Writing Can’t Be Learned
This just in from the literary front on the Island of Snobbus:
Writing can’t be learned.
That’s right folks, you heard it here first. According to Emily Barton, Francine Prose’s new book claims that writing can’t be taught, and can’t be learned. A rather amazing statement, but not altogether original when you consider the high brow snobbery that exists in the literary and fine art world. “Writing can’t be learned.” goes along with classic statements such as, “I’ll know it when I see it.” and “If I have to explain it to you, then I’m not going to.” and other emperor’s clothes of the intellectual elite.
I’m not sure what’s worse though, Prose’s statement of divine ignorance, or Barton’s lackluster list of books on writing. Somebody hasn’t figured out this whole Amazon thing yet. In case there are any doubts, I could link you to at least NINE decent books on writing without even trying. And that’s not counting all the ones that exist by any measure, nor even half of the recommendation links if you add a few to your Amazon shopping cart.
I’m not sure what causes otherwise sane, intelligent people to think that A) Any line of work that requires a relatively finite, fixed, discrete skillset can’t be taught, and B) That no decent writing books exist.
What planet do these people live on?
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a reply
August 31st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Comments
August 29th, 2006 at 11:08 am
What planet do they live on? Calling Redchurch back from the Red planet… what book summary are you reading, man? :)
I was sitting here typing up a reply to the age old question of whether or not you can really teach creative writing–and it is a valid question–but then I went back and actually read what you just linked. I know you love to rail against those horrible literary types but uh… isn’t that summary talking about Francine Prose’s new book for writers? Making her question of whether you could teach writing sort of a rhetorical one?
If she honestly believed it couldn’t be taught, she wouldn’t be writing a book for writers, would she? Maybe she’s just that cynical (and snobbish!) and would like some money from those hapless suckers trying to learn what can’t be taught.
Anyhow, it’s still a legitimate issue she raises, and no, it’s not as snobby as you think. Of course anyone should technically be able to learn to write proficiently, learn story structure, etc. But I think it’s still fair to say that much of the essence cannot be taught. Did anyone teach Hemmingway to have such insane hangups about word meaning and expression? English writers are still standing in that man’s shadow. The link also mentions Kafka, another famous, classic writer that perhaps derived most of his lasting theme and inspirations from deep pathos.
Oh I’m sorry, I guess I’m a snob for talking about “classics” or other writers that people have read for hundreds of years and will continue reading for hundreds more.
But that’s all that she’s talking about when she’s saying writing can’t be taught. Of course writing can be taught. But nobody can teach you to be great–that has to be something you do, whether you’re a writer, an artist, a composer, or even a great teacher, for instance. Granted, it’s a bit more of a stretch to claim that it can’t even be learned… but hey. There are reasons that people argue about this from the dawn until the end of time. :) It’s only a little down from the definition of art on the list of things that nobody will ever fully agree on.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Taste perhaps cannot be taught. Writing skills are another thing altogether, something I think is entirely quantifiable if you look at it from purely a mechanical standpoint.
Aesthetics? Well, that’s taste, isn’t it? And I would agree that taste can’t be taught. But we’re talking about writing, not taste.
And I hold my question… if a thing cannot be learned or taught, then why do we bother? And how is it that even the Hemmingways of the world manage to learn to read and write? Surely they weren’t writing novels as a baby, or from the time they were born? So how did they ‘magically learn?’
Maybe some people ‘have it’ and others ‘don’t have it’ - but again I find this often to be more obfuscating for the elite to hide behind. How can you determine who ‘has it’ or who ‘gets it’ and who ‘doesn’t get it.’ And dare I suggest that people simply enjoy thinking in such terms because it lets them think they too are part of this elite class, and since there is no hard definition of what ‘it’ is in the ‘getting it,’ then that means they can never be questioned fully and we will never get to the bottom of ‘it.’ And that sir, is the copout that most of the lit and artsy elite hide behind. You either have it or you don’t and if ‘it’ can’t be taught, well then… [insert haughty laugh] then you’re just out of luck then!
It’s almost borderline… mystic theory of talent. It’s all just magic, or something.
I call B.S. on that. ;)
It’s not inscrutable… it’s not obfuscated. The human brain is pretty well known at this point. It has a high plasticity. With an open mind, a wide number of average individuals can learn just about anything they set their mind to…
If they are unable, it’s because they won’t rather than can’t. Now maybe, just maybe… this definition of skill/talent is referring to the “won’t,” but more often than not it’s framed from the elitist point of view of “can’t.”
Who is to say that somebody ‘can’t’ do a given thing? Since when did other people become the experts of your capabilities?
That’s where the real motivation behind that thinking comes in for me. It’s simply a shoe-in for others to decide what you can or can’t do… or to have the power of judgment over you within a community.
I don’t buy any of that nonsense. But if it’s your cup of tea, great!
August 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
I think the thing that cannot be avoided, is that “writing cannot be learned” is just as much a socio-political statement within a community as it is a statement about the craft. Telling people that their area of interest cannot be learned/taught is an easy route to becoming an authority figure, or dissuading potential future competition.
We can’t hide that fact, or mask the nature of a statement like that. Yet it is presented as an opinion based in some kind of fact. But what facts? No facts that I know, certainly not any based on our knowledge of the human brain. If want to talk about facts, the idea that something can’t be learned goes in complete contradiction to what we know about the plasticity of the brain. In other words, it’s a theory proposed by some lit types that contradicts most of known science on the topic of learning.
Well if I have to side with scientific facts, or high-minded literary opinions, it’s not difficult to see what camp my feet are planted in. ;)
August 29th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
What does the statement “Writing Can’t Be Learned” really offer to help people that want to learn to write? What possible benefit could that bring? What key takeaway is there that’ll help someone improve?
“You can’t learn it” is one of the most useless statements anyone can make. That’s ANTI-KNOWLEDGE. That’s an invitation to stagnate and stop trying to improve. And that makes me sick.
I’ve built my life and career around ignoring malicious assholes that say that. If I’d ever listened to them, I’d be nowhere, and I become absolutely livid when I see them discouraging people that are trying to actually learn and improve. I see it as a moral crime.
And it’s more than just that simple assertion in this book… I did read the summary, but Eric’s right. This sentiment is disturbingly widespread. The artsy-fartsy intellectual elite love to lord the “you’re just born with it, it can’t be learned” party line over people to gain a feeling of unearned superiority and to stifle honest competition.
I call them the Anti-Learning Brigade. And I think they should be hogtied, thrown into a the back of a rocketship and launched directly into the sun. And the world would be better for it. :)
August 29th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
BTW, I don’t think the review author nor the book author are necessarily part of this ‘Anti-Learning Brigade’ as Jon coined it.
I just pulled that assertion out of the entire composition, because it’s a neat topic. :)
Since I don’t know those authors, and am not familiar with their work, I don’t really know if they’re lit snobs or not. That one assertion about learning is definitely part of the lit-snob Anti-Learning Brigade though, most definitely!