My instinctive response to that teacher would probably be, "No, you need to outline before you start writing, but that doesn't mean I need to." On the other hand, the teacher is entitled to teach one particular approach, and expect the students to follow it. So the real meaning of her statement may have been, "No, for this class, you are expected to outline your story first. Don't start the story until you have an outline." After all, if you haven't tried it both ways, how do you know you don't work better with an outline?
I'm currently in my first year at university studying Creative Writing so I must think it can be taught. I think a creative writing course can teach you about certain elements of creative writing, and it's good for other creative writers to look at your writing and comment/criticise it. It gives you a wider perspective on your writing and how others perceive it. Also, it opens up other styles of writing that you may not have thought to experiment with, and allows you to read books that you may not have thought about reading before and learning a great deal from them. I think some people are just natural writers, but we all have to work at the craft. No writing is perfect.
Not true, actually. The ability to learn languages naturally tails off between the ages of 7 and 14, and it is far more difficult to learn a language after that. But it can be done, and some people are better at it than others.
1. I do not think creativity can be taught in terms of getting someone who struggles with the creative aspect to suddenly become brilliantly creative. I do think a good chunk of that is inherent, instinctive, the whole left/right brain thing. 2. I think the craft can absolutely be taught. In some cases, if you lack in creativity, I believe that craft can carry you through. If you lack craft, creativity can carry you. But, in the end, I think there needs to be a balance. A creative person allowed to go willy nilly across the page, w/no regard to craft or audience, well . . . the lack of form and structure will alienate readers. A person who understands craft, but has very little creativity . . . well, there's always rhet/comp. I've seen both in the classroom, and both are equally as painful to read. It's usually someone with a nice blend of both (doesn't have to be in equal parts) that tends to grow and flourish the most. I feel it's both of these "parts" working together, against each other, mingling, pushing, playing, that help a writer grow. Perhaps it's a duality within is that urges us to grow as writers? Perhaps there is no "formula" at all. But, as someone who teaches creative writing, I definitely believe it can be taught. But, I also think it takes a certain kind of person to: 1. admit to flaws 2. be willing to fail miserably 3. check their egos at the door (they do not know everything and neither do I) 4. have the discipline to write on a regular basis. 5. have a genuine love for SOME element of the craft. I'm sure there is more, but that's what I have right now.
It doesn't matter. Some languages are linguistically so similar that it is very easy to learn them (take Spanish and Portuguese, or even English and German, as an example). So then it is easy to learn a language, but I agree that it would be harder if I told someone to learn a specific language. Anyways, back on topic. I just realized that all the creative writing classes at my university are only for poetry or short stories. Is this true for all universities? Or are there some classes that focus on novel writing?
As it has been said already, the necessary skills can be taught and learned over time, however the passion and commitment is something that each individual must obtain on their own. It is the passion & commitment that will make or break you as a writer in the end.
Teaching and Learning are not entirely symmetrical. You can teach (i.e. offer) techniques and formal skills such as spelling, puntuation and grammar. You can teach principles of good dialogue and vivid description. You can even teach thought processes tat can help stimulate the fow of ideas. But presenting material on a platter does not mean it will be received. Learning is not a passive process, and creative endeavors are where this is most apparent. Facts and prosesses can be memorized with little effort, but the subtleties that come not from generalization, but from bold exploration, can be learned but not taught. Whether someone can generate creativity in oneself, where very little was before, is something I cannot answer with any certainty. Is inquisitivity and desire another face of creativity, or are they independent qualities? And how could you prove it?
You might find it so, but not everybody has the same experience. Just as some people find creative writing easy, whilst the rest of us are left horribly jealous. Yes, I've tried learning German for many years. No, I just can't get my head around those cases!
yes, i totally agreed that it can be taught. It's not about being taught, but about giving the students the opportunity to test their writing skills or open up their mind to write down their imaginations.
@Cog: I tried to tell her that actually, but she told me I had to use outlines or I'd lose points since she grades outlines too. And I have tried both ways. Teachers have told me since 8th grade the "You need an outline!" mantra and I really, REALLY suck at making outlines for any of my novels. The "outline" I have for my Demon Story can barely be called an outline. It's more like a list of what I expect to relatively happen within certain chapters. It's scribbled down so loosely that I could not reference it if I felt like it.
It's a popular method in junior high and high school (the outline method). During my secondary licensure program, we were taught how to teach the outline method for EVERYTHING. While I think it can work for beginning writers, teachers must also allow themselves to be flexible in cases where a student shows aptitude and skill that's at a higher level than "the class average." Let's face it, most students in the 8th grade are probably not into writing "for fun" so much (and this might carry over into high school). Were I in a situation where a high school student came up to me and said, "look, the outline thing just isn't how I write, and I write a lot outside of class," I would probably answer with, "well, show me your stuff then." I find it narrow when an instructor won't even consider other options. What I've seen at the college level, though, is that outlines are tossed out the window entirely. The only time I would suggest an outline to a student in a college level course is if they are really struggling with formulating a story. And even then, I would suggest a very loose outline of plot points. But, as always, I would let them know that you can try to hem a story into place, but sometimes the characters meander off and the story changes. I work with outlines every once in a while, but they really are more structured like a scenario: Scene 1, Scene 2, etc. It works for me sometimes. I don't knock that kind of organization, but it just doesn't work for some.
One advantage I can see from a teaching point of view is the same as "show your work" in math class. It gives the teacher a window into your thought process, and he or she may be able to point to a part of it and say, "This is where you began to get lost."
Agreed. I also suspect there's a tendency for examiners to mark against a template. If I'm right, teaching pupils to work to that template would make academic sense whatever the actual merits of that writing style.
I'm new to writing fiction, but I've spent probably the past 8 years writing music. In that time I've come to the conclusion that creativity can be learned just as well as anything else. By pushing myself to write better and better music an expand my horizons, I certainly did and I feel confident that whatever I want to write, however I want it to come across, etc. - I've learned that I can do that. I got better at picking out the notes and understanding how those notes were going to come together to create a specific kind of sound. On the other hand, despite the fact that I've seen myself become light years ahead of where I was, I can't pretend that the brain has nothing to do with it, maybe what other's would call "talent." A dog can't paint or write or compose or tell jokes nearly as... well, at all. Surely language comes more naturally to some than others. Or some have better analytical skills and have more interesting ideas. Or others are really good at getting inside the head of people. So of course there is talent involved. But I think talent determines more where you start from and how quickly you progress, while the progression itself is all learning. I think if you work at writing you will get better. I hope anyway since otherwise I'm wasting my time here. How quickly and to where, I think that must depend on a number of factors including more than just effort.
But you can't find a university course on Immortality, which is the point. Given how widespread creative writing courses are, and the caliber of some of the writers they attract, it seems pretty clear that there's at least a valid case for its teachability, if not definitive evidence.
Can creative writing be taught? Yeah, sure. As several have already pointed out, the technical aspects of it can, indeed, be taught. But let's compare it to ... learning a foreign language. Okay, we take a group of ten students all first-language English speakers with no second language. We will put them in a classroom for six months and teach them to speak Spanish. Now, at the end of that six months, student will turn out to have a natural facility for learning languages and one will turn out to be a very quick study. These two students will be speaking Spanish like they were born in Barcelona. Three others will be struggling to master "Buenos dias" and "Como se llama" and "uno, dos, tres, cinco ... uh, cuatro, cinco ..." while, of the remaining five, two have given up and dropped out and the other three are somewhere in the middle. So I suppose the real question is, "Can creative writing be learned?" And the answer, then, is yes. But, to what degree? And that, my dear friend, is a purely individual factor.
Of course it can! Nearly all skills in life can be taught, while it's true there are some particularly talented authors who require little to no training to become succesful, there are many published authors who have learnt with a little confidence and training.
Teacher: Write an 18 paragraph paper describing one indoor and outdoor location in great detail, 9 paragraphs each. It must be a place you've been. Me: Ok! What about places in descriptive dreams I've had? Teacher: No, you would struggle to describe what your dream couldn't show you. UMMMM, isn't that why it's called "Creative Writing"?
Well, the point of the exercise is probably to learn to pull from the world around you (as well as push you to describe). I'm not sure why you'd want to go the dream route right off the bat, unless you were going to write an entire piece on a dreamworld. Sure, it's creative, but painters paint models, they paint scenic work, they practice in the fundamentals. I would imagine a dreamscape would be fun to describe, but most of it would be created from your imagination and not from what you are seeing in the world. It would be pure fantasy instead of focusing on the peeling paint of an old building or the dingy curtains, etc. I personally (as a teacher) would rather read a dreamscape. =) But I can see why your teacher is standing her ground on this.
I think the point of the exercise is to focus your skills of observation. Many students will discover they can't pull out enough details from a place they visited, so may need to pull out photographs or even take a quick trip to refresh their memory. Observation is a crucial skill for a writer. The real value inthe exercise may be going over it afterward to see what people had the most difficulty with. Do the descriptions focus entirely on visuals and neglect the other senses? Did the writer have to resort to secondary sources, or did he or she pull it all from memory? These questions don't work for a place pulled out of pure imagination. You don't remember a detail? Simple, make one up. Don't expect to know the reasons behind an assignment beforehand. A good teacher will have specific goals in mind for a particular exrcise, and my not want the student to second-guess what those reasons are.
I don't believe that writing is simply easier to those who excel at it, but rather that they're less likely to give in when it gets hard. Alot of creative professionals say that everything was simpler when they started out and as they became better it only got harder and harder. What's my point? That the determination to carry on when your craft reaches more complex levels is what makes the real difference. It's very Nietzschean.
Bear in mind that, much as some people are better at speaking a second language, some are better at teaching, too ... and some, not so much.
Some of the actual aspects can be tuaght like form and function and what not, but the most important parts can't be...Imagination and creativity, those you either have or don't.
