Let Me Tell You What You Can Do With That Ladder

In a comment below Simmons asks: "Thanks for passing that on Reb. I followed up to Laurel's post with a set of questions: I wonder if the perspective is the same for "older" students---say mid-30s on---who decide to pursue an MFA. Is it the same ladder? Do they find the same mentoring "opportunities?" Is it a similar but parallel world, or do they fit into the same game?"

Let me start by saying no poet needs an MFA. Some poets find it useful, others find it to be a waste of time, some are mixed and apathetic about their experience. At the risk of repeating myself incessantly, an MFA won't get you published, a teaching job, any kind of job, etc. It gives you an opportunity to study writing with (hopefully) skilled poets and meet some peers. You can study writing and develop a community a lot of other ways too. I see no reason to take a pro or anti MFA stance and find the arguments on both sides ridiculous.

An MFA doesn't make you a "master" of poetry just like an MBA doesn't make you a "master" of business, if we're using a definition that "master" means "expert". An MFA doesn't make you a more serious poet. The degree is not a golden ticket.

To answer Simmons' question, it really depends on the program. There are tremendous differences. I know people who went to Iowa and New School and Pitt and so on, and none of their descriptions are remotely similar. When I was at Bennington from '99 - 2001, the average age for a student was 37, I think. From what I hear, the average is now younger, but there are still a number of "older" students. I honestly believe age played no role in the kind of attention one got at Bennington. Of course, I also didn't experience the "ladder" that Laurel describes at Iowa.

My experience at Bennington was incredibly non-competitive. Yes, if somebody we considered unworthy published a book or placed a poem somewhere, we'd make our catty comments. Such is life. But that wasn't the usual atmosphere. There was no "Bennington" voice -- of the 7 poets in my class, we each had dramatically different writing styles and interests. Being a low-residency program -- there wasn't that influence to be like everyone else. Every semester one studies with a new mentor, so one mentor doesn't wield an excessive amount of influence either.

I have no idea what the rates are at other MFA programs, but pushing 5 years after graduation -- only 2 out of the 7 of us are still writing regularly -- that I know (unless somebody is being super-secretive). None of us have a full-length collection published. During the program and immediately after, most placed work in publications, got some notice with a honorable mention or semi-finalist in contests, some did some part-time teaching, etc. That's not enough to sustain writing. It has to be something outside of all that crap. It's possible, like Laurel, some of those folks may go back to writing regularly later, when life slows down, kids start school, etc. Being a writer means writing and that has nothing to do with a ladder.

I think Laurel's whole point was "fuck the ladder" and "fuck the game" -- just write and if you want your work to have an audience, focus on publishing in places that have that audience. If you don't know of a place that has "that" audience, be "creative" and make a place/thing for that audience.

If you're interested, I've written other things about MFAs on this blog:

April 12, 2004

June 7, 2004

October 8, 2004

November 2, 2004 (the post that earned me several nasty messages from FW, genius poet)

November 11, 2004