Strong Flat White

Well, that's tremendous, Manatee, that you've jettisoned your judgmental, elitist bewilderment at all the lowly losers for a culturally-driven paradigm that simply asks honest questions! But let me remind you how you began things. It began thusly: "I really wonder: Why do you keep applying?" That's a bit more than blunt or direct; it has implications. It is, in fact, rhetorical. Rhetoric like that is much more pointed than non-rhetorical conversation ("you need to lose some weight"), in my opinion. (Let's be honest! Let's be realist!) Conversely, I think you're right to juxtapose American sugarcoating/snowflake syndrome to other cultural/educational systems... to a point. It's a valid observation, certainly. It is, as you might say, based in reality. The only reason I'm confused is that I haven't actually seen any sugarcoating in reply/rebuttal to your original inquiry. Oh, there's plenty of it in America, and there's plenty of it on www.thegradecafe.com - right you are. But I don't think there was a shred of it in reply to your question... why do you keep applying? Nobody has said, "I'm special if only they'll look at me!" What they've said is, "I'm going to work harder to try to address my weaknesses; I'm going to try to find 'it.'" That's a happy aspect of American (or other) optimism. I don't think that non-Americans balk at a good rolling-up-the-sleeves to tap the elbow grease. Hard work is not special treatment... ... I think that hard work is, to use the philosophers' parlance, "necessary but not sufficient," so you're definitely right to be asking what (in addition to hard work) suffices. If the best we can come up with is, "it," then I think we can agree that it is an unanswerable question. But to your original, barbed question - why do you keep applying? - we've answered the question rather soundly. There is a projectile "to each his own" kernel popping around the paper bag of this buttery discussion, on both sides of the worldview divide. It is, in fact, delicate, no matter how Germanic or Asian you'd like to be about it. So, then, it is to be respectful disagreement? You have, Manatee, been answered.

Manatee, I've enjoyed this thread and your honesty and your willingness to put an unpopular post out there. I think it is a necessary check that we must all go through. That said, I've just gotta weigh in here: For my first point, other people have already stated it well enough: we know. Ha! What an understatement! How well do we know! Much too much, I'd say. From what I can tell, the level of perspective throughout these boards is more than admirable. I really do believe that only a very small percentage of applicants in this community are ignorant or negligent, and we're all taking this on fully aware of the odds and risks and assuming responsibility for it. I take full responsibility for my broke ass and I'm not asking you or anyone else to pay my Stafford loans (assuming, of course, that I'm not independently wealthy ). For my second point, I will admit to being somewhat annoyed by what smacks not only of what someone else called "elitism," but in your case specifically, it reeks of a very American elitism (you mention it yourself when you talk about the American love for branding, but rather than bring your international perspective to bear, you play what you seem to admit is a broken game). You've been abroad, and normally, I would congratulate you. This is the field I currently work in (sending students abroad for undergrad study abroad programs), and we like to pretend that the experience is, well, meaningful. Personally, the way you describe your time abroad is a little offensive to me. I can appreciate your viewpoint that this time spent overseas was not, perhaps, the most productive, and you're probably right. Certainly some experiences are more meaningful than others, I can't very well say that YOU did or did not find meaning in it all. But surely not all is a complete waste?! Yikes! Ouch! Speaking for myself, and I suspect for many others, time spent drinking on a Fulbright, teaching English, or spending money on Italian or Thai beaches is far from a waste. I can look you in the eye and tell you that I have squandered like the Prodigal Son abroad, and yet I found profound meaning in it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd never trade my unproductive, wasteful years abroad for anything (not even a PhD acceptance w/ full funding!). You admit that things shouldn't be taken so seriously, but your honesty/reality check for us all is not so tempered. Now there is the issue of insecurity: for some of us, grad school may "never come to fruition. Hell, even if the grad school does come to fruition, there is no guarantee that you will get a job." And, again, you admit that most people aren't in this field for financial reasons (and if they are, they sure as hell shouldn't be!). Agreed. Of course. No kidding. But again, we all know this, and your unpopularity is the decidedly non-tempered-ness of your message. What it comes down to, I think, is a difference in worldview. You seem to be operating on a life philosophy that will productively maximize all your returns, at least as well as you can conceivably predict, but you're forgetting the other side of humanity that trades these rational calculations for (in our eyes) a far more important calculation, which is the peace of mind of knowing, once it's all said and done, what might have been. In other words (and I'm a family man), it comes down to a very realistic look at the bleakness of prospects and saying, "I'm going to find out." My wife and I are therefore prepared for "years of lost productivity" and even, ultimately, a less-than-ideal career, because there's no way (in this scenario) that I'll be in my current post in 20 years, relatively comfortably, wondering, "what if?" I'd rather be mopping floors in my 60's knowing that I couldn't have done anything else to make my dreams happen, than be doing the comfortable and secure and on the whole very good administrative work that I'm currently doing, all the while having some faint idea that something bigger and better is out there for me if I only had the - forgive my vulgate - balls to go after it. (And, speaking of "it" - creativity is certainly a key component of "it," but so are balls. I applaud our ballsy repeat applicants!) Clearly, that is very idealistic (and offensively gendered!), but... well, what are dream-chasers and English majors if not ballsy idealists?! Come on, man! We run a serious risk of calling a kettle black, I do fear! And, I'm pretty sure that idealism in this day and age among such a community need not exclude the realism that you mention. Now, you may say, all very well and good. Chase your dreams once, chase them twice, but your point is not to do so ad infinitum. Agreed, but that point at which you say, "ok, I gave it my best shot and now I need to mop floors and support a family and do my reading and writing as a hobby," is going to be a very personal and individual choice, and I don't think anyone here is ill-informed about it. How do you say it's 2 rounds for one person and not 5 rounds for the 60-year old who spends another 20 years in complete vocational fulfillment and contributing greatly to what (s)he loves?! The 3-times rule is crazy (I'm just going to say it - crazy), especially given that we have posters here saying that they got in! All the ballsier for them that they stuck it out for this long, and my money is on them - not the people who get in on round 1 or who give up - living their dreams and full lives. They are the ones who know what they have... way beyond your American rationalism, they will know value much more intimately. But... Manatee is right, I suppose. It's all about your values, and if you want your best shot at security and comfort, then dear God, jump ship now! I will be among the non-20-somethings, going for it in the late rounds, despite my better judgment. So help us all!

Right... but you're speaking particularly to this field, or all of academia? Seems like it is true anywhere, but more daunting in English lit, which is probably the purest and most original "interdisciplinary" field. I mean, all fields now boast their "interdisciplinary-ness" as a matter of survival, but English has always been psychological, historical, sociological, linguistic, political, economic, philosophical, etc, way before all social sciences tried to become hard science, way before every department had to cross disciplines to stay cool with the buzz word of the decade. I told one guy who was nice enough to sit down and listen to why I wanted to study this, and I told him I wanted a content-rich field. What an understatement. Content-rich doesn't even begin to describe this field. I think that's attractive - it's simply impossible to exhaust the material. Even the most prolific, influential thinker will only be scraping the tip of the iceberg. I really dig that.

Well put. Re: geographic existentialism, I plan on writing that essay some day. But first I have to become fluent. Your well-articulated frustration with postcolonialism is actually some of the feelings I have, as a switch-over to the field, about theory and analysis at large. I asked in another thread the difference between analysis and theory and received some very good answers. But nothing concrete, nothing definitive, nothing that really clears up the murkiness or the mystery. Then again, I've also gone on record as saying that the switch in fields is a great match for me, personally, because I will forsake all quantitative-ness in favor of qualitative. And so, this "discussion" that I keep hearing about - well, it's all a matter of qualitiative fluency, and therein lies my strength, and therein lies the decision to go into English Lit in the first place. Back to square one!

I wouldn't stress over it, in fact I would see it as an opportunity. I've been co-advised twice, and never solo-advised, and I find a lot of advantage: two pair of eyes over each of your drafts; two viewpoints to shore up your arguments; division of labor that the faculty enjoy (supervision is a big ask); double the recommender-power in the future; possible multi-disciplinary firepower (I was once in department A with co-advisors from deparments B and C; even when I was co-advised and we were all in the same department, it was striking how much the extra perspective added to my experience, not to mention my academic quality). So, go nuts, I say.

I would second all of Lily's comments and add that I've been told point-blank by graduate chairs and faculty that a stellar application will be rejected in favor of a lesser application if the lesser application is a better fit for the department. Meaning that if the department is headed in x-direction, and you're brilliant, but you're headed in y-direction, you should find a department that's headed in that same direction as you. The faculty come into play big-time here. I've been told by a trusted recommender of mine that in approaching faculty and "proposing" to them that they (in theory, upon acceptance, of course) be your supervisor, or joint-supervisor, or whatever, you should just come out and tell them if you feel confident about it. I recently did this to a faculty member and was very well received, although she did warn me that as an untenured faculty, my proposal was risky for me - she's looking out for me because she's acknowledging that she can't make any promises about remaining at that department... Lastly, I have found that this sort of directness and connection to faculty is necessary, as we've been discussing, but so is flexibility - what a crazy balancing act: SoP - here's exactly what I'd like to do w/ so-and-so faculty, but if you have other places where I can fit in and want to fund me, then yes! I'm flexible! I don't know what to say about that, it seems that on the one hand, you're encouraged to put all your eggs in one basket and go for the bull's eye, on the other hand, you want to demonstrate versatility, diversity, and coachability. It's a mixed message for sure. On an accessibility note, I've found that emailing professors and asking if I may please visit them during their office hours works really well. Nobody has ever said no before, and in recent months, I've done this with about half a dozen faculty between multiple departments on this campus. All of them really fun conversations. I come away from each session with good insight to chew on. It hammers home the lesson for me that you can never know too much - don't discount the value of faculty, even if only for a peripheral opinion on some minor matter. Make contact and listen, early and often!!! I only speak with confidence on this issue because it's advice that I've gleaned from this forum and other academic experts, and also because I've been putting into practice and hammering hard the last few weeks/months. I can't say it works, because I've yet to be accepted. But I can say that after each conversation I have w/ a faculty member, I come away wondering what I would ever do without having had that conversation. Scary, almost. And I don't necessarily feel like that impressionable of a guy, but anyway, that's how it's felt for me: totally necessary.

Spivak! Awesome, thanks. I was actually thinking of the same thing, either calling it "colonial" or even "pre-post-colonial" if that makes any sense... (because "pre-" alone would indicate a much earlier historic time period)

I should clarify that I'm particularly interested in the novel/fiction as opposed to other stuff.

So I am getting a handle on post-colonial and globalization lit (namely, lit that deals with new identities in the wake of postcolonial self-determination movements and the weakened role of the state in IR), but this all seems to deal with an AFTER-the-fact sort of identity dilemma. Like, hey, we are now independent - now what!? But what about nations that are still seeking statehood/independence (Tibet, Chechnya, Quebec, Tamil Tigers, multiple Spanish and Western-European movements, multiple Celtic movements, etc)? I want to say, "nationalist" lit, but fear that it is too easily confused with Romantic-era lit. Or... "nationalist-in-the-global-age" lit, but that doesn't sound like something that exists. Surely someone out there has tagged this body of work with a decent moniker? Or, backing up, surely this body of work is one worth looking at in the first place? What say you all? Also: does there exist anything called "geographic existentialism"? I like the sound of it, and have googled it, and aside from some guy's blog in 2005 that is now defunct, it looks available for use. Also: I've seen "hystercial realism" and "maximalism" used in reference to what I would think of as some quintessential "global lit" (Zadie Smith, Dave Eggers, David Mitchell, etc) -- but these labels seem to put the focus on a style/technique/method moreso than a content. I guess what I'm looking for is, here we are in 2010. The Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain have been down for 2 decades now and post-colonial lit is a blast, don't get me wrong, but what are we calling lit that deals with the international system being turned on its head even if the borders have yet to be redrawn, even if statehood has yet to be achieved? There are plenty of colonial places out there that haven't quite reached the "post-" phase, or places where identity is the driving force of a political movement, not just the aftermath. I feel like I'm missing something in the lit world. Enlighten me, please.

And it was the right choice, yes?

So, I've been away a while. I've been busy. One thing I've learned from this whole grad school thing is that it is a full time job, and that part of that job entails faculty connections. Other parts of that job, right now, for me, include figuring out how to make it work. Time and money, that is. So the deal is, I've readmitted to my alma mater as an undergrad with full access to restricted courses. I've talked with advisors and profs and family and friends and many of you. Beginning this May, I'll be taking a course called... get this, it is really up my alley and very exciting... "Topics in Multicultural Literature: Postcolonial Studies: Literature and Globalization." Bloody amazing-sounding, if you ask me. Then, in July, I'll take my first intro course to theory. Now that I'm a registered, deposited, enrolled student, I am indeed past the point of no return. And what's cool about that, to me, is that I have no idea how this will turn out, and so it is the process itself that I must embrace. Not to be melodramatic, but scaling back / quitting a wonderful job (I don't know which it will be yet, mostly depends on my boss) in favor of the great unknown happens to be a sort of life-changing decision for me. I wonder how many of you I'll meet in person in the future... Go us. Go English Lit. Go Creative Writing. Go Rhetoric and Composition. Hell, go Humanities! Good luck to us all! What an insanely wild ride!

So the early weigh-in was that the BA wasn't a bad idea, the later weigh-in is that straight-to-MA is the way to go. What people are missing (including the English faculty here), is that I can't afford to scale back at work in order to take a non-degree track and make a dicey application and get rejected (again) this next cycle. That would leave me without much income and a dead-end in English. I actually thought of this later idea by Branwen -- enroll not in grad level courses, but just in courses, and still make the application for 2011, as she says. But, in not taking grad level courses, I would in fact be on the BA track, right... so that, after rejection, I'm not facing that dead end. I can finish up the BA quickly and aim for the next year, all while being on a degree program that actually allows me to pay for classes and become legitimately eligible. This could be a good middle ground.

Good points. I was recently in a situation where I was told that it was "impossible" to tell me whether my application would be sufficient... but of course! And, I had never asked whether the application would be sufficient, since that's basically like asking if it will be accepted - an impossible question, indeed. However, I did ask whether it would be considered... and I was given concrete advice on how to determine this. I think that is a situation in which "the impossible answer" solution shouldn't apply.

Thanks to you both, I tend to agree with you both. On another note, I've been wondering lately: with all the "encouragement" that one tends to find in a department, is it just me, or does it seem like departments can't afford to not encourage people; in other words, telling non-qualified applicants that they don't have a prayer is simply bad business. That's a lot of forfeited application fees! And they can mask it in a subjective lingo in which the department is actually helping you by allowing you to apply! How enabling, these Lean-On-Me educators! It's really hard to always have record numbers of applications when you tell people not to apply, right? Or is this just cynical? I mean, I had a great and encouraging conversation with a department head... just before rejection! Hmmm. Well, it's a jungle out there. I could say something like, "that's unethical!" But what difference would that make?

There are some who know the full extent of my plan to switch fields, from IR to English Lit (Branwen, namely). I described in another thread that I had met with a department who had been encouraging. I got the impression that I could apply to an MA program to become eligible for PhD programs. However, that was from the English department, who advised that I check things out with the DGS. Which, of course, I did, but predictably my inquiry bounced around for a while before landing with a staff member who was both with GS as well as English. She recommended that I ask the person who originally advised that I ask DGS - the graduate chair. What this means is that I never got a concrete answer about whether or not my application would even be considered, since I'm not eligible for the MA. True, the graduate chair was encouraging, but nobody could say, unequivocally, that if I applied, that my application would actually make it across her and the committee's desk. I've recently been told by an altogether NEW member to the party that eligibility to the MA is more lenient and that my application would, indeed, be considered. However, this would mean enrolling in killer coursework for the Fall without much assurance that I'd be successful in the MA admissions process. That leaves another option -- simply readmit as a degree-seeking undergrad, and get an English BA. What would others do? There's no danger of not getting into a BA in English program, but it does add a lot of time to what I'm trying to do. On the other hand, applying to the MA seems marginally nuts. I'm already coming off a rejection and I just have a hard time imagining a scenario where I get accepted (anywhere, ever!) - much less to a program for which I'm under-qualified. One way or another, I think I'll go back into the classroom to get eligible to switch fields, but the question is, which classroom will I be sitting in?

I saw a Harold Bloom reference when I picked up a GRE subject test prep book (Kaplan, I believe) and skimmed their 3-page overview of critical theory. It's good to know that starting totally from scratch, one can still get the framework, vocab, and big names under one's feet. By fall classes, I hope to be halfway fluent. I think I'm on pace.

Good call. I look forward to that.

That would be me [the new Doctorow fan]! Yes, Ragtime is high on my list. Thanks. Saul Bellow, eh? I'll take a look and add it to the long, long list...

I like the idea of "since Plato," since I really do want to know about the entire development of the field, and not just the recent development. Also, wide but not deep sounds good for the GRE subject test... and your distinction, lastly, between Penguin's "literary terms and theory" vs. "critical theory" brings me to my next newbie question: Criticism vs. analysis: a subtle difference in "theory?" It seems like it, but (until I read one of these recommendations) I can't seem to find a formal distinction... obviously I can use my context clues and I have a hunch, but there does seem to be an awful lot of overlap and/or confusion. What say you all to that?

Gracias! I saw Culler's on Amazon and it got better reviews than most... the Norton looks brickish but worthwhile for what I'm trying to do (as you say, a survey of the major schools of literary theory), and if since you have a personal favorite I'll look at that, too. (Could get pricey!)

Next question from the novice: what intro books should I start w/, if I want to get a jump on theory and analysis before the fall semester? Any good recommendations out there?