Douglas Hesse writes, “When creative writing and composition studies have little to do with one another, the division truncates not only what we teach and research but how writing gets understood (or misunderstood) by our students, our colleagues, and the spheres beyond" (Hesse 34). A lot of the distance in their relationship might be due to perceptions, or rather, misconceptions. Some university administrators “cast creative writing as a decorative opportunity, with no practical import, serving a few genius students, and composition studies as a training regimen for school and vocational skills” (Hesse 44). Much of the work then, for deepening and strengthening ties between the two fields, is at the level of pedagogical research.
Hesse finds a “relative absence of theoretical/pedagogical writing about creative writing, especially by writers themselves in any venue, let alone in composition journals” (Hesse 36). This might be due to the perceived axiology of the discipline, that there is good writing and bad writing, and further, good and bad writers. Hesse points to this idea of inherent talent as a reason for some of the compositionists’ pedagogical envy. When a student rises through the hierarchy of undergraduate creative writing courses, teachers most likely won’t blame predecessors for poor writing skills. Instead, they’ll chalk it up to the student being a bad writer. Within the field of composition, teachers know what skills are supposed to be taught and when; blame is easier to place (Hesse 33).
In the article, composition courses are outlined as a place where students learn “how to shape persona through syntactic choices, how to adjust ratios of scene to summary and with what effect, how to manage rhythm and cadence for clarity and interest--all these may strike compositionists as precious compared to logical reasoning and forceful, politically astute analysis” (Hesse 42). Although probably not as thorough or technical, workshops still engage with the study of rhetoric. Hesse writes,
The aesthetic has a rhetorical force even as the belletristic can carry information and idea. It is the rhetorical force of image and identification, metaphor and symbol, of narrative arc and character as actor and acted upon, of Burkean ratios enacted in possibility rather than constrained by given formations. It may not be the full frontal assault of argument, but to imagine it has no effect beyond killing time is to misunderstand what is actually possible in an age surfeited by text (48).
Because of the similarities between creative writing and composition pedagogy and their shared goal of creating rhetorically effective texts, Hesse pushes for a greater blurring of boundaries between the disciplines. He asks for the studies “if not sharing a departmental house then at least being friendly neighbors with fenceless backyards” (Hesse 43). This would mean compromises, or rather, developments from both sides. Hesse asks that creative writing consider a wider array of pedagogical practices, which seems strange to have to request from a creative field. The author asks that composition courses incorporate a little more creativity in writing projects, especially at the level of style (Hesse 43). Hesse points to programs that have greater overlap in their English language and literature disciplines such as University of Iowa. Universities such as these employ the broader brand of “writing” to encompass composition, writing, and literature.
Hesse, Douglas. "The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies." College Composition and Communication. 62.1 (2010): 31-52. Print.
Hesse finds a “relative absence of theoretical/pedagogical writing about creative writing, especially by writers themselves in any venue, let alone in composition journals” (Hesse 36). This might be due to the perceived axiology of the discipline, that there is good writing and bad writing, and further, good and bad writers. Hesse points to this idea of inherent talent as a reason for some of the compositionists’ pedagogical envy. When a student rises through the hierarchy of undergraduate creative writing courses, teachers most likely won’t blame predecessors for poor writing skills. Instead, they’ll chalk it up to the student being a bad writer. Within the field of composition, teachers know what skills are supposed to be taught and when; blame is easier to place (Hesse 33).
In the article, composition courses are outlined as a place where students learn “how to shape persona through syntactic choices, how to adjust ratios of scene to summary and with what effect, how to manage rhythm and cadence for clarity and interest--all these may strike compositionists as precious compared to logical reasoning and forceful, politically astute analysis” (Hesse 42). Although probably not as thorough or technical, workshops still engage with the study of rhetoric. Hesse writes,
The aesthetic has a rhetorical force even as the belletristic can carry information and idea. It is the rhetorical force of image and identification, metaphor and symbol, of narrative arc and character as actor and acted upon, of Burkean ratios enacted in possibility rather than constrained by given formations. It may not be the full frontal assault of argument, but to imagine it has no effect beyond killing time is to misunderstand what is actually possible in an age surfeited by text (48).
Because of the similarities between creative writing and composition pedagogy and their shared goal of creating rhetorically effective texts, Hesse pushes for a greater blurring of boundaries between the disciplines. He asks for the studies “if not sharing a departmental house then at least being friendly neighbors with fenceless backyards” (Hesse 43). This would mean compromises, or rather, developments from both sides. Hesse asks that creative writing consider a wider array of pedagogical practices, which seems strange to have to request from a creative field. The author asks that composition courses incorporate a little more creativity in writing projects, especially at the level of style (Hesse 43). Hesse points to programs that have greater overlap in their English language and literature disciplines such as University of Iowa. Universities such as these employ the broader brand of “writing” to encompass composition, writing, and literature.
Hesse, Douglas. "The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies." College Composition and Communication. 62.1 (2010): 31-52. Print.