Abstract
In Literary Rebels: A History of Creative Writers in Anglo-American Universities, Lise Jaillant extensively studies the origins of creative writing programmes in the USA and UK. Beginning with Paul Engle's establishment of Iowa City as an international writing hub to rival cities such as New York and Paris, Jaillant describes Engle as a ‘regionalist cosmopolite’ (p. 33), desiring the connections ascribed to the literary elite whilst promoting work from emerging Midwestern writers. Engle's ideas are interesting when examined alongside Wallace Stegner's considerable attempts to bridge the gap between English scholars and creative writers. As Jaillant writes, ‘the term Stegner used – “healing of the breach” – gave the impression of a painful division between the critical and the creative’ (p. 61). The history behind these efforts is an important comparison when discussing the provocative origins of creative writing programmes (still today, the Iowa Writer's Workshop stands notoriously apart from the university's English department). However, Jaillant's mentions of the conservative ideologies promoted by both men, including women's ‘marginalized place in Iowa's Department of English’ (p. 60) and Stegner's disdain for affirmative action, seem to form a footnote amongst her research on the origins of American programmes. As she discusses avant-garde learning methods of the 1960s, a deeper analysis of women and minority writers attempting to find a place within developing creative writing programmes would be useful in solidifying her arguments for what constitutes a ‘literary rebel’.
Jaillant's focus on the ‘would-be writers’ of post-war America is significant in acknowledging the struggle of regional authors to receive mentorship and connections. Through James Culpepper, an aspiring author dismissed from the literary community after years of barraging author Faulkner for assistance, Jaillant highlights how the ‘informal mentorship method’ was beginning to die out, as the ‘post-war generation had different opportunities than the previous one’ (p. 41). Thus, writers were now turning to creative writing programmes to establish connections. In this way, studies on forgotten, unpublished authors (such as Culpepper) emerge as a way to break free of the traditional literary canon and are reflective of a main theme throughout Jaillant's work: the struggle to preserve the voice of the individual while simultaneously breaking into mainstream literary circles.
As funding plays a large role in determining which creative writer-academics can sustain a career with one foot in both fields, Jaillant discusses the Rockefeller Foundation (TRF) as it moved to offer writing grants and fellowships. Such institutions provided monetary support necessary for authors to work, while upholding the study of creative writing backed by a university as a valuable undertaking. This was met with criticism from authors such as Saul Bellow who ‘sought to rescue the individual creative writer from the deadening influence of universities’ (p. 99), exemplifying the ongoing battle between the American individual and the ‘conformist’ corporate elite. Thus emerges the question of whether creativity can really be found within academia, or if writers can only thrive from collecting lived experiences and, if so, who will pay for them to do so.
Jaillant's research into British creative writing programmes again explores new territory, as ‘the origins of creative writing in the UK have attracted very little scholarly scrutiny’ (p. 131). The success of UK-based programmes is largely attributed to the University of East Anglia (UEA) and Malcolm Bradbury, despite beginning earlier, in the 1960s. The ‘informal mentorship method’ is again seen through Bradbury – UEA is often associated with the success of author Ian McEwan. Once again, the competing elements of a successful author are challenged: does the university structure bring acclaim to talented writers, or is it their connections to prominent figures which elevate their work? This inquiry continues with the rise of ‘writers-in-residence’, as Jaillant outlines how ‘creative writing programmes were not designed for an elite […] They can be seen as middlebrow institutions, that mediated between high and low cultural forms’ (p. 56). Dwight Macdonald's theory on mass culture (p. 155) is referenced here to explore how universities can truly lend a platform to authentic voices without creating a homogenised generation of writers, as both Macdonald and Bellow ‘distrusted the model of professionalization in universities, which could lead to the standardization of culture’ (p. 155). The advent of writers-in-residence offered a way to break free of a rigid curriculum while still allowing for a path for writers of any background to find a place in the university.
In understanding the rise of the ‘middlebrow’ institution, Jaillant also reflects on the somewhat paradoxical literary career of Kazuo Ishiguro, who ‘combines readability and mass-market appeal with highbrow credentials’ (p. 177). A brief inquiry into Ishiguro's competing identities as a Japanese author navigating a British market is mentioned here and would benefit from a direct comparison to McEwan's success, as both authors emerged as products of the UEA cohort, yet attribute their achievements to the creative drive of the individual. Nevertheless, Jaillant's focus on Ishiguro's career effectively demonstrates the capabilities of creative writing programmes to produce universally acclaimed authors, a fact further cemented with the awarding of Ishiguro's Nobel Prize in 2017.
Particularly in the rise of the digital age, Jaillant leaves readers to consider what effects the increase of creative writing courses independent of the university will have. She remarks on the Famous Writers School (FWS), Avron and Faber Academy which offered flexibility, money and acclaim as writing initiatives, marketing the idea that ‘everyone has a “potential masterpiece” waiting to be written’ (p. 208). Though the FWS is no longer, its motives are often mimicked in online courses. As Jaillant describes it, ‘although it is no longer acceptable to explicitly promise fame and fortune to potential candidates, these aspirations have not disappeared’ (p. 126). As modern-day courses such as MasterClass are also mentioned, it would be beneficial for Jalillant to expand on the effects of online courses for today's writers who do not possess the resources to attend university, exemplifying in their own way another kind of an outlier in the literary world.
Throughout Literary Rebels, the struggle between creative writers and higher academia is felt in each institution and author explored. By examining both academics eager to revolutionise literary studies and authors desperate to break free from the pack, the concept of literary ‘outsiders’ can be interpreted in myriad ways. She cohesively writes on the development of regional programs for writers outside of New York, Paris, etc., the implications of financial instability in post-war years, the lack of important connections for the modern aspiring author, and questions of how, and if, scholars of English and creative writing can ever truly come together within the university. Though Jaillant is explicit about the ways in which examining the ascension of creative writing programmes often leaves more questions than answers, greater attention towards intersectionality, representation and bureaucracy of academia today is needed to capture the true spectrum of ‘literary rebels’. As we lean into a rapidly developing digital age, discourse surrounding conformity versus structure will only become even more impertinent to our understanding of the literary and creative worlds.