I'm pretty sure you would have to complete a BA first. To quote John Lennon: 'Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.'
Not necessarily. Entry requirements are: Standard Entry Usual requirements are a degree or equivalent and strong creative writing ability. Applicants without a formal degree will also be considered. All applicants should submit samples of their creative writing with their application. Plus one of the following: International/English Language Requirements: International applicants are required to have one of the following English language qualifications with grades as shown below. A British Council International English Language Testing System (IELTS) score of 6.5 (or above) with a minimum score in each component of Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking of 5.5 Pearson Academic score of 62 (or above) with a minimum score in each component of Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking of 51 The University also accepts many other English language qualifications and if you have any questions about our English Language requirements please contact the International Admissions Office and we will be glad to assist you. Additional: Those without formal qualifications will be considered on the basis of their creative writing. When applying, prospective students should submit samples of creative work.
Are those your shiny leather buttocks, or your horse's shiny leather buttocks? If yours, pictures please!
Lol. Now you say it, I wouldn't be surprised at all that art critics don't know what they're talking about. But then again, do you necessarily need to know how to make art to critique art? It's a bit like the editor who's better at editing than writing - of course to some extent the two go hand in hand, but the dominant skill might rest in one rather than the two skills necessarily being balanced. As for the way Art History is taught being horrible - I don't think so. It's just for different purposes really. I don't actually see Art History as a subject developed for the sake of critiquing what makes art "Art" or whatever. Art History is just another branch of History, really, and it's about the study of societies and peoples. It's really got nothing to do with art at all. Art History modules set in the modern era like 20th century onwards do focus more on the philosophy of art. However, I focused on 19th Century French art and 16th Century Italian art - and that's much more about how visual culture was used to shape and shift politics and the whole cultural/political landscape at the time. Visual culture would include sculptures, architecture, clothing, jewellery, ornaments, gravestones, food and their display, parades - basically anything visual, and not just paintings. Other types of visual culture would include posters - think WWII propaganda posters - studying why certain images were used and what impact that had on the people at the time, what it was trying to achieve with their choice of images/colours and how it came to achieve that precisely - all that is Art History. So nah, I wouldn't say it's a horrible way to teach. But it is usually about something different than what people who haven't studied Art History think it is or should be. I remember I was told by someone that what I was studying was simply "wrong" - that it "shouldn't" be about history or culture or politics - simply cus it didn't match his assumptions of the subject. (he wasn't studying it) But by your logic, much of continental Europe should have sub-par universities, sub-par lecturers and subsequently, sub-part graduates. I do believe that's far too much of a sweeping statement and an erroneous assumption (or maybe you were simply posing a question - I wasn't quite sure) - simply because we're part of a system where we're used to having to pay tuition doesn't mean paying tuition necessarily makes sense or that it somehow makes the system "better". Such comparisons are almost always pointless, in my opinion and experience. Are countries outside of our own, wherever we might be from, filled with under-educated people of low academic quality? Absolutely by no means. Do they all have different educational systems and put emphasis on different things, different ways of learning, different areas of knowledge? Yup, certainly. What that tells me is: We'll all be all right in the end There will be some things better in one country than another, and some things worse in one than another. We'll learn and live. I would not go so far as to say anyone is sub-par due to only one factor - especially one as arbitary as tuition fees. As for the bums who want to ride off of free education - well the Czechs are quite smart with that. You get free education up to the age of 25. Problem solved. That means there's a limit to how many years you can bum around aimlessly, if you were using education as a way to avoid real life, but at the same time it gives everyone else the opportunity to pursue master degrees for free if they so choose - and it's the norm here to get at least an MA. I just worry how the hell us Brits are gonna be able to compete in another 10 years time with our £9k per year tuition and loans to cover only your first degree... We'll all be clutching our BAs thinking it's a lot and then a bunch of Europeans across the continent will be like, "Meh. Just a BA?" In fact, some Czechs are skeptical of British Masters because the MAs in the UK take only 1 year rather than 2.
Having never been in the situation (in uni) I can only speak for my own experiences and from what I see other people going through. And also because I have a good whinge from the corner now and again because I missed out. But, I've made a decision. I've chosen the MA I want to do, the Uni near me is open to me due to what I've already achieved non-academically subject to them having a place. All I need to do is hang fire a few years until the kids leave home and I've saved up £2,750 (minimum). I can do the course either full time for one year or part time for two so I either need to give up my job for a year or drop my hours for two years (depending on the times of the lectures). So, if I can save the money and hang on, I will get my MA. I'm not saying for one minute that the work is easy but judging by the course notes, I'm 50% there already. I would have had the first $100. (yes, I'm talking dollars, you'll see why in a min ...) saved except I'm just about to pay that to an american company for permission to reproduce lyrics ...
Certain degrees will help you write. John Grisham is a lawyer. Could he write the way he does without that experience? Michael Crichton put himself through Harvard Medical School, writing books and making movies. His schooling helped him be a better researcher and therefore (I think) a better author. Look at Trainspotting and A Clockwork Orange. It's not necessarily schooling that helps them write that way. Many publishers like journalists for their authors. Journalists can write to a deadline, edit the heck out of something and understand how to build the elements of a story.
I have been writing my novel, and lost steam just as I entered Act 2. Not good. However, I'm determined to finish it and considered a few courses to keep me on track. Has anyone taken any of these, or courses with the organisation? Would you mind sharing your experience or giving feedback on those? Thank you! http://lawriterslab.com/category/teleconference-workshops/tele-course-the-90-day-novel/ http://eckleburgworkshops.com http://writers.com If you took a course which you heartily recommend, please let me know
Let me tell you what you need ... You need James Patterson's Masterclass; that shit will transform you into William Shakespeare for only $90 of your hard earned cash.
It was a joke. James Patterson's stuff isn't exactly regarded as great literature. But it's your choice. Do as you will.
I had a look at it, and it it's not quite what I need due to limited critique. Still, it's a good course for beginners and would possibly replace a 1/4 of my craft books (which cost me about the same as this class).
I don't really know much about writing courses, but I can tell you that all you need to learn how to write is a handful of well written books and some logical analysis of them. There is also a ton of useful information to be found on-line, this forum included. Edit: I suppose the nice part about a writing course is that you know you're going in the right direction, though.
A few moments ago I was reading the poetry of Robert Frost. I remarked to myself how masterful the command of the English language that these geniuses (other poets, too) possess. I considered that I, too, have a pretty good command of the English language. I write for a living and for pleasure (though they don't overlap [yet] unfortunately). It occurred to me that command of the language and creativity with that command are two separate things. Where I can use many interesting words to describe something, the creative use of them to shape language is what sets those brilliant poets apart. They take the English and turn what is a fairly rigid thing in my mind and make it malleable to serve their purpose. I felt a little saddened by my new found shortcomings, but proud to have noticed this slight yet significant difference. What are your thoughts on command vs creative application of language?
My thought is that it feels related to the particular level at which one wishes to engage communication. No different to the way a reader (or watcher) can engage a book or film at either face value or at different levels of depth for underlying structure, meaning and intent. Command of a language concerns technical proficiency and understanding of the function of the system, its subsystems and so on. Creativity with language is when you manipulate those systems and subsystems to carry information in ways that are new, intriguing, perhaps even befuddling so as to make the person who is engaged question and ponder the why of the writing. I could also just be talking out of my ass. Totally possible.
I was just thinking about this, actually. I would mirror your opinion in the sizing up of my own abilities. I have a good command of the English language, but I tend to lack in creativity. But is this necessarily a drawback of mine? It makes me a good non-fiction writer and editor after all, so should I just be satisfied that I write more easily with that area of my brain? I'm actually starting to wonder if I should attempt creative fiction at all, or if I should stick to what comes naturally to me. Though, it is somewhat depressing to think about the limitations of one's natural ability. The question becomes, is it more beneficial to spend one's time mastering a skill with a natural advantage, or is it better to neglect a certain portion of that natural ability in order to practice in the areas of weakness? Another thought I have, and I'm not sure if this is due to my lack of ability to see things as creatively as some, is where's the line? When is it acceptable to bend the rules of command to favor creativity? Should someone already have a very good grasp on application in order to be able to break rules? Because I see people try to write creatively without first having a decent grasp of application, and it often doesn't work very well in their favor. Hmm ...
The way I see it, command is knowing when to use the appropriate word and rule of grammar. Creativity is seeing the world with new eyes. You can have one without the other, but ideally you want both.
All very true, but I think these are the kind of writers (poetry aside) who turn up on the Man Booker lists. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think you need to possess the same command of the English language as these people, to make it as a successful writer. If that's the level you're aiming for, then fair enough, but 'published' will do for me.
It's more of a "damn, I wish I could do that!" kind of thing. But being published would be a nice, acceptable start for me, too!
