This really made me stop and think. I believe I agree with Professor “Hank’s” ultimate point: we aren’t helping people when we aren’t honest, or worse, are actively dishonest by exaggerating an aspiring writer’s mediocre qualities.
I think where I differ with Professor H is that I don’t think it’s necessary to be as harsh as he was. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn’t shirk from honesty but I would frame it as, “Here is all the work you need to do. Are you still willing to do it?”Many people would still go home discouraged, but it wasn’t because I pronounced an actual judgement on whether they had potential or not.
All that said, I do believe there are immutably different personalities in this world, and that includes teachers and how they teach. Professor Hank’s approach is the one that is perfectly logical to him, and students have a choice to leave the room (as you mentioned) or to not take the class in the first place (I’m sure he developed quite the reputation after a while).
"Here is all the work you need to do. Are you still willing to do it?" is such a great framing and a really elegant way to offer feedback. This was a really insightful comment, thank you Brenna!
Thank you, Celine! One thing I'll quickly add since it came to mind: a diplomatic but honest answer like that also requires a little more thought and constraint. Being harsh is easier (I think most of us have harsh thoughts when we see bad work). I'm not convinced that the "easy" thing to do in this case is the right thing.
You’re making me think, too, that one of the goals of writing teachers, or of anyone offering feedback, has to be to keep the focus on the work. What does the work have? What is missing? What does it need? Focusing on the words on the page (vs the ineffable and wholly subjective merit of the self doing the writing) provides protection for both writer and responder.
Yes! I hadn't thought of it quite like that, but you're right. Such an approach is both more appropriate and also high-level. There's no risk of veering into ad hominem judgement.
You know, I see both sides here. I like that! Both characters make solid, valid points. (The writers who ignored Hank’s judgement and instead of quitting were spurred on to learn the craft and become better writers proved, by their determination, to be worthy after all. Those who quit? Point proven.)
It's a 10/10 for me, and if you're the type of person drawn to stories about art, sacrifice, and greatness, I'm willing to bet you'd like it. Harrowing is definitely an applicable word, though, haha.
I don't think it's merely skill or talent. It's the resolve to not be demotivated by rejections and negativity. For those who quit after his workshops, probably didn't have it in them to be writers in the first place. This is a profession where you're baring your heart for the world to see and judge, so you have to possess extremely thick skin and learn from constructive criticism. At the end of the day, that's how you get better as a writer. Doesn't mean you have to pander to every reader out there. If you decide never to quit and keep working on your craft, then it's a matter of finding your niche and your audience, since this industry is so subjective. At the end of the day, you must write for yourself - first and foremost - before you decide to please others. Real writers recognize that and are cognizant of their weaknesses. Now, I 100% agree there are books out there that should never have graced the sanctity of a store shelf, but sometimes, I am shocked to see that those are the works that end up selling the most. Not everyone has the intellect to comprehend literary fiction.
I was once a member of a writers' group. We'd meet weekly to discuss our work on a Thursday evening. Half the session would be take up with some writing exercise that the organisers came up with, the other half would be listening to excerpts of new writing written by members of the group. These chapters and short stories would be critiqued. Some people loved that critique, that's why they came. They took that part seriously. Others were often terribly upset by it, because they came to share with enthusiasm and hoped for praise and encouragement. Some criticism was even-handed ("that metaphor was a bit confused"), but there was one popular member of the group who, if he took a personal dislike to someone, could be terribly mean-spirited. There were tears. But even still, the cruellest criticism was always grounded by the fact that he took a dislike to people because they produced bad work.
I have quite a bit of sympathy for this (while wincing at whatever this worthy's verdict on my own writing would be). I think my only caution would be regarding anyone who decides unilaterally that they're an arbiter, rather than the principle that some people should be discouraged. I think they should! We don't all expect to be told (by pros) that we can be pro athletes or Supreme Court Justices or brain surgeons or metallurgists or what-have-you - why should writers expect gentler handling?
What a bastard. There's no need to inflict that kind of pain on people. If a writer "sucks," help them get better, especially if they're paying you. And be as honest as you can without harming them. Basic human empathy. Maybe they'll improve over time, maybe they won't. Let them be, move on to the next workshop and continue to mentor. There are ways to communicate constructive feedback without destroying someone.
I can honestly see the merits of both sides. I've only been in two creative writing courses and both professors were very encouraging and kind...and that's exactly what I needed. Their praise didn't make me complacent; it made me hungry. I came out of those classes thinking, "Okay, I have at least some talent. I'm not deluding myself. But if that's the case I sure as hell better not waste it."
On the other hand, there is a type of person--someone more confrontational than me, I would venture--who reacts very positively to harsh criticism. They have a sort of "You say I can't? Fuck you, I'll prove I can" attitude. They probably also don't have my naturally low levels of self-esteem, ha.
I don't have any profound thoughts on the situation other than to say it's a damn shame we don't live in a world where the right sort of the student and the writer sort of teacher can serendipitously be matched up.
I owe all my success to the people who told me I was no good. But it has to be real! It can’t just be for the purpose of encouraging me. They have to genuinely think I am bad. And in return, I genuinely hate them and wish them ill :)
Pretty sure we've all experienced a situation where we read or heard someone's writing and we were like "Oh damn. Just no." But with some perseverance and guidance, that person could go on to put out decent work. Or not. It's up to them to get better, to keep seeking actionable feedback.
Wrecking people by humiliating them publicly points to glaring interpersonal deficits. Can't we communicate without disparagement? I've read about Harlan's infamous rants and raves. His work was unique, sometimes great. But he sounds like a shit person (if it was him). Maybe he needed a hug or meds.
Making good art which resonates with others is hard. I don't think everyone should be handed a participation trophy. But, cruelty just isn't necessary.
I remember a workshop instructor who "hated" my writing. Said it to out loud with classmates present. It was my master's program. My presented work that day probably was bad. That hurt. It hobbled me. Took me years to find an ability to say IDGAF, I'm just going to write anyway, and keep getting better, seek out mentorship and support from peers.
I honestly don't care if my work doesn't end up in The Atlantic or whatever. My work's landed in enough places to where I feel legitimate enough for now.
If I ever teach workshops, I'm never going to shit all over a person's work. If they'll listen, I'll give honest feedback as kindly as possible. There's enough pain out there. Why spread more misery?
It really depends on the person. Some, including me, are only looking for a gentle push.
However, I would have never improved if my first poem book didn't get "wow this paragraph is boring nothing happens". I'd still be bland and mediocre as I was 6 years ago
You're right. Bullying doesn't help. But neither does lying. A teacher should be honest with their judgment. If they didn't like the work, they should outright say it.
Plenty of bad writers exist. Why? Because nobody told they suck!
You got to a workshop to get better, not to collect praises.
Here’s what I think about this: yesterday a patient, who returns to the hospital A LOT for non compliance with meds and diabetes health, requested a jacket to leave with on discharge. The case manager said, “he has clothes, and he’s made bad choices. All of those bad choices are the consequences he lives with now.” Now we’ve all made bad choices: shitty metaphor, weak verbs, cocaine. We still should have a coat while we figure our junk out. It isn’t a comparison or a competition of who hurt most getting through. Is it?
I think, whether Hanks actions are good or bad comes down to whether or not we believe there exists some innate talent for storytelling/writing, which some people have and others don't and ultimately can't be taught. I struggle with this, because it's not something I want to believe. The teacher in me wants to believe that anyone can learn this stuff if they put in the work (even if it takes more work for some than others), and also there's a part of me that's just afraid... like, what if I don't have it?
On the other hand, I've read works in progress, or even published works, where I've thought "this isn't good, but they've got it; they just need to work on refining what they've got" and I've read some where I've thought "this has interesting ideas... but they don't have it." Those latter ones make me sad, because I don't know what to say to help bring out something worthwhile from it. It feels like they have so many of the technical pieces in place, but there's something lifeless or inert about the whole thing. But maybe they do have it, or they could, and I'm just not seeing it.
So I don't know which side I end up on here. But I do know that I want Brian Cox to play Hank in an adaptation of this story.
I don't know that you need to believe in a strong sense of immutable talent to believe you can predict who will succeed and who won't.
Maybe everyone could in some sense hypothetically succeed, if they would do whatever it takes. But from their temperaments you can often tell whether they will do what it takes.
I wrote a lot as a teenager. Poems and short stories mostly. My teachers were very encouraging but what I did not know how to deal with was the judgements of others. A symptom of my adhd is extreme rejection sensitivity and I just could not handle it. If a teacher had singled me out like this it would have destroyed me. I went to college and quit writing for a decade and only recently started up again. If I ever publish anything publicly again it will almost certainly be under a pseudonym.
It's rough out there. Rejection and ridicule sucks. Took me too many years to develop a thicker skin. I'm not made of steel, just flabby flesh and blood. Do whatever you have to do to protect yourself. Pseudonym, etc. But keep writing and seeking feedback.
I know you live in USA and I live in England, but this could be my creative writing teacher!!! The profile matches - humble background, he earned success by determination and talent - determination being key. He told us at one class that his publisher made him re-write his last novel three times, once in entirety, and I said, how could you have the energy to do that and he said, well if you want to succeed ....
Also, like your author Hank, most of his work is now out of print and he makes a living by teaching creative writing.
And as a student of his classes, I so agree, everyone in them was completely talentless. That would include me, although I liked to think I had something a bit special. But they all kept on taking class after class, including the extra sessions ("day schools") on Saturdays and the evening tutorials in a pub (saving on room rental). No-one ever achieved anything.
I gave up in the end as the arrival of four grandchildren in five years takes up all my energy. I do love reading your posts, though.
Reading this essay reminded me of nearly every journalism professor I ever had, inevitably some grizzled ex-reporter who was stuck teaching zoomers who had very little interest in or aptitude for the craft of writing -- which would in fact be the only thing you *could* learn from them, because they knew LESS than their students about developments in news media after Y2K.
I don't think I can be in a writing group. It requires taking seriously works that you think are garbage and treating everyone as equals even if you don't feel that way inside. I think really narrowly focused groups have value, i.e. sitting down with other people who are writing historical fiction in roughly the same period, or discussing high fantasy with other high fantasy writers. But a generic group on sci-fi or literary fiction is often composed of people writing wildly different kinds of things.
This really made me stop and think. I believe I agree with Professor “Hank’s” ultimate point: we aren’t helping people when we aren’t honest, or worse, are actively dishonest by exaggerating an aspiring writer’s mediocre qualities.
I think where I differ with Professor H is that I don’t think it’s necessary to be as harsh as he was. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn’t shirk from honesty but I would frame it as, “Here is all the work you need to do. Are you still willing to do it?”Many people would still go home discouraged, but it wasn’t because I pronounced an actual judgement on whether they had potential or not.
All that said, I do believe there are immutably different personalities in this world, and that includes teachers and how they teach. Professor Hank’s approach is the one that is perfectly logical to him, and students have a choice to leave the room (as you mentioned) or to not take the class in the first place (I’m sure he developed quite the reputation after a while).
Great article!
"Here is all the work you need to do. Are you still willing to do it?" is such a great framing and a really elegant way to offer feedback. This was a really insightful comment, thank you Brenna!
Thank you, Celine! One thing I'll quickly add since it came to mind: a diplomatic but honest answer like that also requires a little more thought and constraint. Being harsh is easier (I think most of us have harsh thoughts when we see bad work). I'm not convinced that the "easy" thing to do in this case is the right thing.
You’re making me think, too, that one of the goals of writing teachers, or of anyone offering feedback, has to be to keep the focus on the work. What does the work have? What is missing? What does it need? Focusing on the words on the page (vs the ineffable and wholly subjective merit of the self doing the writing) provides protection for both writer and responder.
Yes! I hadn't thought of it quite like that, but you're right. Such an approach is both more appropriate and also high-level. There's no risk of veering into ad hominem judgement.
You know, I see both sides here. I like that! Both characters make solid, valid points. (The writers who ignored Hank’s judgement and instead of quitting were spurred on to learn the craft and become better writers proved, by their determination, to be worthy after all. Those who quit? Point proven.)
Have you ever seen the (excellent) movie Whiplash? Naomi's story and your comment both remind me so much of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lFs5gbv_k
I haven’t seen that film. It sounds harrowing! In the best way, of course. Thanks for the tip!
It's a 10/10 for me, and if you're the type of person drawn to stories about art, sacrifice, and greatness, I'm willing to bet you'd like it. Harrowing is definitely an applicable word, though, haha.
I loved WONDER BOYS with Michael Douglas.
I don't think it's merely skill or talent. It's the resolve to not be demotivated by rejections and negativity. For those who quit after his workshops, probably didn't have it in them to be writers in the first place. This is a profession where you're baring your heart for the world to see and judge, so you have to possess extremely thick skin and learn from constructive criticism. At the end of the day, that's how you get better as a writer. Doesn't mean you have to pander to every reader out there. If you decide never to quit and keep working on your craft, then it's a matter of finding your niche and your audience, since this industry is so subjective. At the end of the day, you must write for yourself - first and foremost - before you decide to please others. Real writers recognize that and are cognizant of their weaknesses. Now, I 100% agree there are books out there that should never have graced the sanctity of a store shelf, but sometimes, I am shocked to see that those are the works that end up selling the most. Not everyone has the intellect to comprehend literary fiction.
Good point!
Reminds me of the Flannery O’Connor quote; when asked if universities stifle writers, she replied, “not nearly enough.”
I was once a member of a writers' group. We'd meet weekly to discuss our work on a Thursday evening. Half the session would be take up with some writing exercise that the organisers came up with, the other half would be listening to excerpts of new writing written by members of the group. These chapters and short stories would be critiqued. Some people loved that critique, that's why they came. They took that part seriously. Others were often terribly upset by it, because they came to share with enthusiasm and hoped for praise and encouragement. Some criticism was even-handed ("that metaphor was a bit confused"), but there was one popular member of the group who, if he took a personal dislike to someone, could be terribly mean-spirited. There were tears. But even still, the cruellest criticism was always grounded by the fact that he took a dislike to people because they produced bad work.
I have quite a bit of sympathy for this (while wincing at whatever this worthy's verdict on my own writing would be). I think my only caution would be regarding anyone who decides unilaterally that they're an arbiter, rather than the principle that some people should be discouraged. I think they should! We don't all expect to be told (by pros) that we can be pro athletes or Supreme Court Justices or brain surgeons or metallurgists or what-have-you - why should writers expect gentler handling?
What a bastard. There's no need to inflict that kind of pain on people. If a writer "sucks," help them get better, especially if they're paying you. And be as honest as you can without harming them. Basic human empathy. Maybe they'll improve over time, maybe they won't. Let them be, move on to the next workshop and continue to mentor. There are ways to communicate constructive feedback without destroying someone.
I can honestly see the merits of both sides. I've only been in two creative writing courses and both professors were very encouraging and kind...and that's exactly what I needed. Their praise didn't make me complacent; it made me hungry. I came out of those classes thinking, "Okay, I have at least some talent. I'm not deluding myself. But if that's the case I sure as hell better not waste it."
On the other hand, there is a type of person--someone more confrontational than me, I would venture--who reacts very positively to harsh criticism. They have a sort of "You say I can't? Fuck you, I'll prove I can" attitude. They probably also don't have my naturally low levels of self-esteem, ha.
I don't have any profound thoughts on the situation other than to say it's a damn shame we don't live in a world where the right sort of the student and the writer sort of teacher can serendipitously be matched up.
I owe all my success to the people who told me I was no good. But it has to be real! It can’t just be for the purpose of encouraging me. They have to genuinely think I am bad. And in return, I genuinely hate them and wish them ill :)
Pretty sure we've all experienced a situation where we read or heard someone's writing and we were like "Oh damn. Just no." But with some perseverance and guidance, that person could go on to put out decent work. Or not. It's up to them to get better, to keep seeking actionable feedback.
Wrecking people by humiliating them publicly points to glaring interpersonal deficits. Can't we communicate without disparagement? I've read about Harlan's infamous rants and raves. His work was unique, sometimes great. But he sounds like a shit person (if it was him). Maybe he needed a hug or meds.
Making good art which resonates with others is hard. I don't think everyone should be handed a participation trophy. But, cruelty just isn't necessary.
I remember a workshop instructor who "hated" my writing. Said it to out loud with classmates present. It was my master's program. My presented work that day probably was bad. That hurt. It hobbled me. Took me years to find an ability to say IDGAF, I'm just going to write anyway, and keep getting better, seek out mentorship and support from peers.
I honestly don't care if my work doesn't end up in The Atlantic or whatever. My work's landed in enough places to where I feel legitimate enough for now.
If I ever teach workshops, I'm never going to shit all over a person's work. If they'll listen, I'll give honest feedback as kindly as possible. There's enough pain out there. Why spread more misery?
The current essay seems perfect. You owe them! x
It really depends on the person. Some, including me, are only looking for a gentle push.
However, I would have never improved if my first poem book didn't get "wow this paragraph is boring nothing happens". I'd still be bland and mediocre as I was 6 years ago
You're right. Bullying doesn't help. But neither does lying. A teacher should be honest with their judgment. If they didn't like the work, they should outright say it.
Plenty of bad writers exist. Why? Because nobody told they suck!
You got to a workshop to get better, not to collect praises.
Here’s what I think about this: yesterday a patient, who returns to the hospital A LOT for non compliance with meds and diabetes health, requested a jacket to leave with on discharge. The case manager said, “he has clothes, and he’s made bad choices. All of those bad choices are the consequences he lives with now.” Now we’ve all made bad choices: shitty metaphor, weak verbs, cocaine. We still should have a coat while we figure our junk out. It isn’t a comparison or a competition of who hurt most getting through. Is it?
Did he get a jacket?
Yeh, I gave him a jacket my husband doesn’t use cuz I’m the softy chaplain. It says ‘waste management’ but the pt thought that was funny.
That’s good! I am glad he got a jacket. That’s solid human drama right there.
I think, whether Hanks actions are good or bad comes down to whether or not we believe there exists some innate talent for storytelling/writing, which some people have and others don't and ultimately can't be taught. I struggle with this, because it's not something I want to believe. The teacher in me wants to believe that anyone can learn this stuff if they put in the work (even if it takes more work for some than others), and also there's a part of me that's just afraid... like, what if I don't have it?
On the other hand, I've read works in progress, or even published works, where I've thought "this isn't good, but they've got it; they just need to work on refining what they've got" and I've read some where I've thought "this has interesting ideas... but they don't have it." Those latter ones make me sad, because I don't know what to say to help bring out something worthwhile from it. It feels like they have so many of the technical pieces in place, but there's something lifeless or inert about the whole thing. But maybe they do have it, or they could, and I'm just not seeing it.
So I don't know which side I end up on here. But I do know that I want Brian Cox to play Hank in an adaptation of this story.
Cox would be so good in this!
I don't know that you need to believe in a strong sense of immutable talent to believe you can predict who will succeed and who won't.
Maybe everyone could in some sense hypothetically succeed, if they would do whatever it takes. But from their temperaments you can often tell whether they will do what it takes.
I wrote a lot as a teenager. Poems and short stories mostly. My teachers were very encouraging but what I did not know how to deal with was the judgements of others. A symptom of my adhd is extreme rejection sensitivity and I just could not handle it. If a teacher had singled me out like this it would have destroyed me. I went to college and quit writing for a decade and only recently started up again. If I ever publish anything publicly again it will almost certainly be under a pseudonym.
It's rough out there. Rejection and ridicule sucks. Took me too many years to develop a thicker skin. I'm not made of steel, just flabby flesh and blood. Do whatever you have to do to protect yourself. Pseudonym, etc. But keep writing and seeking feedback.
There's toxic criticism and then there's constructive criticism. Modern day critics often forget to draw a line
I know you live in USA and I live in England, but this could be my creative writing teacher!!! The profile matches - humble background, he earned success by determination and talent - determination being key. He told us at one class that his publisher made him re-write his last novel three times, once in entirety, and I said, how could you have the energy to do that and he said, well if you want to succeed ....
Also, like your author Hank, most of his work is now out of print and he makes a living by teaching creative writing.
And as a student of his classes, I so agree, everyone in them was completely talentless. That would include me, although I liked to think I had something a bit special. But they all kept on taking class after class, including the extra sessions ("day schools") on Saturdays and the evening tutorials in a pub (saving on room rental). No-one ever achieved anything.
I gave up in the end as the arrival of four grandchildren in five years takes up all my energy. I do love reading your posts, though.
This kind of teacher is such a type! It’s so funny that their life is spent instructing people so unlike them.
Reading this essay reminded me of nearly every journalism professor I ever had, inevitably some grizzled ex-reporter who was stuck teaching zoomers who had very little interest in or aptitude for the craft of writing -- which would in fact be the only thing you *could* learn from them, because they knew LESS than their students about developments in news media after Y2K.
ha ha!
Isn’t this just Harlan Ellison?
I don't think I can be in a writing group. It requires taking seriously works that you think are garbage and treating everyone as equals even if you don't feel that way inside. I think really narrowly focused groups have value, i.e. sitting down with other people who are writing historical fiction in roughly the same period, or discussing high fantasy with other high fantasy writers. But a generic group on sci-fi or literary fiction is often composed of people writing wildly different kinds of things.
I am a little bit Hank, and this is why I do not teach.
From your title, I thought the piece was about Olivia Nuzzi.
I love this story. The dialogue is so sharp and the ending is perfect.