I wrote this article in 2020. Having read it again, I still agree with the views I expressed then. In fact, I’d go further. When anyone who has achieved the benefits potentially offered by X tells you that you don’t need X, I think a huge dollop of cynicism is in order.
Question mark - Terry Freedman
Who needs a Creative Writing MA? I have no idea, but I am pretty sure that the newly-published author I heard on a podcast declare that you don’t need to do an MA in Creative Writing was mistaken. Not just mistaken, but extremely annoying too. Let me explain.
The first thing to be aware of is that he actually has an MA in Creative Writing. It can’t have been that useless if it took him several years to find out that he didn’t need it. This is something I’ve found consistently: nearly all the people who say we don’t need school, or degrees or post-graduate degrees or any sort of formal education are those who have benefitted enormously from a good formal education. It smacks of pulling up the ladder to me, that is trying to make sure other people don’t enjoy the same benefits.
But why did he say an MA in Creative Writing is unnecessary? Because apparently all the information you need is on the internet. Now, I’ve been doing some courses in literature and have found them very rewarding, not least in terms of all the reading around the subject we’ve been given. But here’s the thing: I’m pretty adept at finding stuff on the internet and in the libraries of universities and other institutions — but if I don’t know enough about a particular subject (American Gothic, say), how do I know what to look for, and how to evaluate anything I find?
In fact, the assertion that everything is on the internet is wrong, for two reasons:
First, lots of stuff that was written and published before the internet existed is not on the internet. Some of it is in private collections or particular libraries that are inaccessible to most people.
Second, being enrolled at a university (usually) gives you access to that library’s collection of works, and articles in academic journals, and possible newspaper archives as well. You won’t find a lot of that stuff through Google.
Moreover, there is more to studying a subject than just gathering information as discrete bundles of facts. Knowing a writer’s background, who they knew, what was going on in the country and the world at the time — all of that helps to build a picture — more a jigsaw, really — of what makes a piece of literature “tick”.
Also, interacting with other students, finding out their stance on an issue, learning from their insights, and hearing their response to your thoughts, are all part of the richness of studying a subject in a more formal way.
Another thing. One of the main set of benefits of a well-respected Creative Writing MA, or so I’ve heard, is being introduced to agents. If that’s the case, I should think it would be worth doing an MA for that alone, if you want an agent and want to be published by a big mainstream publisher. Getting an agent is virtually impossible for new writers. Well, this person who says you don’t need an MA was going on about the great relationship he has with his agent. Hmm.
As I said right at the start, I have no idea whether or not it’s worth doing an MA in Creative Writing. I should imagine it depends on what the course is offering, what you hope to achieve ultimately, and what being on the course can help you gain over and above what’s in black and white on the syllabus, and whether the benefits justify the costs. But if you hear a successful author say that an MA in Creative Writing isn’t necessary, ideally they should provide better reasons than “it’s all on the internet”.
If you found this article interesting, why not subscribe to my newsletter, Terry Freedman’s Books Bulletin?