This week I linked to one poet’s concerns about the top MFA programs ranked in Poets & Writers. Now, a pretty impressive list of creative writing instructors have some questions for Poets & Writers itself.
Poets & Writers’ MFA Rankings
Teju Cole on the Leonard Lopate Show
Something you should hear: Open City author and prolific tweeter Teju Cole on WNYC’s Leonard Lopate Show.
●
●
Keep It in Your Pants and out of the Plot
Terrible sex writing spans the globe according to this year’s Bad Sex Award shortlist. It includes: My Education by Susan Choi, The Last Banquet by Jonathan Grimwood, House of Earth by Woody Guthrie, Motherland by William Nicholson, The Victoria System by Eric Reinhardt, The World Was All Before Them by Matthew Reynolds, The City of Devi by Manil Suri, and Secrecy by Rupert Thomson. The winner will be announced on December 3.
Jewel Boxes
Colm Tóibín’s new book on Elizabeth Bishop is unusually hard to categorize. Part “primer,” part “personal reflection,” in Jonathan Farmer’s words, it moves back and forth between analysis and lyricism, alternating passages of beauty with nuts-and-bolts guides to Bishop’s poems. In Slate, Farmer tries to nail it down. You could also read our own Michael Bourne’s review of Tóibín’s The Master.
●
●
Semiotics and Jeffrey Eugenides
The semiotics-department backdrop to Jeffrey Eugenides’s new novel, The Marriage Plot, seems to have sparked a new mode of confessional writing. But Theorists are so seductive because they are, themselves, essentially literary.
10 comments:
Add Your Comment: Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
How the Sausage Gets Made
“Being a judge for the Man Booker prize has at times felt like being part of a team of archaeologists excavating some vast buried city. Once the dust has settled – after nine months of reading – you stand back to survey your labours and realise all that’s left is a small pile of gleaming fragments. I hadn’t expected the process to be quite so emotionally exhausting. Nor had I thought it would be quite so exhilarating.” In case you’re curious, a Man Booker Prize arbiter offers up his reflections on the judging process. See also: the shortlist itself, which has surprised many readers!
●
●
And Now for Some Humor
In which Dr. Indiana Jones is regrettably denied tenure because “his timeliness in grading and returning assignments was a concern.”
I still cannot for the life of me understand why Poets & Writers keeps publishing the shoddy research and writing of Seth Abramson. Every article he writes becomes a lightning rod for controversy and complaint. I don’t think I’ve ever read one positive, supportive response to one of his rankings lists.
Abramson is obviously very dishonest and his work certainly shouldn’t be published by someone like Poets and Writers. But they probably publish it because the controversy and complaints move copies of the magazine.
The Methodology Article is available for FREE online and is 75 pages long (MS Word format, double-spaced) and explains every single aspect of the methodology in detail so exhaustive it’s actually been criticized by AWP for going on TOO long. Poets & Writers is a non-profit magazine which puts the MFA issue online for FREE every single year. What planet do you live on in which those two facts lead you to call the methodology’s author “dishonest” and the magazine itself one which is only interested in “moving copies of the magazine”? That’d be as crazy as me saying that you have the guts to make these specious claims under your real name.
I’ve read Abramson’s discussion of methodology, and that’s exactly why I think he is dishonest and every person I know who has ever interacted with him has felt the same way. Length does not equal honesty though. Who on earth would think that?
But there is certainly a large volume of words out there on the subject and people can read and make their own decisions.
D.,
Agreed. I’m a poet and professor, and I do not have one writer friend or colleague in my field who doesn’t think the methodology behind these rankings is completely specious and ridiculous. I’ll add that I’ve never seen anyone but Seth publicly defend the methodology behind these rankings, not even someone from Poets & Writers magazine. Sometimes you’ll see applicants posting about how they found these rankings “helpful”, but I’ve actually never seen one of these applicant defend the methodology.
I’ll add that I don’t personally object to the idea of rankings. Like others, I just think they need to be done in a more responsible and logical way. I mean, to not let anyone who has ever attended or taught in an MFA Program participate in the poll seems borderline absurd.
A good explanation of how flawed these rankings, and the alleged methodology, are at even the most basic statistically level:
http://blog.bestamericanpoetry.com/the_best_american_poetry/2011/09/poets-and-writers-mfa-rankings-garbage-in-garbage-out-by-stacey-harwood.html
Poets & Writers has responded to the open letter: http://at.pw.org/o6e4Ss.
Hey Everyone, I hope that the acceptances keep rolling in this MFA season! I know how exhausting the application process can be and that even writers with exceptional work are not always given the chance to attend the program of their dreams. A friend and I are planning to launch a fiction anthology–Best New American Slush–that will feature the work of MFA applicants that have not been accepted to a program this year. We are hoping to showcase a portion of the great talent that has not yet made into the madness that is the MFA world. If you are interested in submitting, please feel free to check out our page for instructions and further updates.