Creative Writing Bachelors have different styles in each university, there is no one universal way to teach and inspire it. So, how do we define what is teachable in Creative Writing? Consider the stable and interchangeable natures of prescribed texts, preferred genres and personal preference in lecturers and tutors.
I think all the university can do as far as teaching is light the way with as many materials as budget will allow, given the talent pool of instructors. Then, the student has to decide how deeply he wants to delve into the landscape or how intensely she wants to tap into the faculty and the campus resources. Nonetheless, it will be a writing piece on the main factors affecting the caliber of current programs out there. – lofreire7 years ago
You might also delve into discussions of M.A.s and MFAs (terminal degrees) in creative writing. Are there more or fewer teachable elements for those? And, what's the difference between a degree in creative writing vs. professional writing? I have degrees in the latter, and choose to call them such because of the stigma. As in, "Oh, you studied creative writing. Isn't that cute?" Does that stigma put pressure on professors and students to make creative writing more serious, analytical, and teachable? – Stephanie M.7 years ago
That is a great suggestion, lofreire. I also think the instructors' experience and depth in the creative writing industry affect the scope and length of the student's learning. – HollyDavidson7 years ago
That is a good point, Stephanie M. There is definitely a lot of material to cover about the higher degrees. I also agree that the degree comes with a certain stigma, but I wonder if that is to do with the degree itself, as it is such a popular degree that is without scientific or mathematical academia, or if it is mostly a societal stigma of 'the degree that you sit at home and do nothing with'? – HollyDavidson7 years ago
A look into the plain English writing movement and how this has impacted newspapers, and social media as well as academic, professional and contemporary writing.
Has the plain English writing movement improved writing standards and expectations?
Or has is simplified and 'dumbed' down writing skills such as comprehension and interpretation?
I did update this but it didn't work.
Plain English (or layman's terms) is a style of communication that uses easy to understand, plain language with an emphasis on clarity, brevity, and avoidance of overly complex vocabulary. The movement began in the 1970's to improve legal documents. The purpose was to remove the confusion to the layperson because of the obscurities of the style of writing. Fast forward to today and we are seeing organisation who's sole purpose is to teach anyone involved in writing documents or online content how to write in layman's terms. The movement has penetrated universities, government and others. – mattcarlin7 years ago
I think that depends on what/why you are writing. Plain language is less precise, and is often less poetic and eloquent (although not always- I'm thinking writers like Hemingway). That said, it makes the writing accessible to a larger population. Personally, I find it frustrating that many people would rather have easy content than improve their comprehension abilities, but it's undeniable that in certain circumstances plain English is for the best. There is probably an argument to be made that overuse could lead to an increasing lack of intellectual acuity in the content and in the readers, as well. – Ben Woollard7 years ago
Oooh, there are so many different angles to approach this from. I'd recommend a sociolinguistic one for the reason that form VS function, linguistic shift etc are easier to frame and explore if you look at it from the perspective of how language is commonly used. The prescriptive VS descriptive debate is a longstanding one and there will be a lot of literature on the topic to wade through, but otherwise, should be fascinating to read and write about. – Cat7 years ago
Does setting a word count goal block the creative process or does it push us beyond our accepted limitations? Many writers will sit down and write so many words a day, all in the name of the perfect length novel. But does needing a certain amount of words create a certain amount of rubbish? How many of those words were really necessary? On the other hand, those who tend to overwrite might be cutting excess words with the help of a proper word count, using it to determine where they got a little carried away. When are word counts useful? What is their effect on progress? Who might find it troublesome or helpful and how so?
Very good topic. I would suggest for the writer who picks this up to look into requirements for getting published in the different genres i.e. Science Fiction and fantasy word count requirements vary from historical romance and so on.
It would be worthwhile investigating this for research into the article. – mattcarlin7 years ago
You make a good point. What's the point of setting a word count, marching through it with gritted teeth, only to end up deleting half of it in editing? It's very frustrating when all that hard work goes down the drain, but I think reaching a word count target can be comforting when you're trying to convince yourself that you can do it at all. It might seem like a dream to finish a novel, but setting that concrete 50,000 word goal lets you divide that into manageable pieces. And even if the end result is not its best, at least by the end you know you can actually do it. You've proved to yourself that you're capable. As long as the word count is taken as a guideline instead of a rule, I think it can be quite useful, at least for those still gaining confidence in their endurance in the writing process. – Sohini7 years ago
To what extent do you think a writer's experience (life, personal, certain events) shapes their fictional work? I always like to ponder what aspects of a fictional piece is relatable or true to the author. Of course their are many reasons that shape an authors work, whether it be inspiration from other pieces of work, a dream which has expanded into a novel, or just a thought that popped into their head. If you write fictional pieces, can you see pieces of your life experience sewed into them?
I think this is a fundamental truth in fiction writing. No matter how detached the author is from the character/situation there will always be some residue of the authors experiences and life choices that subconsciously find their way into the work. – ReidaBookman7 years ago
I think this connection is sort of inevitable in any writing. This is why the separation of art and artist can be so difficult for some. In the same way, I think many writers, (including myself) use writing as a form of personal therapy. – wcbraymen7 years ago
It depends on the topic of fiction, but ultimately writers can attach themselves to the characters, the story line, the setting and the morals of the fictional work, especially if they are writing in a form that is appealing and truthful to themselves, consciously and subconsciously. – HollyDavidson7 years ago
Love this topic. I find it hard to write anything fictional without relating it back to my life and experiences in some way. I don't believe an author can truly be 100% detached from anything they write, and if they are, there's no magic. – CarliStas6 years ago
Is eternity encoded in the human DNA and, if so, is cloning overkill or counter-intuitive? In ancient Celtic lore, a warrior sword was cast away onto a body of water upon his untimely or unjust death, to symbolize his promotion to the next level of consciousness. If the human soul is in fact transient, is it more conducive to comprehend its boundaries, its depths, or its mechanism and, as such, infuse life with a honed purpose and a more enlightened experience? Is the 1997 Heaven's Gate incident an emerging (and legitimate) human alternative?
Discuss modern journalism and answer the question of whether objectivity in journalism has been forsaken. On the left we have Huffington Post, and on the right we have Breitbart (of course there are other examples to use on both ends of the spectrum); question and answer why there has been an uprising in biased reporting in the Western world. Explore the causes of this and compare modern journalism to past journalism such as the 1920's (or any time period the author chooses).
This is a great topic...Something you can add may be the role television, the internet and other mass media portals played in this. – MikeySheff8 years ago
Interesting topic, though I'm not convinced that journalism has ever been truly objective. While objectivity sounds like a lovely ideal, it's worth questioning how possible (or even useful) it actually is. Some of the most iconic journalists from history (Murrow comes to mind) achieved that status by being opinionated, and bringing about real-world change with their opinions. Perhaps the onus need not be on the journalists to not take a stand on divisive issues, but rather on media consumers to read what's been written by both Left and Right-wing journalists to form their own opinions. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
It's also helpful to think about why news organizations have changed over time due to corporate control. Many owners now emphasize profit margins over quality news. – seouljustice8 years ago
Objective journalism never existed. The first papers in America were colonial papers which were not allowed to publish anything bad about the government without facing jail-time. Post colonial papers were entirely sponsored by political parties who used newspapers to attack opposing candidates from different parties. Then came the penny press which sensationalized stories, focused on celebrity news, and sometimes fabricated entire stories. It wasn't until the 1800's the a facts-driven model was introduced and there was more of an emphasis on being objective, though even then they never entirely were. Now a day, Opinion Journalism plays a huge part in media as a whole. Opinion Journalism should not be confused with Counterfeit Opinion Journalism, which consists of those crazy, outlandish claims and accusations based on personal belief and emotions. In contrast, real Opinion pieces consist of facts, actual news, in which the writer takes into account and then draws and educated conclusion. Whether the reader agrees with the writer or not is irrelevant, if the facts are correct and provided in context, its still valuable news. A lot of the Counterfeit you see is spread because we no longer have men sitting in chairs deciding what we hear and see. Now, we are the gatekeepers of media, and if we continue to spread false news, it will continue to be printed. – HDumars8 years ago
Protocannon's correct: all journalism is "yellow" (see William Randolph Hearst). A positive about ubiquitous Internet news sources is that silencing them would be like playing Whack-a-Mole for our central scrutinizers; one bad part is that many internet news sources, too, play Whack-a-Mole with the truth. – Tigey8 years ago
While I agree that all journalistic outlets have varying degrees of bias, try looking for publications that make real efforts to be as objective as possible. Most modern local newspapers and broadcast stations tend to be as close to neutral as they can without sensationalizing their stories. I hope this helps. – Tanner Ollo7 years ago
You should also look into the worrying trend of news outlets quoting no other sources than Twitter. Credible sources seem to be a thing of the past in the mainstream media. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
After spending the lead up to the US election on the campaign trail, Australian editor and journalist Aleks Vickovich argues there is now no question: objective journalism as we knew it, is dead. In your post, you can explain why the role of media as an impartial observer is redundant and the significant implications this has for media businesses. – ChristinaBattons7 years ago
Oh it is absolutely dead. Now a days, reporters and journalist to focus on objective news reporting. They are focused on what appeases the audience, so they can get more viewership. Facts don't matter anymore. It's all about money and ratings.
– justjohn33655 years ago
Author Dodie Smith in "I Capture the Castle" foreshadowed her novel's ambiguous ending through this quote from the novel: "I get the feeling I do on finishing a novel with a brick-wall happy ending – I mean the kind of ending when you never think any more about the characters."
What kind of satisfaction is there in a novel's ending where the reader interprets what happens to the characters? Do readers tend to think about what happens to a character after a "brick-wall happy ending"? Is an ambiguous ending better suited to stories where the ending could be bittersweet or sad? What kind of situations merit the reader coming up with their own ending, instead of the author revealing how they imagine everything to end?
An ambiguous ending to a novel will undoubtedly leave open the window to future renditions. Even in a happy-ending scenario, there is potential for reversal of fortune (leading to another compilation). There is always the possibility that the reader massaged the plot into a flavor to their convenient liking; one the author could conceivably exploit into several more chapters, or sequels. – lofreire7 years ago
These also serve as fodder for fanfictions. – Vishnu Unnithan7 years ago
Often times authors create a strong image for themselves by writing in a specific genre. When you think of Stephen King you think horror. But what about those who experiment with different genres? Are they simply stretching their creative limbs or are they lost and in need of a home? While perhaps more relevant to younger writers this also applies to giants in the industry such as Lois Lowry who's most renowned for her novel "The Giver" (A dystopian novel) and "Number the Stars" (Historical fiction). These novels vary in setting, character, and most notably the year they take place. Despite being entirely different works they belong to the same author who was able to stretch her talent across genres. But how often does genre crossing work? There is also the question of slipstream in which writers cross genres, such as fantasy and science fiction, within a story. What does that entail? Does genre crossing enhance or sabotage one's career as a writer?
it might be interesting to consider how much control the writer has in defining/confining genre - there's a lot of argument that genres are created out of reader recognition, according to current context, in the moment of consumption ... which might explain the concern of some writers about their works being read/received 'wrong'. – rosemichael7 years ago
While Stephen King is best known for horror like It and The Shining, he also wrote Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption; the latter being turned into the #1 film of all time on IMDb. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
A complex issue with no clear-cut answers. Marketing has a lot to do with genre policing of course. There are obvious commercial/publishing risks if an author creates a work that is hard to button-hole. Which shelf should it go on? But if you're writing literary fiction, rather than so-called 'popular' fiction, then genre-bending, along with all sorts of other experimentation, is fair game. – SFG7 years ago
It can be frustrating for new authors with stories that don't fit neatly into a stereotypical genre to even get published. Many of the examples given are from established authors who are given more leeway. Genre crossing within a single piece of literature is much trickier. – MB427 years ago
