Supplemental reading: MFA vs NYC is a Phony Debate.


A selection of essays delving further into the topic, Which is the greater blight on modern literature: MFA programs, or the NYC publishing industry? introduced in n 1 issue 10 (Self Improvement).

The essays on both sides tend to be amusing, in that unintentional "yup, that confirms everything I ever suspected about MFA programs/the publishing industry" way.

Particular standouts are the ones by Emily Gould, not only for its cringeing awfulness but also for the light shed on it by Keith Gessen's later essay, and by Frederic Jameson, who managed to put forth a theory-heavy critical essay with no argument, introduction, middle, or conclusion. It's not the only case of "I wrote whatever came to me, as it came to me, and never looked back" in this collection, but it is perhaps the most egregious.

Are there other awful examples? I'm glad you asked! Maria Adelmann, Alexander Chee, Melissa Flashman, Astri Ahlander, Jynne Martin all deliver the same sort of "from humble background, yet look where I am now!" (where, exactly? because I've never heard of you) autobiography about their experiences in the writing industry (MFA or NYC).


There are some nice pieces, of course. Keith Gessen's essays are reliably good. Elif Batuman, author of the essay "Get a Real degree", contributes a good if overly-thought critique. Jim Rutman, while initially commiting the same Horatio Alger sin as many of the others, provides some insight into how (and why) an agent chooses books.


In the end, though, all participants are too close to the subject, and focus on their own personal grievances. Nobody seems to hit on the core problem that the rest of the world knows: MFA programs produce boring, self-indulgent crap, and publishers crank out shallow, life-affirming fluff. ( )

Collection of essays on the contrast and overlap between the writing produced in MFA workshops and by their graduates and the older, NYC focused publishing industry. Interesting and inconclusive.

Really liked the MFA section. NYC was pretty naval gazing - and definitely more publishing industry focused. ( )

I purchased this book under the impression that this collection, judging by the title, would show how MFA programs and New York publishing were diametrically opposed. I figured weighing that opposition would help persuade me as to whether it was worth it to pursue the MFA in order to further my writerly ambitions, rather than ditching the idea and getting a PhD. It turns out that this book shows you much more about the history and culture of the MFAs and how it intersects with New York publishing rather than the two being completely set apart. To be sure, they are in many ways. For instance, I liked how one of the essays pointing out that MFA culture and New York culture have different canonical authors. Also, though editors and agents with MAs or PhDs often read and push the manuscripts of MFA alumni, they are still outside of the culture of the MFA and have developed along of different path.

The title essay by Chad Harbach served as a great opening piece and Bennett's "The Pyramid Scheme" was the standout of the "MFA" section, delving into the history of the Iowa workshop. Maria Adelmann's essay was a great first hand account of life as an MFA student. Sadly, many of the essays in the NYC section smacked of classism, racism, and whiney self indulgence. I didn't care to hear from some adjunct professor who pointed out that many of her students were "overweight Latino undergrads in Target jeans" or how some agent bought a shirt from a less glamorous floor (?) of an upscale department store. Fredric Jameson's "Dirty Little Secret" in the next section detailing the cultural drives of the writing workshop revitalized my interest and saved me from throwing the book down in disgust.

Ultimately, this collection lends a greatly deal of insider perspective on MFA programs that I found illuminating and insightful. Two or three essays are tedious if not offensive though the others, especially the aforementioned, make up for those losses. ( )

The backstory: I've really been enjoying collections of essays lately, and MFA vs. NYC is perhaps this year's most buzzed about edited volume. It's theme also echoes many of the essays in Goodbye to All That, which I adored.

The basics: Divided into two large sections (MFA and NYC) and three smaller ones, MFA vs. NYC takes its name from an essay editor Chad Harbach originally wrote for n+1. The other essays are a mix of those written for this collection and those adapted from earlier pieces.

My thoughts: Part of what has drawn me to personal essays lately is the fascination with what it means to be a writer. In MFA vs. NYC, that theme is on full display, but it's bigger picture is the current state of American fiction. Obviously, writers are critical to that, and each essay offers different ideas and insights into what exactly it means to be a writer.

I've never seriously thought about enrolling in an MFA program, and what surprised me most about this collection was not only the rise of MFA programs themselves (in both quantity and perceived prestige) but what an MFA program actually entails. The emphasis in this collection is on Iowa, perhaps the most famous of MFA programs, and it would be easy to fill an entire collection with perspectives on this program alone.

If there's a fault with MFA vs. NYC it's that it tries to do too much. The essays are all excellent, but as a collection, it felt more unbalanced as I went along. The first two sections, on MFAs and NYC offered a variety of glimpses into contemporary writing and publishing, but as the themes shifted to pairs of essays, the collection lost a bit of its momentum. It's still an accomplished collection, but as a cohesive piece, it faltered somewhat near the end.

Favorite passages: "It could be argued that any time you get ten to forty people together and have a core group of teachers, some homogenization is going to happen, but, in a sense, isn’t that what culture is? The establishment of a standard and then a resulting attempt to mimic that standard, followed by a passionate revolt against that stupid repressive reactionary standard, which is then replaced by a lovely innovative pure new standard, et cetera?" -- George Saunders, "A Mini-Manifesto"

"Charlotte didn’t think I was an idiot. She explained the ways in which her deployment of orcs and elves in her work differed from and even subverted the tropes of ordinary fantasy fiction. I didn’t mind discussing all this, even as I found it surreal. These were the times we were living in. I was on a college campus. I was a visiting professor. And I was sitting in my office, bearded and wise-looking and, in all seriousness, discussing orcs." -- Keith Gessen, "Money (2014)"

The verdict: Although the title implies an either/or dynamic, the essays in this collection focus more on sharing individual experience than arguing for one and against the other. As a collection of studies of modern American writing, it's fascinating. Anyone interested in the current state of American fiction will find many things worth ruminating over in this diverse collection. ( )