Royster, Brent. Inspiration, Creativity, and Crisis: The Romantic Myth of the Writer Meets the Contemporary Classroom. Power and Identity ...

Royster posits that the popular journals for creative writers, i.e. The Writer's Chronicle and Poets and Writers, can confuse creative writing students because the journals emphasize product and also the creative process as a "natural talent" -- which could imply that creative writing cannot be taught, because it is already inherent. "On the one hand, there exists an emphasis upon the writer as professional, as artist; on the other hand, there's guidance and encouragement for the writer as student. The first narrative concerns being, while the second describes becoming" (26). For an uncertain or "novice writer" a creative writing class might seem useless, according to Royster, because they were not born with the "talent" to immediately produce and publish works.

Romantic ideals of inspiration, such as the notion that Jack Kerouac's On the Road only took a matter of weeks to write, can further confuse the writer who might feel that their work is completed upon the first draft, simply born of inspiration. Putting too much emphasis on the product, rather than the process of writing, can hurt the novice writer who will be less apt to experiment with new forms if (s)he is too harshly judged in the workshop. "...we lose sight of what should be the real goal of workshops, or student communities of writers who share and critique each other's work: our aim is to foster more dedicated writers. Compositionists will recognize this conflict from the process-not-product debate begun in the late seventies, a debate which still affects contemporary writing pedagogy" (27).

Many workshops emphasize that a student not speak while their work is being workshopped ... rightly so, so that the writer does not defend their work before it is time. Royster points out, however, that this can be detrimental for the student writer. "A process-oriented workshop ... assumes that writing is not a one-way performance, but rather a reciprocal engagement with audiences and selves; in other words, the process itself is a text" (28). Perhaps the writer should be given the opportunity to discuss the process of creation, as long (as previous chapters have pointed out) as the writer does not become confused that the process is not the same as the emotional impact, and that the work is not "complete" simply because the author was able to work out an emotional concern while writing.

According to LLoyd Gray (1), the workshop method "is faulty and needs modification" because it focuses too much on the shortcomings of a work, rather than celebrates its achievements. Workshop members should be reminded to first point out the good parts of the work before turning to revision -- and they shouldn't be allowed to skip too quickly to the latter.

"The workshop, then, is a hybrid classroom. The work of the class is the daily practice of writing, and the shared process of that practice. The shop, on the other hand, represents the daily critique that validates (or invalidates) the writer's work ...

"...Simply put, a product-centered pedagogy stifles growth. Such a system places too much emphasis upon subjective agency, too much emphasis upon particular, validated modes of writing, while devaluing other valid, though unfashionable, styles and voices" (34-35).

1. Gray, M.L. "Method and Madness in the Creative Writing Workshop." English Journal 89:1 (1999): 17-19.