The reading I have chosen for my rhetorical analysis is an article written by Steven Mintz, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate school. The article is titled, “Teaching Creative Writing”, and it explores whether universities can and should offer intimate workshops in the field of creative writing. To preface, Mintz chooses to include the fact that this article is in response to an article from The New Yorker, which poses the stance that creative writing in fact cannot be taught. This allows the reader to be fully aware of the fact that this is an opinion article; a response to a stance previously stated.
The article is broken down into five distinct sections, each with their own header. The first is the intro section followed by, “Can Creative Writing be Taught?”, “What Does a Creative Writing Class Do?”, “Principles of Creative Writing”, and finally, “Classroom Tested Teaching Techniques”. This organized format immediately gives the reader a sense of coherence; that the author has carefully planned out his argument and which supporting points he plans to use. The effect of this format, at first look, is a level of credibility that is awarded to the author. On a purely aesthetic level, the author appears to be a credible source on this topic just in the way he organized his argument, and placed his name, title (English Professor at Columbia Grad School), and contact information at the forefront of the article. It is constructed in a very professional manner.
In short, the content of the article asserts the author’s opinion that creative writing in fact cannot be taught to a full extent. Too much of a creative writer’s skill must be already present when they begin learning the trade. For example, an extravagant imagination cannot be learned through lectures and exercises. As a creative writing major, this notion was slightly discouraging. What is the point of the countless hours of writing workshops I have completed over the last 4 years? It seemed to state that, if you are not already good, you can never learn to be good. However, the author goes on to reassure aspiring writers that all is not lost. He states that while the base of creativity is an intrinsic quality, there are skills that can most definitely be enhanced through years of practice; skills that are crucial to mastering the fundamental aspects of writing (description, style, narrative, syntax, diction etc.).
It would have been easy for the author to leave his argument at a simple “no, creative writing cannot be taught”, however, his following points serve to restore confidence in his readers in hopes that a new and dwindling generation of writers will carry on the craft that the author is obviously so passionate about.
hamerworldview 