "the canon" and how do they differ from books that are distinguished as "excellent writing?"

>9 Jesse_wiedinmyer: &>7 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: My sense of MFA and writing workshop programs is akin to law school: you need the degree (and not the talent) to get published to earn a paycheck or advance, that will pay for the grad school loans. Ostensibly, you can teach and learn good writing - but that doesn't guarantee that anyone would or should want to read it.

This review is a couple of years old, but I think it well worth reading as it completely anticipates the inevitable Junot Diaz critique:

Elif Batuman reviews 'The Programme Era' by Marc McGurl

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n18/elif-batuman/get-a-real-degree

If you've got the time/interest read whole thing, but here is an excerpt that hits with some accuracy, I think:

The workshop’s most famous mantras – ‘Murder your darlings,’ ‘Omit needless words,’ ‘Show, don’t tell’ – also betray a view of writing as self-indulgence, an excess to be painfully curbed in AA-type group sessions. Shame also explains the fetish of ‘craft’: an ostensibly legitimising technique, designed to recast writing as a workmanlike, perhaps even working-class skill, as opposed to something every no-good dilettante already knows how to do. Shame explains the cult of persecutedness, a strategy designed to legitimise literary production as social advocacy, and make White People feel better (Stuff White People Like #21: ‘Writers’ Workshops’).

Well, you've also got something like this...

http://chronicle.com/article/How-Iowa-Flattened-Literature/144531/

Which basically argues that Iowa was a step or two above a CIA front.

>11 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: and we sneered at social realism.

But, I would tend to agree with his conclusion (and it also a cold war theme): the problem with the MFA and manufactured writing (or pyramid building as Bennett would have it) is proliferation.

In case you were wondering...

intradiegetic narrator vs. extradiegetic narrator

An intradiegetic narrator tells a story on the narrative level of the characters, the diegetic level, which describes how the characters of a story communicate with each other and which is embedded in the extradiegetic level (see below).

-> A heterodiegetic & intradiegetic narrator for example, does not appear as a character in the story s/he tells and his or her story is embedded in another story told by a different narrator.

An extradiegetic narrator tells a story on the extradiegetic level, a ‘higher’ level of narration, that includes everyone and everything that determines how the story is told: all the narrators (be they characters within the story or not) and focalisers.
His or her narration can include one ore more other narrations (told by intradiegetic narrators).

-> A homodiegetic & extradiegetic narrator for example, is a character in the story that is told by him or her and his or her story might embody one ore more other stories that have an intradiegetic narrator.

Both, intradiegetic and extradiegetic narrators, are either heterodiegetic or homodiegetic.

What would the reasons be for including a book in "the canon" and how do they differ from books that are distinguished as "excellent writing?

Well, as a for-example, good English writing is, in principle, distributed throughout time. Novel-writing, however, is not evenly distributed culturally. If every five years there's one great novel, a statistically unlikely percent of the best novels were written by white Britons.

Unless you'd argue that there are terrible books that should be part of the canon for reasons other than their importance/inherent "goodness" of the writing.

I'm not sure that the canon should in fact be identical with the best novels written. Cultural and perspectival variation are also important, because, even if they're excellent, it might be worth it make room in the canon for an author who is--stricltly speaking--not as good. Someone intending to become well-read might, for example, swap in a book by an author who isn't as good as Jane Austen--how many authors are?--for their radically different perspective, context and style. Or to take another example, if you could read only ten plays, there might be a case for reading something by someone who isn't Shakespeare, even if the ten best are in fact by him. Presumably when it comes to the canon, you're dealing with stuff that's so good overall that you're not losing much if you make such choices.

Batumen's very smart, and I enjoy her work. I'll read that later. But I'm reminded of the critic who argued that omitting needless words and incidents, editing things down and scuh, was about anorexia and body image and therefore anti-women.

My sense of MFA and writing workshop programs is akin to law school: you need the degree (and not the talent) to get published to earn a paycheck or advance, that will pay for the grad school loans. Ostensibly, you can teach and learn good writing - but that doesn't guarantee that anyone would or should want to read it.

Writing is a highly competitive market. Publishers compete against each other to make money. Writing degrees can get you an agent faster, and therefore get you past the initial filter. But there are lots of ways to get past the filters. And the filters are there because assessing a work takes a lot of time, and so it isn't worth it to have an open slush pile.

Well, as a for-example, good English writing is, in principle, distributed throughout time. Novel-writing, however, is not evenly distributed culturally. If every five years there's one great novel, a statistically unlikely percent of the best novels were written by white Britons.

Well, novel writing isn't even evenly distributed throughout time. Nor are the statistics of novel-writing. I mean, you could argue that the fact that many 19th century novelists felt the need to use male pen names (and the underlying cultural reasons for that) is the reason for the disparity in statistics rather than vice versa.

And this is presuming that we even can decide what a "best/better" novel is. And that those judgments hold across time.

I think we may be putting the cart before the horse, here.

In multiple ways...

I mean, you could argue that the fact that many 19th century novelists felt the need to use male pen names (and the underlying cultural reasons for that) is the reason for the disparity in statistics rather than vice versa.

Well, I made the point about being white and British, not male or female. Obviously gender is something to consider, but, as you note, a lot of the great 19c. novelists were indeed women.

A lot? What would you figure the breakdown on that would be? Roughly speaking? And how would one go about deriving that number?

Though I believe that here we fall prey to a certain recursiveness, but...

>14 timspalding:: But I'm reminded of the critic who argued that omitting needless words and incidents, editing things down and scuh, was about anorexia and body image and therefore anti-women.

Al I can say is I'm glad Proust didn't get an MFA.

The business of publishing and the business end of teaching/learning writing are closely aligned, and the end of each is sales and not, necessarily, literary value (which is subjective, hierarchical, and anti-democratic - without apology).

Obviously you can't quantify these things, but you can start with Austen, Eliot and two Brontës. How many novels have been written in the last 10 years that are really as good? I suggest zero, plus or minus one. Yet if I were in charge of an MFA program, and I'd still encourage people to read recent stuff, and not just when they've read everything written by these 4-5(1) 19c. British women novelists.

---

1. I haven't read Anne Brontë.

Obviously you can't quantify these things, but you can start with Austen, Eliot and two Brontës. How many novels have been written in the last 10 years that compare? I suggest zero, plus or minus one.

I can't, but you just watch me!

You'll notice I admit the possibility that there have been -1 novels written recently that are as good. This is, in fact, the correct answer.

2x - 3i, because they all lack imagination.

From Wikipedia, on Jane Austen...

Her works, though usually popular, were first published anonymously and brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but the publication in 1869 of her nephew's A Memoir of Jane Austen introduced her to a wider public, and by the 1940s she had become widely accepted in academia as a great English writer.

There's so much to unbundle in that, that I'm not even sure where to start.

It's possible today's Jane Austen is toiling away unrecognized. If so, you're not likely to hit on her, however.

But how many of the 19th century's Jane Austen's are still unrecognised. And how do we know that today's Jane Austen (by which I mean Jane Austen), isn't the 22nd century's Dan Brown? We seem to assume a sort of teleological view about such things that may not be merited.

I did an MFA at Iowa way back in the previous century. A couple of thoughts:

Putting aside Diaz's stylistic tics, which are kind of corny, I suspect that there's plenty of truth to his piece. In my anecdotal experience the POC were thin on the ground. Lots of white students from either coast, a sprinkling of white midwesterners, while the handful of POC were usually from places like Sarah Lawrence and Dartmouth and were probably not the sort of writers that Diaz is talking about.

The reading seminars weren't very serious, frankly, but you were given a lot of liberty to shop around in other departments (including the good local English department); this liberty was a plus.

Re >10 enevada:, it's not really true (much to the dismay of many would-be writers) that an MFA means you can get published to earn a paycheck or advance. Agents and editors in the publishing world don't care about degrees. It is true, though, that the proliferation of MFA programs in recent decades has created a self-perpetuating institutional beast, in which MFAs can find work, feeding the beast.

Jesse, the Chronicle piece you linked in >11 Jesse_wiedinmyer: was discussed on another LT thread, if you're curious. Right now I can't track it down. I'm not sure what you mean in >13 Jesse_wiedinmyer: with all that narratology. Actually that's not something I encountered till chance brought me to teach in France, in a department that was dominated at the time by enthusiasts of Genette. Students who were learning English and reading The Great Gatsby were being taught not to say that "Nick Carraway is a first-person narrator" etc. but that "Nick is a homodiegetic narrator interrupted by intradiegetic internal analepses from Jordan Baker" etc. It warn't pretty.

esse, the Chronicle piece you linked in >11 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Jesse_wiedinmyer: was discussed on another LT thread, if you're curious.

I'd assume that would be the last time I linked it (for Mr. Harsh's benefit, yet another alum).

It warn't pretty.

If the explanation I found above is any indication, it still aren't.

intradiegetic internal analepses

Stomach problems?

Another anglophone colleague of mine who chafed at the jargon once asked, "If a homodiegetic narrator has an internal analepsis and enjoys it, should a good Christian question his textuality?"

Seemed like a kneeslapper at the time. But maybe you had to be there...

>20 timspalding: You really should read Anne Bronte. Not because she remains the least known, but the best of the Brontes, but because her books are fantastic and you'll enjoy every minute spent with them.

At Iowa in the early 90s James Alan McPherson was the best 'instructor', but the program itself was very much in the Conroy mold, and that means conventional US short sentence contrived shit. McPherson taught for the mind rather than directly for the pen. Now Lan Samantha Chang runs the program. I doubt if things are any better, simply because the cultural context is unlikely to have changed--though for the individual student it certainly has to be a great deal more sympatico as Conroy was such an ass (what he was especially good at was insinuating that what is great in literature those before him were incapable of accomplishing), and happily able to get neath the skin of far too many adults. At Iowa reading was not much of a priority--a seminar each semester, usually one book. But if you're in a writing program you shouldn't need guidance for your reading, not by then.
While I was there I was reading a lot of Indian writers, fiction and non-fiction, and I read Cortazar while I was there, and Cendrars, some of his work.

Responses to the above

8: 'One cannot develop one's own voice unless one sees many voices.' How the fuck would YOU know?

20. 'Obviously you can't quantify these things, but you can start with Austen, Eliot and two Brontës. How many novels have been written in the last 10 years that are really as good? I suggest zero, plus or minus one. Yet if I were in charge of an MFA program, and I'd still encourage people to read recent stuff, and not just when they've read everything written by these 4-5(1) 19c. British women novelists.' Horribly wrong. Antonio Lobo Antunes himself has done so. In the US Sesshu Foster has done so (if his Atomik Azteks is not more than ten years old). Some would argue that Murakami has. Many would consider Bolano's 2666 a better novel than any written by the big brits (better than Middlemarch? well, probably not). At any rate, books on the level of those mentioned Brits are published yearly.

7. In my case I went to the program because it got me out of a taxi cab and two free years of writing. But I was in my 30s and well protected from banal influences. Conroy cracked me up, he was so transparently a fool, but many folk who seemed to tough for it were brought to tears in his classes, and many could not believe in themselves after his criticisms. He spent an extra hour whanging at what became my first published novel and I had a great time. One thing he said about that book, in which pigeons are the urban bird and appear in each chapter, was 'Why pigeons, they could as well be dogs.' to which I replied, 'dogs don't fly, Frank.'

Maybe Conroy knew that every novel requires a dog barking somewhere in the distance?

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2010/06/somewhere_a_dog_barked.htm...

>26 krolik:: It is true, though, that the proliferation of MFA programs in recent decades has created a self-perpetuating institutional beast, in which MFAs can find work, feeding the beast.

Yes, well they've become trade schools - as have law schools. The arcane theory, the jargon, the infighting between and among certain personalities is infinitely interesting to the people who attend, but not so much for the rest of us. Finding the voice of a largely uninteresting if precocious and time-strung conformist isn't much of a find. But it might pay the bills. Which we all have to do.

What's wrong with arcane theory?!

My encounter with a writing program: an odd priority of dialogue over description; too much emphasis on "experience" and identity.

>35 theoria:: What's wrong with arcane theory?!

Well, that's just it. I love the arcane theory in my own field of interest. The more arcane, convoluted, byzantine, the better. But when others start talking about their line of work...ho, hum. It is kind of like sex in that regard. Or other people's therapy sessions. Or maybe just other people.

L'enfer, c'est l'intradiegetic internal analepse.

>37 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: Sure is.

On "the canon" as representing "the best"--it's not a quantitatively analysable "best", so probably better to steer away from that confusing notion. Is "Hamlet" better than "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead"? How does one begin to assess this? According to what criteria?

I think Shaw was the last playwright who seriously saw himself as direct competitor of Shakespeare. Not that everyone else since has decided "that's it, can't beat Shakespeare", but that the notion of competition, on those relations, is seen as not applying at all. Different times, different places, different mores and--language.

The point Diaz' article (pity about the comments...) raises for me is connected to what I asked in the trigger warning thread about implications on teaching literature--that "who is speaking" matters--matters today to us, anyway, as it mattered in the past (but perhaps truly won't matter some glorious day in distant future).

If there seems to be an over-emphasis on experience and identity in these concerns, it's only because a white man's experience and identity are still taken for granted as the "universal".

A picture: there is a playground with children in it, diverse gender and race. But the only ones using the shiny toys, the seesaws, the carousels, the bicycle, are white boys. Every now and then they step off--another white boy climbs on--and the first one tells everyone how grand it was. When other kids ask him if they could get a ride, he goes "What for? I'm riding for you! I'll tell you all about it!"

Does not wash any more.

>39 LolaWalser: "If there seems to be an over-emphasis on experience and identity in these concerns, it's only because a white man's experience and identity are still taken for granted as the "universal."

I agree. But why not stake a claim for the universal; why settle for particularity?

>40 theoria:

Not sure I know what you mean, can you give an example? (Of someone--presumably not white--settling for a particularity.)

August Wilson http://www.yavanika.org/classes/reader/wilson1.pdf

"To mount an all black production of Death of A Salesman or any other play conceived for white actors as an investigation of the human condition through the specific of white culture is to deny us our own humanity, our own history, and the need to make our own investigations from the cultural ground on which we stand as black Americans. It is an assault on our presence, our difficult but honorable history in America, and an insult to our intelligence, our playwrights, and our many and varied contributions to the society and the world at large. The idea of colorblind casting is the same idea of assimilation that black Americans have been rejecting for the past 380 years. For the record we reject it again. We reject any attempt to blot us out, to reinvent history and ignore our presence or to maim our spiritual product. We must not continue to meet on this path. We will not deny our history, and we will not allow it to be made to be of little consequence, to be ignored or misinterpreted."

>34 enevada: I have the impression that MFA programs tend to be wary of theory, sometimes flirting with being anti-intellectual. This recent article in Harper's about "life coaches" reminded me of similar problems of institutionalized creativity (sorry, the whole text isn't free: http://harpers.org/archive/2014/05/50000-life-coaches-cant-be-wrong/) Theory tends to have a greater role in lit and comp lit departments.

Theoria (of course!) has a serious point here, methinks. And even when poking fun at Genette above, I was taking a jab at the language, not the ideas. I came to appreciate the kind of close reading that Genette encourages. People who read mainly for theme/good vibes etc. could learn from Genette.

The trick, of course, is to communicate these ideas effectively. That's work, but it's work worth doing.

>42 theoria:

I'm probably still missing something, but how is casting all-blacks in a play conceived by and for whites different from saying a black girl should, say, enjoy the "universal" message of Pride and Prejudice by picturing herself as Lizzie Bennett?

I'm not sure I'd agree with Wilson entirely--I think it is important, for practical reasons if nothing else, that PoC actors (following that example) get cast in roles previously routinely assigned to whites only. It's important that they get work.

But the main point, I think, is that we're nowhere near where we can afford to be "colourblind", where we can be that casually, sincerely, without consequence.

>44 LolaWalser: "how is casting all-blacks in a play conceived by and for whites different from saying a black girl should, say, enjoy the "universal" message of Pride and Prejudice by picturing herself as Lizzie Bennett?"

Here, I'm responding to Wilson's point of view: Who says that Death of a Salesman was "conceived by and for whites"?

Regarding a black girl reading Pride and Prejudice: for me, reading is about translating, not identity/identifying. If I were to take Wilson's point of view generally, how would I (American) be able to appreciate the dilemmas confronting Frédéric Moreau in Sentimental Education which, from Wilson's point of view, is conceived by and for French readers (of the 19th century)?

>39 LolaWalser: Would it do any good to deny that there is any such thing as a universal white man's experience?

Is "Hamlet" better than "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead"? How does one begin to assess this? According to what criteria?

Is Hamlet better than Walter the Farting Dog? Than a Kesha lyric? How can one begin to assess this? According to what criteria? <back of hand to forehead, swoon backwards>

Yes, de gustibus non est disputandum. But in fact we do dispute about it, and have since the second poet finished reciting. We all know some things are more subjective than others, some things more agreed than others, but it's worth it to try.

>47 timspalding:

I have no idea what you think you are parodying and why.

We all know some things are more subjective than others, some things more agreed than others, but it's worth it to try.

Right. And now that you boiled it down to "subjectivity", the question rises: whose precious subjectivity gets to decide what's better?

Bringing it to the point of Diaz' article: for the most of literate past, in the West, it was taken for granted that a white man's subjectivity is the only one worth considering; for all practical purposes, it was the only one existing. And you didn't have to be male or white to assume that POV either because it was an absolutely dominant view. Everyone was brought up in that tradition, with those biases, with that "canon".

What Diaz is saying is simply that other types of people exist and that it would be nice and useful if they could get a ride on that bike and get to tell others, including white boys, about it.

>45 theoria:

Here, I'm responding to Wilson's point of view: Who says that Death of a Salesman was "conceived by and for whites"?

To be fair, the phrase was mine (Wilson may or may not agree with it). I am not saying that Miller had a conscious thought "one for white (wo)men!" The problem is partly that these things ARE unconscious. It's also not necessarily about Miller at all (incidentally, you might be interested in The Salesman in Beijing, and his thoughts on the play with the Chinese cast) but the entire mass of literature and tradition which is still dominant.

Regarding a black girl reading Pride and Prejudice: for me, reading is about translating, not identity/identifying. If I were to take Wilson's point of view generally, how would I (American) be able to appreciate the dilemmas confronting Frédéric Moreau in Sentimental Education which, from Wilson's point of view, is conceived by and for French readers (of the 19th century)?

First, I do not think it is fair to equate Wilson's concern, which is race, with every other possible difference. Race and gender and (perhaps some way off) sexual orientation are seen as much bigger points of difference. Historically it matters enormously for how you are going to be treated in life and what sort of life you are going to have whether you are female, male, PoC etc.

As to manners of reading, yeah, well, sorry, but that smacks of your privilege. It's easy never to have a thought about identifying, when everything fits you. Let's see how my childhood faves work on our example: me, girl; you boy (both white).

Asterix, Tintin, Zane Grey, Karl May, The Crimson Pirate, Pippi Longstocking, cowboy stories, Arthur Ransome, Tarzan, superhero comics--Spiderman, Superman, Batman...

Only one of those has a female main character. Do you think I didn't notice? Maybe not consciously, but I did learn the lesson--in order to have fun and be important, I had to become like the (white goes without saying) boys.

Do you think you didn't receive that same lesson?

We all learned that lesson.

>43 krolik:: I have the impression that MFA programs tend to be wary of theory, sometimes flirting with being anti-intellectual.

Well, certainly the outcome (what gets published and eventually taught) supports this impression. Again, I'm in agreement with Batuman on contemporary fiction v. works of literary scholarship (leaving aside the whole idea of what constitutes "better" or worse). While the pottery vases or fine cheeses produced by MFA grads are often charming little knick-knacks or clever bits of finesse, they don't, on the whole, add much to our collective inventory of knowledge.

from "Get a real degree" linked earlier:

Contemporary fiction seldom refers to any of the literary developments of the past 20, 50 or a hundred years. It rarely refers to other books at all. Literary scholarship may not be an undiluted joy to its readers, but at least it’s usually founded on an ideal of the collaborative accretion of human knowledge.

>46 jjwilson61: One might argue that the experience of someone living in the midwestern US is significantly different than that of someone living in Sardinia or Ukraine. And yet they are all white men. The "universal" is smaller than that, and ends up representing very few. The so-called Western Canon is limited in scope, which does not negate the value of much that is in there.

>50 RidgewayGirl:: limited in scope?

Funny, the same criticism in, only reverse: if you find that the Western-canon (literary work) is limited in voice and experience (not a criticism I make or take too seriously), I would argue that contemporary fiction – especially the identity/experience driven stuff – is limited in ideas.

I guess it depends on what you mean by scope – the small end of my telescope narrows in on identity, the large end expands out to ideas.

>48 LolaWalser: "As to manners of reading, yeah, well, sorry, but that smacks of your privilege. It's easy never to have a thought about identifying, when everything fits you."

I'm not sure everything fits me. But in any case, I'll claim the privilege to engage with literary works (and all artistic creations) as acts of play and imagination as opposed to encountering them with the expectation of sociological realism. For me, reading is an avenue into another fictive world. This world of literature -- and the people and events who inhabit it -- is not about me. I don't need to find myself there. But through the act of reading, the text becomes part of my self, which remains open to reading new and different texts. Here, I'm in agreement with the following outlook:

A wise man in whatsoeuer place he be, is as a pilgrime; And a foole wheresoeuer he goeth, is an exile. – Justus Lipsius (1584) Two Bookes of Constancie.

>51 enevada:

if you find that the Western-canon (literary work) is limited in voice and experience (not a criticism I make or take too seriously)

It is demonstrably limited in voice--statistics of representation show that easily enough.

As to experience, the question is why should we take for granted that white men are adequately relating and relating to everyone's experience under the sun? And--again, the point of Diaz' article--why only white men?

Why are they the "universal" subject, and everyone else a special case?

I would argue that contemporary fiction – especially the identity/experience driven stuff – is limited in ideas.

From my extremely limited experience of contemporary fiction, I might be inclined to agree, but you know what? It applies to white male writers as much as to anyone else.

>52 theoria:

We are talking about a very basic level of identification. Again, it is easy for white men to wave this away as unimportant--they take it for granted because everything reflects them.

>54 LolaWalser: In literature, as in every other damn thing, they are the default position.

>53 LolaWalser:: but you know what? It applies to white male writers as much as to anyone else.

Oh, absolutely – which is why for me the starting point (identity or voice or point of view) is the least interesting thing about literature. I was thinking it would be fun to create a “workshop” experience for readers (the other, and more important, half in the writer-reader dynamic that makes literature work).

But, maybe, that’s what we are doing. Without an authority figure banging on our knuckles to get us to all think alike and behave.

>56 enevada:

I agree reading is a (teachable, learnable) skill that goes far beyond recognising words.

As to authority figures forcing uniformity of views, I was certainly brought up by and on those. You could say I internalized that authority, so deeply it took decades before I managed to question the whole situation.

Diversity doesn't mean "a room of white men with different outlooks, temperaments, opinions".

>49 enevada:
I have plenty of reservations about MFA programs, many of which I've already mentioned in my posts. But I have the impression that you conflate MFA programs with the current publishing world, which is a different kettle of prejudices. MFAs are (roughly, for better and worse) about a break from the "real world." The publishing world is about the market, which doesn't give a rat's ass about conversations or values of people in a workshop.

If you have reservations about contemporary fiction, it might be fruitful to look harder at the current state of American capitalism and how it filters culture. I'm not saying that the workshops offer an enlightened alternative (that would silly) but if you're looking to add to the "collective inventory of knowledge" then a few thousand MFAers are a thin reed indeed, for hope or blame.

>58 krolik:: Capitalism doesn’t filter culture, it shapes it. Contemporary fiction as commodity is apt. It doesn’t keep me awake at nights. There is plenty of excellent, provocative writing happening elsewhere, and that's good enough for me.

58-59 The Iowa Writers Workshop was framed, and largely remains such, by US capitalist schematics...for instance, being the big school, its writers get published more easily than those from elsewhere and at the same time their writers are generally encouraged to write rather tame, ordinary fiction...It all works out rather well, writing giving the system what little its got...

>59 enevada: There is plenty of excellent, provocative writing happening elsewhere, and that's good enough for me.

Thus I can infer that you might otherwise feel insufficiently provoked by capitalism?

Thanks for the added nuance...but I don't think it's an either/or situation. It both filters andshapes.

>60 RickHarsch: Sure.

Short hand: it's sort of a country club, with all the niceties and limits thereof.

However, one thing I can say is that even that culture, the IWW (lesser), bred a marvelous subculture.

>61 krolik:: Infer? Don't go to all that trouble.

on shape/filter - maybe both, maybe neither - each imply a false notion that capitalism (or any economic system) remains external or outside of culture and I don't think this is the case. Capitalism, in its rapacity, consumes everything in sight, including the culture from which it originated.

Capitalism, in its rapacity, consumes everything in sight, including the culture from which it originated.

That is a well-crafted sentence, enevada.

>65 RidgewayGirl:: thanks, I picked it up in a workshop a few years back... ; )