Mary Gaitskill: evaluation

Transcript context

…What do you think of the master of arts in creative writing? Is it a waste? Is it ruining American writers? Is it helping them? Is it irrelevant? Well, again, it depends on the person. I hate to keep saying that, but I really believe that. I’ve come to have a more negative opinion than I used to. When it first happened, when I first was aware of it in the late ’80s, early ’90s, I thought it was fine. My basic attitude is, if you are going to be a writer, a writing program isn’t going to hurt you. It may not help you that much either, but if you’re going to be a writer, why not? Sure, you could take it. It’s not going to ruin you, or may not help you that much. I always thought it was silly, people saying, “It’s going to ruin American writers. It’s going to make it uniform. They’re going to be grinding out people cookie cutters.” That, I don’t think, is true at all. Writers who work in these programs — you’re not interested in making people write like you. You couldn’t. Why would you want to do that? It’s impossible, and it would be exhausting to try. People are going to respond to your comments differently. That’s ridiculous to think that. First, I do want to say that also, my basic feeling about them at the beginning was, some people do not belong in those programs. It’s not going to help them. It just confuses them. I would not have liked a writing program when I was younger. It would’ve simply confused me. Some people do not thrive in a workshop environment. It intimidates them. There are certain people who will dominate the workshop just naturally. Some people fade in the background. Some people don’t like that. Some people, though, it’s great. They love it. They love the quick feedback. It focuses them on their work really well. They thrive. So, some people, it’s great for. What I have come to think is negative about it is the fact that people think they’ve got to do it. Even some editors, I think, expect that people have gone through this program. That, I think, is quite destructive because of the reason I just said. For some people — they don’t do well in it, and it doesn’t help them. It’s expensive. Even if it’s not expensive — a lot of programs do have a lot of leeway. They let people in with a lot of stipend and a lot of help, but still it’s going to cost them money because they’re not going to be working while they’re in that program, or they’re going to be teaching to make up for the fact that they’re not paying. That’s hard. At the best-case scenario, they learn a skill that they can later use. But if they’re not a person who ever wants to be in academia, they never get a teaching job, that’s a worthless skill, and it’s demanding of their energy. Again, they’re going to get into debt one way or the other, and they may get nothing out of this. They’ve gone into debt and basically wasted two or three years of their life. That’s a danger. I think a lot of people don’t realize, “I may not be a person who can get something out of this, and I do not have to go through this program.” You don’t have to do that to be a writer. at’s a danger. I think a lot of people don’t realize, “I may not be a person who can get something out of this, and I do not have to go through this program.” You don’t have to do that to be a writer. I’ve heard people say this: “You’ve got to do this if you want to be a writer.” That, I think, is really destructive.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.