Scan barcode
metalheadmaiden's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
2.75
balletbookworm's review against another edition
3.0
Somewhere between a three and a four star. I liked it, great collection of essays for or against or against both (possibly) the MFA vs NYC dichotomy, but I don't know if I REALLY liked it. I have to re-read the initial MFA vs NYC essay before I do the review because the tone is almost like "haha, pulling your leg" but the words not so much.
Side note: super-props to the cover designer because it is hella pretty.
Side note: super-props to the cover designer because it is hella pretty.
helpfulsnowman's review against another edition
3.0
I started this like 3 years ago and never reviewed it!
The first 2/3 was pretty solid, but then the book kinda takes a shit.
There are two essays in particular where things slow WAY down, critiques of The Program Era by Mark McGurl, which is a 9 years old, 480-page dense-as-fuck book about post-war fiction writing that I couldn't see anyone outside of this insular academic world reading (btw, if you haven't read The Program Era, skip these essays. They're pretty high-falootin' and impenetrable to start with, and you'll be completely lost up shit creek. You'll have a paddle, but that paddle is made of a very absorbent wood, and the shit of shit creek leeches its way up the handle pretty quick). These essays make some good points, but holy shit do they make you work for it, and it's just sort fo weird to read two essays about a long-ass book with no real preface or anything. Plus, I discovered one of these two was written as a book review in 2009 rather than originating as something for this collection in 2014. It was sort of too bad because it was one of the few things that addressed student and text diversity. But hey, for my money, go read the thing Junot Diaz wrote about his MFA time. Solid shit.
The first 2/3 was pretty solid, but then the book kinda takes a shit.
There are two essays in particular where things slow WAY down, critiques of The Program Era by Mark McGurl, which is a 9 years old, 480-page dense-as-fuck book about post-war fiction writing that I couldn't see anyone outside of this insular academic world reading (btw, if you haven't read The Program Era, skip these essays. They're pretty high-falootin' and impenetrable to start with, and you'll be completely lost up shit creek. You'll have a paddle, but that paddle is made of a very absorbent wood, and the shit of shit creek leeches its way up the handle pretty quick). These essays make some good points, but holy shit do they make you work for it, and it's just sort fo weird to read two essays about a long-ass book with no real preface or anything. Plus, I discovered one of these two was written as a book review in 2009 rather than originating as something for this collection in 2014. It was sort of too bad because it was one of the few things that addressed student and text diversity. But hey, for my money, go read the thing Junot Diaz wrote about his MFA time. Solid shit.
racheladventure's review against another edition
3.0
This was an interesting collection of essays. It is difficult to piece together what the takeaway is for me. I'm seriously considering an MFA, but I'm not sure reading this helped me get closer to a decision. The major themes seemed to be that having an MFA feels important, but that the quality of the programs are pretty bad and maybe don't do much, except sometimes, which is hard to measure.
Glad I read it, but I'm still torn!
Glad I read it, but I'm still torn!
almartin's review against another edition
4.0
insightful, enjoyable, lively. does the patented n+1 thing of wrestling with serious ideas in a sort of digressive, talky, earnest way; I almost called MFA vs. NYC 'light', but that doesn't really seem appropriate for a book with a Fredric Jameson essay, no?
top tracks:
1) the original Harbach essay
2) Saunders [he is so good]
3) Gessen 2014
4) tie; Maria Adelman and Jim Rutman
5) Gessen 2006
some fragmentary notes I took down:
There's a bunker mentality - a pervasive sense of crisis - that's apparent in pretty much every essay, usually in tone. The term never gets used, but it's fairly clear that we have a bubble in MFA programs ("There are now 214 MFA programs in creative writing in this country-twice as many as there were eight years ago." [emphasis original]). At their core, nearly every essay in the book is an attempt to come to grips with some feature of that baseline truth.
MFA vs NYC is a tangle of anxiety - getting published, fitting in, debt, income, employment, homogenization - and all of that is on top of the Jonathan-Franzen-reading-crisis thing that's just offstage in any discussion of books that's happened since the 2000s, to say nothing of Amazon/ebooks/self-publishing etc. etc.
MFA vs NYC is weirdly quiet on some of the Big Questions about the future of publishing - the word 'Kindle' only appears twice, and 'ebook' is absent entirely! I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, Harbach & co. are focused narrowly on the culture of production; on the other, the pressures exerted by presumed tastes of the reading public are central to the 'NYC' side of the argument. There's a lot to chew on - but ultimately the argument feels incomplete.
Last bit of marginalia that I'm transcribing: "Publishing is what you get if you take the aesthetic preferences of the art market and apply the economics of Costco." The explosion of the art market in the past few decades has sort of been taken as a given, like gravity
and I realize that I'm not telling you anything that Benjamin didn't do a much better job of, but: paintings are a way, way better artform than books in a capitalist marketplace: they can impact the culture quickly and broadly, with little demanded from the consumer (you can consume a painting with a mere glance), yet their value as commodities can't be divorced from the 'original' object. Books, while almost certainly far more important for the intellectual/moral/spiritual life of society, compare horribly. They are demanding to consume, and they are pure commodities - mass produced and nearly identical in every way. That's the basic problem; MFA vs. NYC shades in a lot of details on how that plays out for real people. basically, lots of feels.
also I learned that Gordon Lish is a huge hornball.
top tracks:
1) the original Harbach essay
2) Saunders [he is so good]
3) Gessen 2014
4) tie; Maria Adelman and Jim Rutman
5) Gessen 2006
some fragmentary notes I took down:
There's a bunker mentality - a pervasive sense of crisis - that's apparent in pretty much every essay, usually in tone. The term never gets used, but it's fairly clear that we have a bubble in MFA programs ("There are now 214 MFA programs in creative writing in this country-twice as many as there were eight years ago." [emphasis original]). At their core, nearly every essay in the book is an attempt to come to grips with some feature of that baseline truth.
MFA vs NYC is a tangle of anxiety - getting published, fitting in, debt, income, employment, homogenization - and all of that is on top of the Jonathan-Franzen-reading-crisis thing that's just offstage in any discussion of books that's happened since the 2000s, to say nothing of Amazon/ebooks/self-publishing etc. etc.
MFA vs NYC is weirdly quiet on some of the Big Questions about the future of publishing - the word 'Kindle' only appears twice, and 'ebook' is absent entirely! I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, Harbach & co. are focused narrowly on the culture of production; on the other, the pressures exerted by presumed tastes of the reading public are central to the 'NYC' side of the argument. There's a lot to chew on - but ultimately the argument feels incomplete.
Last bit of marginalia that I'm transcribing: "Publishing is what you get if you take the aesthetic preferences of the art market and apply the economics of Costco." The explosion of the art market in the past few decades has sort of been taken as a given, like gravity
and I realize that I'm not telling you anything that Benjamin didn't do a much better job of, but: paintings are a way, way better artform than books in a capitalist marketplace: they can impact the culture quickly and broadly, with little demanded from the consumer (you can consume a painting with a mere glance), yet their value as commodities can't be divorced from the 'original' object. Books, while almost certainly far more important for the intellectual/moral/spiritual life of society, compare horribly. They are demanding to consume, and they are pure commodities - mass produced and nearly identical in every way. That's the basic problem; MFA vs. NYC shades in a lot of details on how that plays out for real people. basically, lots of feels.
also I learned that Gordon Lish is a huge hornball.
imrogers's review against another edition
4.0
Chad Harbach's opening essay highlights the writer's dilemma quite well: In a world where writing fiction is a draw for many but not a good way of earning money (at least not right away), how are writers supposed to pay the bills? By either teaching, or working in some aspect of the publishing industry, that's how.
While Harbach's opening essay explores this dichotomy most clearly, most of the supplemental essays also do it justice in fleshing out either the MFA or NYC life, many of them with vivid, personal stories that are both fun to read and reassuring (in my case, knowing I wasn't the only one who didn't have his shit together when he was in his 20s!). There are also gems like most of Elf Batuman's "Get a Real Degree" essay under a different name (why didn't they just print the whole thing???) and Darryl Lorenzo Wellington's piece "Reality Publishing" on an Amazon-sponsored book contest.
While I wish that overall the book had more cohesion behind it (especially near the end, where several excellent essays like the ones I mentioned seem more or less thrown together just because they're related to publishing), this is still an excellent exploration of the writer's dilemma in the 21st century. As a writer who straddles these two worlds (I work as a freelance editor and also teach in an MFA program), I found this book incredibly thought-provoking when it first came out, and still feel that way now.
While Harbach's opening essay explores this dichotomy most clearly, most of the supplemental essays also do it justice in fleshing out either the MFA or NYC life, many of them with vivid, personal stories that are both fun to read and reassuring (in my case, knowing I wasn't the only one who didn't have his shit together when he was in his 20s!). There are also gems like most of Elf Batuman's "Get a Real Degree" essay under a different name (why didn't they just print the whole thing???) and Darryl Lorenzo Wellington's piece "Reality Publishing" on an Amazon-sponsored book contest.
While I wish that overall the book had more cohesion behind it (especially near the end, where several excellent essays like the ones I mentioned seem more or less thrown together just because they're related to publishing), this is still an excellent exploration of the writer's dilemma in the 21st century. As a writer who straddles these two worlds (I work as a freelance editor and also teach in an MFA program), I found this book incredibly thought-provoking when it first came out, and still feel that way now.
offbalance80's review against another edition
5.0
This is an absolutely fantastic collection of essays that I can't recommend enough. It's an exploration of the possibilities found in the distinctive worlds of writing that it claims to cover (although I felt that the NYC part focused more on publishing, not actual writing). There were some really insightful pieces, and some amazing laugh-out-loud moments.
cn_scott's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
4.0
kellylynnthomas's review against another edition
4.0
I don't agree with every essay in this book, but it is thought-provoking and actually made me appreciate my MFA even more (as well as reaffirmed that I do not want to be on the academic hamster wheel). It's a solid collection and definitely worth revisiting. The one thing I really didn't like about it was that the editors mostly picked essays from their friends (or, in one case, girlfriend). In theory this isn't a bad thing, but in a book like this, that's taking a critical look at the publishing industry and literary culture in America, that should have at least been acknowledged, in my opinion.
laurelinwonder's review against another edition
4.0
This is the most up to date book I think I have ever read on what is going on in the writing world in terms of publishing, academia, and well writing itself. If you are or ever have been in the throws of English majordom, or intend to enter into it in some way, even as a publishing major, I can just about promise you will find yourself among these pages in some way, whether that be in your past, present, or future. I'll be honest, don't go into this book blindly, know that there are some hard truths in here, and it's not always the most positive of truths. This is an accessible book that pretty clearly lays out the cultural, academic, and the ties that bind and break those of us in the throes of the writerly world as we know it now. I recommend this book, even if I did not always agree with it, and that may just be my innate survivalist positivism.