"A New Scheme for Real Writers" is an article printed in the New York Times Book Review on July 14, 1974. It led to a reply by Philip Appleman, poet and professor of English at Indiana University, Bloomington, on August 4, 1974 in the same periodical. Later, Appleman and Vonnegut were both signatories to 2003's Humanism and Its Aspirations, as of 2024 the most recent manifesto of the American Humanist Association.[1]
Summary[]
While teaching at Harvard years ago, several students began pushing the English department for a "creative track" that would avoid the academic and scholarly study of literature in favor of training professional writers. This approach fails to recognize that many of the best writers in a college are in other fields, such as pre-med, chemistry, electrical engineering, and law. Instead of a creative writing major, Vonnegut proposes English departments set up offices where anyone can bring "works of imagination for criticism" without any sort of academic credit. Staffed by those currently employed in creative writing courses, teachers could then spend "anywhere from minutes to years" with students as needed, instead of tied to arbitrary academic semesters and meaningless grades and certifications, as if a department could testify that all their graduates are "creative" writers. This scheme would free teachers from attempting to honor the implicit promise that such degrees actually make the students more capable and inventive writers. Instead, they could work directly with good writers and be allowed to tell the truth to those who can't write.[2]
Reply by Appleman[]
Appleman wrote a reply entitled "An Old Scheme for Real Writers". While professing admiration for Vonnegut's work, he sees his suggestions as "myopic" and "a sort of literary survival-of-the-fittest". Appleman argues that creative writing programs are not meant only to make "skilled, prolific professionals" like Vonnegut himself but also to learn about literature throughout history, which is a goal of English educators. Most writing teachers already have an open-door policy, consulting with many able writers from a variety of disciplines. While some in academia have argued against grades and semesters in general, such curricula provide serious students "regular time in their programs for steady writing" and constructive criticism from "a small but interested audience". Not just instructors but fellow students provide valuable feedback to prospective writers. Most of the benefits Vonnegut touts already exist in the present system, while his proposal could not keep up with the increasing demand for creative writing programs throughout the United States.[3]
See Also[]
- "Despite Tough Guys, Life Is Not the Only School for Real Novelists" a later work on creative writing programs in the New York Times
- ↑ "Humanism and Its Aspirations: Notable Signers," American Humanist Association.
- ↑ "A New Scheme for Real Writers," New York Times Book Review, July 14, 1974.
- ↑ "An Old Scheme for Real Writers," New York Times Book Review, August 4, 1974.