I've heard it said sometimes that you have to have an MFA in Creative Writing, from a good school at that...

I've heard it said sometimes that you have to have an MFA in Creative Writing, from a good school at that, to become a critically acclaimed writer.

Is this true, or is it just untalented people making excuses?

it's an excuse.
Lovecraft didn't finish high school, yet he has received lots of critical praise.

>have to have an MFA in Creative Writing,

Who on Earth says this? What authors actually have this background?

I suppose I meant more in terms of critical acclaim in one's own lifetime. Lovecraft died poor and starved by his mother.

For some autistic reason that I have forgotten I looked up a little while ago how many Pulitzer fiction nominees in the last ten years hold an MFA. It was ~50%

>Lovecraft died poor and starved by his mother.
True, but the mental breakdown couldn't have helped.

>I've heard it said sometimes that you have to have an MFA in Creative Writing, from a good school at that, to become a critically acclaimed writer.
Did somebody in the Creative Writing program tell you this? Cause it sounds like justification for wasting their time.

stands to reason that someone who has an mfa in creative writing is going to be a better writer on average than someone who does not. The thread seems to suggest that regardless of talent, you need an mfa to get in the door or to get widespread acclaim.

If lit was a more impressive board we could meme writers into incredible popularity and success like pol did for Donald

If we believe that a human has a responsibility to include »truth« within his creative (where we define creative as related to »creation« ie from its all-encompassing form of »putting »it« into being« (since man cannot create something out of nothing, it would be more accurate to say that he is a kind of a transposer of »it«, that is he uses »it« in order to conjure a manifestation) rather than a more narrow subdomain of isolated artistic expression or aesthetics) process, then it would be fair of us to say that humans can go astray in executing such responsibility. This is especially a dangerous situation because since a human is rather than is not, it cannot fully reject creativity (as defined above) as his inherent quality. In addition, even an attempt at not being would still require creative action if achieving such a state were possible. Creativity is therefore an unavoidable state of man. Because we cannot not do, we are faced with an incredibly responsible task of what to do.

As it relates to the above, one of course one does not just SAY »truth«, truth is not just spoken, rather truth is a particle of being by itself. Truth is a possible answer to the engulfing responsibility of the »what to do« question posited earlier. Therefore in regard to truth – we either do it or we don't and through doing we actualize our being into truth or not truth.

Of course when we speak of truth, it would be illusory to expect of a man to express »absolute« truth merely by his own effort. Most of us are experienced enough to know better, even through our own failings. Nevertheless, man can express some form of truth from his individual essence. This essence stems from his individuality which is a one-off unique manifestation of creation embedded into his commonly shared humanity.This has a two-fold consequence. The stamp of unique individuality is imbued onto everyone through creation and grants us dignity and privilege as actualized beings, as that which it is rather than that which is not. The second aspect which is the shared aspect of humanity, grants everyone the tie that allows for interrelation and interaction between each of us in our individualized unique beingness. Truly, it is a wonder that two can pass by without marvelling at this phenomena.

Faulkner had no degree. He dropped out.

To return to truth. As created, we might not be able to as it is grasp absolute truth, but we do have a fairly good nose for individually expressed truth. That is, we are able to grasp when one of our companions in humanity is expressing something that is for him his specific truth. In this process, he actualizes his expression (that which emitted from him) with his truth that is soaked with his being that was given to him through creation. The one who receives such an expression immediately detects it as truth, precisely because he views it through the lens of his shared aspect of humanity and sees his companion's expression, his truth, as the very part of his companion's unique being. In this transfer is hidden the responsibility of humanity to be a curator of truth. In fact this responsibility also comes, as described, by the ability of one not to only express truth but also to accept and understand truth he receives, where one is responsible for accepting what he hears and acknowledging its legitimacy as truth. If one were to be opposed to such truth, he will as a judge condemn himself and call himself a liar. Therefore it is possible to be opposed to truth, but it is not possible to deny truth in its existence. In fact, the opposition itself is only possible because truth in its existence pre-dates it.

When expressing the truth, it is key that one should express it while cognizant (though it is not necessary that one always consciously wills it, as one who already is in truth will express truth even as a part of his »passive« existence) of his manifested individuality as a function of creation itself. It is unnecessary to get bogged down with the complexities involved in the mechanics of the transfer of truth itself. As it is, the subsets of technical exploration and even more importantly the language itself with all of its variance of letters and numbers are not expansive enough to provide a viable explanation. Rather the ability of the human to skip the conscious knowledge of the mechanical complexity of the transfer when detecting truth in an expression where such expression is a result of a unique individuality granted by the first creation itself, is evidence enough on its own.

Truthfulness can only really be lost when one stops acknowledging his privilege and dignity that was granted to him through creation. When one loses proper perspective and of those qualities and yet still engages in creative process, he produces expressions lacking in truth. One's being will demand that it be expressed and through that unique being the truth itself also is expressed. But when one stops singing the song of creation and instead imagines that the world will hear HIS voice, that is when he commits the first mistake. He positions himself as the author of the arrangement and the very moment he believes that HE will be heard, that is when he stops singing the right notes. He calls himself master of truth, rather than the vessel of truth. And this moment of vanity is enough to chain him into slavery.

»The final solution« is in the possibility, if not outright the highest responsibility (especially) of the author to take a step away from himself and disregard himself to such an extent that he himself is nothing. That is when one becomes a vessel of truth as a pure expression of his creation. It is in this painful step that one best protects himself against himself. And in this fullness, that one is granted when he is empty for himself, lies the eternity of truth and possibly a small insight into the absolute truth of creation, as far as that can be granted.

cont.

Unfortunately, say what you will about pol, but lit is a far more negative board with regard to its intraboard relations. I believe it's because most anons here have a chip on their shoulder. They feel threatened if they see any talent in another user. So in this board we see anons whose every wish to be accepted and lauded by the power structures that be, to live the literary lifestyle, to keep up with the meme books, and to eventually get published by a reputable publishing house (university brag posting part of this also) whereas pol derives its pleasure and it's worth from resisting any established politics. You would never see a thread there asking "how do I become a senator?" Or even threads about local involvement in politics because anons there don't derive meaning from the outside but create their own.

>inb4 nice blog post
>inb4 go back to pol

In terms of it improving your writing, of course it's not necessary.

But critics -- the people who matter in wanting your work to be "critically acclaimed" -- *will* care about your credentials. And unless you have some reason for a critic or someone of high importance to care about your work, then you'll never be critically acclaimed.

While it's never been easier to get your shit published by anyone, the MFA is one of the many new obstacles in getting published by a "serious" company.

at the very least, some form of education in the English department could be helpful. Some guidance that helps you develop your taste in literature and writing style.

DFW from U of Arizona

I think the principle benefit that an MFA from a good school can give you, besides practice in the discipline of writing (I mean making the time to make yourself perform the action of writing), is the networking opportunities. Agents and publishers keep an eye on prominent MFA programs because business. If you're at a good school I expect it's more likely you could interact with and be introduced to people with decision-making power.

Sure anyone can write and could, in theory, be discovered and be acclaimed, and there are many many a shite MFA graduate, but the probability of making the connections so as to sell yourself must be at least slightly better at a good creative writing program.

Oh dammit...... I mean principal

nice blog post
go back to pol

Most of the world doesn't do MFAs and while it might have the odd creative writing course here and there, they aren't very big, certainly not an industry and typically the preserve of third or fourth tier institutions. MFAs exist because you can borrow to pay university fees in the US, its a business thing.

A lot of parochial comments here. If you really do need an MFA, perhaps you should get yourself a PO Box in London or Madrid, it would be cheaper and its not like publishers can insist British or Spanish writers have a non-existent qualification if you actually believe this.

There is a school of MFA-style writing, particularly around short-stories that people who attend MFA programmes like to publish in essentially non-profit collections. So you might acquire a style that helps you 'fit in' but most ordinary readers don't really like it and can get it endlessly supplies from elsewhere.

The main thing an MFA can provide to you is a good hard kicking, a real beatdown, a whack in the face with a 2x4. If there is one problem aspiring authors have its being precious about essentially worthless trex, not seeking criticism and not listening when they get it. A good MFA may provide this.

Its fairly obvious why MFA holding writers do occasionally win prizes. Its because if you have the ambition to do something like that, you'll do anything. There has probably been a period of voluntary homelessness, a psychedelic Odyssey and a pact with the devil as well. Whether they work or not is however not demonstrated. What you want to look at is the fate of people with MFAs who don't become famous writers otherwise you're just engaging in survivorship bias.

Not necessarily true, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

Lovecraft is shit.