CRISIS! Is Comp Lit the right fit for me?

[iwontbelyeveit]

Hello all. So I recently emailed one my professors from my M.A. program to get some insight on the route I want to take for my PhD. I wasn't crazy about his feedback, but I'm trying to figure out how much stock I should put in his response. 

 

My background: strong French background, M.A. in literature, thesis on Russian modernist writing. I then spent 2 years teaching in Ukraine, where I also got an excellent foundation in the Ukrainian language. I'm planning on applying to departments where I can work in this intersection between post-soviet and western writing (although my statement details that more intimately). 

 

Most of what he told me I already know, but essentially he said that ALL the work will be in the original languages, that I need to have an extensive knowledge of the literary histories (so in my case my M.A. in English is not quite sufficient, as they will want to see a degree in Slavic studies), and that most PhDs end up in national language (rather than literature) departments.

 

This has thrown me for a loop for a couple of reasons, but primarily because it seems to me that Comp Lit has changed over the past 10 years or so. I recognize that there will be work in the language, of course, but that also comp lit seems to be integrating with other disciplines like gender studies, psychology, philosophy, etc. At this level, I could not do extensive sophisticated work in Ukrainian without some translation (although I plan on sharpening these skills in my program). I guess I'm just wondering if this is a good route for me. I, of course, want to be prepared and not look completely foolish applying to these programs. But I just don't seem my interests jiving as well in an English department. 

 

Any feedback anyone has is more than welcome. 

[ExponentialDecay]

I'm not a professor, but I am in Comp Lit.

 

 

 

My background: strong French background, M.A. in literature, thesis on Russian modernist writing. I then spent 2 years teaching in Ukraine, where I also got an excellent foundation in the Ukrainian language. I'm planning on applying to departments where I can work in this intersection between post-soviet and western writing (although my statement details that more intimately).

 

Your knowledge of languages and the fact that you plan to work cross-culturally makes you a strong candidate for Comp Lit programs. Although I don't necessarily agree that you would not be able to do the kind of comparative work you want to do within a national language department, I do think that a) you would enjoy Comp Lit more, and b ) working within a national literature would entail you concentrating on that literature with occasional forays into the other, whereas it seems to me that you want to concentrate on both equally.

 

 

 

ALL the work will be in the original languages

 

It is true that you will need to know your languages quite well, and the reading will be in the original languages, but you'll be writing your essays in English and perhaps the western half of your concentration will be in English. The bulk of the criticism will be in English (is anybody still forced to read the post-structuralists in the original nowadays?). Take a look at the degree requirements. Most degrees require that you are very strong in one language, and demonstrate proficiency in another 2-3 by the time your comps roll around. Most of my professors absolutely use a dictionary and compare translations when reading original texts (which is useful in order to acquaint yourself with existing scholarship, not just to look up the meaning of words). I think you can do it.

 

 

 

I need to have an extensive knowledge of the literary histories (so in my case my M.A. in English is not quite sufficient, as they will want to see a degree in Slavic studies)

 

As in, if you want to do a Comp Lit degree with a concentration in Slavic languages, that you will need to have read the major Russian writers and maybe Milan Kundera? Well, one hopes that you have a nodding acquaintance with Tolstoy, but we don't need to go as far as Chernishevsky (whom I recommend to you if you want to do anything Soviet or post-Soviet, especially in relation to Western liberalism). The thing with extensive knowledge of the literary histories (what does that even mean?) is that you don't need a degree to have one. This comes down to the intricacies of applying: if you have professors who can vouch for you, a relevant writing sample, and demonstrated knowledge of the language you will need for your studies, you emphatically don't need a degree in Slavic studies.

 

Once again, this is my experience, which comes from one school and a few people who are not me. It's all very situational - but I don't want you to give up on yourself.

 

 

 

and that most PhDs end up in national language (rather than literature) departments.

 

That's because it's better to end up in a national language department from an employment perspective. When you have, say, a PhD in Russian Literature, people immediately understand what you are: you are a Slavist. When you have a Comp Lit PhD, nobody actually knows what you do. It's much harder to get hired with an interdisciplinary degree like Comp Lit because, although you purport to do a lot of things, the impression is that you can't properly do anything. A vast scope and diverse background is great for research, but most literary scholars are hired to teach languages to undergrads. There is an assumption that a person with a national literature degree does, if anything, have a working knowledge of their language.

 

 

 

 

 it seems to me that Comp Lit has changed over the past 10 years or so. I recognize that there will be work in the language, of course, but that also comp lit seems to be integrating with other disciplines like gender studies, psychology, philosophy, etc.

 

Comparative Literature began in 1946 in the University of Istanbul, where Erich Auerbach published Mimesis. Auerbach was a German Jew on the run from the Nazis, and, ironically, a Western purist. In Istanbul he taught a graduate seminar for scholars who, like him, loved Western values but were marginalized by Western society. Basically, it was a bunch of Turks writing about French literature. Comparative Literature started out as an attempt to unite all Western literatures under one flag. A bunch of these guys immigrated to the States in the 50s and 60s and popularized post-structuralism, cultural studies, all that continental stuff. At this point, everybody's still mostly concerned with the Western tradition (which people like Harold Bloom try to consolidate, sometimes successfully), but "area studies" and "cultural studies" concentrations start to emerge, as distinct from national literatures and Comparative Literature both. The next big breakthrough was Said's Culture and Imperialism, when Western academia was suddenly made aware that non-Western literatures relate to Western literatures through colonialism, and holy shit we can analyse them together and get more grants from the government! This generates more interest in Comparative Literature because, in order to do this kind of comparative work, you need to have equally strong grounding in both, say, the English and Hindu traditions. However, the better scholars still get bought out by national language departments simply because they're older, bigger, and have more money. Nowadays, the big languages in CompLit are Arabic and Mandarin, and the big research areas are translation theory, or anything that can use any kind of natural science at all (linguistics and neuro being the obvious choices, though I myself think that pushing economics could result in some mad profits). 

 

If we're talking course catalogs, Comparative Literature is the dumping ground for courses that are too general to be a specific literature, or use too many foreign-language readings, etc. That's why you get a lot of theory or structural courses in Comparative Literature, and why the discipline in general is more theoretical than your average literature degree, even though comparatists read roughly the same theory as everyone else. 

 

The English department is very open to interdisciplinary work with philosophy, psychology, gender studies. The cachet is whether you want to do all your work on English literature. Generally speaking, if you want to do your research on English-language literature, you should be in an English department, if you want to do research on film, you should be in a film department, and if you want to do research on the similarities between Ukraine and -wherever-, you should be in a Comp Lit department. Overall, it's as useless as any literature degree, so go for it.

 

tl;dr if this is what you want to do, and you think you can do it, you should apply. We're not the admissions committee and we can't tell you if you'll get in.

Edited August 30, 2014 by ExponentialDecay

[iwontbelyeveit]

I'm not a professor, but I am in Comp Lit.

 

 

 

 

Your knowledge of languages and the fact that you plan to work cross-culturally makes you a strong candidate for Comp Lit programs. Although I don't necessarily agree that you would not be able to do the kind of comparative work you want to do within a national language department, I do think that a) you would enjoy Comp Lit more, and b ) working within a national literature would entail you concentrating on that literature with occasional forays into the other, whereas it seems to me that you want to concentrate on both equally.

 

 

 

 

It is true that you will need to know your languages quite well, and the reading will be in the original languages, but you'll be writing your essays in English and perhaps the western half of your concentration will be in English. The bulk of the criticism will be in English (is anybody still forced to read the post-structuralists in the original nowadays?). Take a look at the degree requirements. Most degrees require that you are very strong in one language, and demonstrate proficiency in another 2-3 by the time your comps roll around. Most of my professors absolutely use a dictionary and compare translations when reading original texts (which is useful in order to acquaint yourself with existing scholarship, not just to look up the meaning of words). I think you can do it.

 

 

 

I need to have an extensive knowledge of the literary histories (so in my case my M.A. in English is not quite sufficient, as they will want to see a degree in Slavic studies)

 

As in, if you want to do a Comp Lit degree with a concentration in Slavic languages, that you will need to have read the major Russian writers and maybe Milan Kundera? Well, one hopes that you have a nodding acquaintance with Tolstoy, but we don't need to go as far as Chernishevsky (whom I recommend to you if you want to do anything Soviet or post-Soviet, especially in relation to Western liberalism). The thing with extensive knowledge of the literary histories (what does that even mean?) is that you don't need a degree to have one. This comes down to the intricacies of applying: if you have professors who can vouch for you, a relevant writing sample, and demonstrated knowledge of the language you will need for your studies, you emphatically don't need a degree in Slavic studies.

 

Once again, this is my experience, which comes from one school and a few people who are not me. It's all very situational - but I don't want you to give up on yourself.

 

 

 

and that most PhDs end up in national language (rather than literature) departments.

 

That's because it's better to end up in a national language department from an employment perspective. When you have, say, a PhD in Russian Literature, people immediately understand what you are: you are a Slavist. When you have a Comp Lit PhD, nobody actually knows what you do. It's much harder to get hired with an interdisciplinary degree like Comp Lit because, although you purport to do a lot of things, the impression is that you can't properly do anything. A vast scope and diverse background is great for research, but most literary scholars are hired to teach languages to undergrads. There is an assumption that a person with a national literature degree does, if anything, have a working knowledge of their language.

 

 

 

 

 

Comparative Literature began in 1946 in the University of Istanbul, where Erich Auerbach published Mimesis. Auerbach was a German Jew on the run from the Nazis, and, ironically, a Western purist. In Istanbul he taught a graduate seminar for scholars who, like him, loved Western values but were marginalized by Western society. Basically, it was a bunch of Turks writing about French literature. Comparative Literature started out as an attempt to unite all Western literatures under one flag. A bunch of these guys immigrated to the States in the 50s and 60s and popularized post-structuralism, cultural studies, all that continental stuff. At this point, everybody's still mostly concerned with the Western tradition (which people like Harold Bloom try to consolidate, sometimes successfully), but "area studies" and "cultural studies" concentrations start to emerge, as distinct from national literatures and Comparative Literature both. The next big breakthrough was Said's Culture and Imperialism, when Western academia was suddenly made aware that non-Western literatures relate to Western literatures through colonialism, and holy shit we can analyse them together and get more grants from the government! This generates more interest in Comparative Literature because, in order to do this kind of comparative work, you need to have equally strong grounding in both, say, the English and Hindu traditions. However, the better scholars still get bought out by national language departments simply because they're older, bigger, and have more money. Nowadays, the big languages in CompLit are Arabic and Mandarin, and the big research areas are translation theory, or anything that can use any kind of natural science at all (linguistics and neuro being the obvious choices, though I myself think that pushing economics could result in some mad profits). 

 

If we're talking course catalogs, Comparative Literature is the dumping ground for courses that are too general to be a specific literature, or use too many foreign-language readings, etc. That's why you get a lot of theory or structural courses in Comparative Literature, and why the discipline in general is more theoretical than your average literature degree, even though comparatists read roughly the same theory as everyone else. 

 

The English department is very open to interdisciplinary work with philosophy, psychology, gender studies. The cachet is whether you want to do all your work on English literature. Generally speaking, if you want to do your research on English-language literature, you should be in an English department, if you want to do research on film, you should be in a film department, and if you want to do research on the similarities between Ukraine and -wherever-, you should be in a Comp Lit department. Overall, it's as useless as any literature degree, so go for it.

 

tl;dr if this is what you want to do, and you think you can do it, you should apply. We're not the admissions committee and we can't tell you if you'll get in.

 

ExponentialDecay, this response is extraordinarily thoughtful, helpful, and thorough. I am truly grateful. Were you nearby, I would by you a beer. 

[gradschoolapplicant2015]

Hi! I am also having this crisis; I'm unsure as to whether an English or Comp Lit department would be the better fit for my interests.

 

My dream has always been to go to Columbia. One of the (many) reasons why is that their English department places a strong emphasis on transnational literatures. Also, the students there do their first year of coursework in English and earn a MA, but if they are interested in Comp Lit, they then decide whether or not they want to move to the Comp Lit department for rest of their program. Alternatively, they can continue working in the English department, while also pursuing a certificate in Comp Lit. This latter choice would probably be the better fit for my interests; but the ability to switch to the Comp Lit department in the second year is really attractive to me. I like that the students get a strong foundation in graduate (Eng Lit) work before making the decision as to which department would best support their research moving forward. 

 

I'm going to apply there, but getting in is obviously a long shot. If they exist, I'd like to apply to other places that are structured similarly. Does anybody know of any programs that are setup like this or similarly?

Edited September 1, 2014 by gradschoolapplicant2015

[poliscar]

Hi! I am also having this crisis; I'm unsure as to whether an English or Comp Lit department would be the better fit for my interests.

 

My dream has always been to go to Columbia. One of the (many) reasons why is that their English department places a strong emphasis on transnational literatures. Also, the students there do their first year of coursework in English and earn a MA, but if they are interested in Comp Lit, they then decide whether or not they want to move to the Comp Lit department for rest of their program. Alternatively, they can continue working in the English department, while also pursuing a certificate in Comp Lit. This latter choice would probably be the better fit for my interests; but the ability to switch to the Comp Lit department in the second year if it's a better fit is really attractive to me. I also like that the students get a strong foundation in graduate (Eng Lit) work before making the decision as to which department would best support their research. 

 

I'm going to apply there, but getting in is obviously a long shot. If they exist, I'd like to apply to other places that are structured similarly. Does anybody know of any programs that are setup like this or similarly?

Princeton's IHUM program would be worth looking at. You apply after your third year in a Humanities doctoral program (i.e. English), with successful applicants being awarded an additional year of funding to work in another field. It's a pretty awesome program, with really great seminar offerings. 

[gradschoolapplicant2015]

That program does sound great, as does their prison teaching project. I would kill to be a part of that, but sadly, I don't think I have even the slightest chance at getting accepted into Princeton.

Edited September 2, 2014 by gradschoolapplicant2015

[poliscar]

Aim high. If you're applying to Columbia there's no reason for you to not apply to Princeton. 

[gradschoolapplicant2015]

I don't have a shot there either! It's still fun to buy a lotto ticket every now and then though. 

[Strong Flat White]

Write a novel?