As the field of creative writing has grown, it has drawn some harsh criticism, including that of poet Anis Shivani, who called this group of authors ‘berserk,’ and novelist David Foster Wallace, who sees graduate programs as riddled with ‘unhealthiness,’ ‘resentment’ and assembly-line approaches. Rather than positioning creative writing as complementary to the larger national and even international literary culture, Wallace claims in his ‘The Fictional Future’ (2014) that the MFA degree is caught up in a battle against other communities of writers. Six creative writing professors counter these naysayers in a question-and-answer format by taking a look at what’s really going on in our field. These authors address straightforwardly some of the more important, more complex questions critics have raised, and they share their perspectives on students and coursework based on decades of teaching, research and scholarship. To a great extent, this chapter offers talking points we all might adapt for situations in which our discipline or program is criticized.

I. It Can Be Taught

Is there a crisis in literature, as Anis Shivani suggests? And if so, is the rise of creative writing to blame?

Tim Mayers: Those of us with even a cursory knowledge of literary criticism know that literature as a concept, as a canon or as a term has been contested throughout its existence. To assert that a stable notion of literature has persisted throughout the history of writing is a spectacularly ignorant claim. Alexander Pope, for example, penned broadsides against the so-called hacks populating Grub Street. Not only does literature change in meaning over time, but it also is – and has been – the subject of deep disagreement among contemporaries. Yes, of course, literature is in crisis. That's its very nature. And that has little to do with the rise of creative writing in the academy.

Stephanie Vanderslice: Conflating creative writing and literature doesn't serve a useful purpose, especially if the main issue is teaching.