The MFA Cartel
Video:
Michael Viktor Kilarjian
Associate Editor, The Intelligencer
Additional commentary from:
Tomás Arancibia Lozano
“What is being described here is not an accident of culture but the function of a system. Contemporary literature in the United States — and by extension much of the Anglophone world — is not merely written by the privileged; it is filtered, refined, and authenticated by an institutional machine that reproduces its own class composition.
The associate editor’s critique exposes an uncomfortable truth: the modern literary marketplace is governed less by organic discovery than by credentialed validation. Degrees, fellowships, residencies, awards — these are not incidental biographical details. They are the passport stamps that grant entry into visibility. A writer’s authority is now pre-certified before a reader ever encounters a sentence.
Historically, literary production has often been entangled with class — one need only consider figures such as William Shakespeare, Jane Austen, or Emily Dickinson. But what distinguishes our era is bureaucratization. Privilege has been formalized into institutional process. It is no longer merely social positioning; it is a pipeline.
The invocation of Annie Baker and Branden Jacobs-Jenkins is not a personal indictment of their talent. It is an illustration of the pattern. Elite universities. MFAs. Prestigious fellowships. Award circuits. These pathways interlock. They produce not only writers, but legitimacy. When such writers depict economic stagnation or existential drift, the cultural establishment receives the portrayal as authoritative — not because it emerges from lived precarity, but because it has passed through approved channels.
This is the literary machine: a self-reinforcing network of MFA programs, grant committees, critics, academic departments, and publishing houses that largely draw from the same socio-economic corridor. It decides what is staged, what is reviewed, what is assigned to students. It determines which narratives become canonical and which remain invisible.
The defense of this system is always meritocratic. The best work rises. But “the best” is defined within institutions that privilege certain forms of polish, certain aesthetic vocabularies, certain intellectual postures — all of which are more accessible to those already equipped with time, financial stability, and educational access. The retail worker writing at night, the warehouse employee with no MFA, the autodidact without institutional affiliation — these voices may exist, but they do not circulate. Visibility is curated.
From Bolivia, where literary production often unfolds outside formal patronage structures, the pattern is striking. When the gates are guarded by those trained within the same academies, diversity of experience narrows even as diversity of theme expands superficially. We are told that literature speaks for everyone, yet the arbiters of literary prestige are drawn from a remarkably small band of society.
The associate editor’s argument ultimately lands here: the contemporary literary world confuses accreditation with authority and pedigree with profundity. The cost is not merely aesthetic dissatisfaction. The cost is cultural omission. Entire strata of lived experience remain uncanonized because they lack institutional endorsement.
The question, then, is simple and destabilizing: Who decides what we read? The answer, at present, is not “the people.” It is the machine.”
- Tomás Arancibia Lozano
La Paz, Bolivia
The Intelligencer is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.r9m.red/subscribe [https://www.r9m.red/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]
