Many years ago I had to answer an S-level exam paper question on the subject
of whether creative writing could, or should, be taught in schools. As far
as I can remember, I argued that it would be helpful to students of
literature to have some first-hand experience of the technical challenges of
writing in various modes and genres (I had a well-schooled tendency to say
rather anodyne things like this in response to exam questions. Never did me
any harm, as far as results were concerned). Stumm on the topic of
"inspiration", a red herring really. I have found it difficult to persuade
students to focus | on the matter of technique in literature (they often
have quite elaborate sociological theories of inspiration already to hand).
Technique is resistance, not necessarily of a politically valorisable kind
(this is the crux of a disagreement one can have with Hill, who seems to
elide the difference at times), sometimes nothing other than ingenuity
wrapped around bloodymindedness which can also be as reactionary as you
like. Sociologically speaking, technique is where societal forces can get
wrapped around bloodymindedness, snarled and snafu'd up. It can also be the
instrument whereby those same forces are amplified and propagated with
disquieting efficiency. It is something like a condition of (im)possibility
for the sociology of literature.
|