Who Are MFA Workshops *Really* For?

MFA workshops are group sessions where writers share their work and receive feedback from peers and instructors to improve their writing. The three main goals of these workshops are: improving the submitted story, helping students develop skills as readers and editors, and motivating writers to continue their work. These goals are meant to support both the individual writer and the collective learning experience of the class. However, the article highlights that these goals can sometimes conflict, particularly when a writer’s personal preferences for their work clash with the need for constructive criticism. For example, a student in an MFA workshop submitted a story written in the second person and explicitly requested no feedback on that aspect of the story, creating a dilemma for the workshop participants about how to provide useful feedback without violating the writer’s stated boundaries.

Traditional MFA workshops often follow a cone of silence model, where the writer remains silent during the feedback session and only speaks at the end. This model aims to train writers to listen to criticism without interrupting, simulating how future readers might interpret their work. For instance, Shanley Jane Kearney, an MFA candidate at Columbia, values this approach because it prepares writers for real-world reactions to their work. However, this model has been criticized for being overly harsh or unsupportive. Susan Choi, a professor at Johns Hopkins, shared a personal anecdote about a workshop where her work was "savaged and insulted and demeaned" by a classmate, an experience she described as deeply demoralizing. Many instructors and students have reacted against this model, favoring more supportive and flexible approaches to workshopping.

Some instructors, like Rebecca Makkai, have shifted toward more flexible workshop models where the writer actively participates in shaping the feedback process. Makkai offers students a workshop menu with different options, such as focusing on strengths, asking specific questions, or limiting feedback to certain aspects of the story. This approach allows writers to choose the type of feedback they receive, whether it’s supportive, critical, or focused on specific elements. Makkai noted that while most students follow her default model, some request restrictive guidelines, often because they are not ready to hear certain types of criticism. This flexibility is intended to make the workshop experience more tailored to individual needs, though it may sometimes shield writers from necessary feedback.

There is an ongoing debate about whether MFA workshops should prioritize craft improvement for its own sake or focus on preparing students for publication. Most professors, such as Susan Choi, Lorrie Moore, and Rebecca Makkai, argue that publication should not be the primary focus of workshops, as it can create unnecessary pressure and discourage experimentation. Instead, they emphasize improving the story as an independent entity. However, some students, like the author of the article, enter MFA programs specifically to receive honest feedback about their work’s publishability. This lack of consensus can lead to workshops that feel chaotic or inconclusive, as students and instructors may have different expectations about the purpose of the feedback they receive or provide.

Instructors play a crucial role in shaping the tone and direction of MFA workshops. Robert Boswell, a professor with 40 years of experience, adheres to an old school approach where the writer listens and takes notes while the class discusses the story’s strengths and weaknesses. Boswell argues that this method ensures honest feedback without coddling students, though he acknowledges that some students may prefer praise over criticism. Other instructors, like Anelise Chen, compare workshopped stories to "tender shoots," emphasizing the need for gentle guidance to avoid discouraging emerging writers. The article suggests that instructors must balance supporting students with providing the critical feedback needed for growth, a challenge that varies depending on the instructor’s philosophy.

Workshop dynamics can become complicated when writers request specific boundaries for feedback, such as avoiding criticism of certain elements like narrative perspective. In one example, a student submitted a second-person story and explicitly asked not to receive feedback on that aspect, leading the class to avoid discussing the most glaring issue in the story. Nate Dern, a graduate of the Warren Wilson Program for Writers, noted that this accommodating approach can result in vague or indirect feedback, as participants may avoid addressing major flaws to respect the writer’s wishes. This dynamic raises questions about who truly benefits from such workshops: the students, the instructors, or the MFA programs themselves, which may attract a diverse range of students with varying goals.