Two Espressos

Yeah, I don't recommend name-dropping in SOPs at all, unless it's to discuss how certain theorists/philosophers inform your research interests or something. A professor-mentor of mine strongly discouraged me from name-dropping at all.

I'm very interested in the Duke Literature program (I plan on specializing in "theory"), but my application season is next fall. It seems extremely theoretical, and it encourages interdisciplinarity, which is always a good thing.

I've only read selections from Gender Trouble, but I found Butler's prose fairly readable as well. The last few pages of Gender Trouble are extremely quotable and very powerful, in my opinion. It's really great stuff overall.

That number doesn't feel right. caromd50, do you mean general (verbal) + subject =1500, or 1500 total on the general exam? Either way, that's quite high. A professor told me to aim for ~1300 on the general exam.

I've actually seen this before. I don't really find the Butler quote to be all that badly written or difficult to understand though. It's a little overwritten, but I think the quote is rather straightforward.

That's actually pretty cool, I guess. I like Hegel's ideas, but trying to cite him is literally impossible. I guess I'll have to settle for lots of paraphrasing and generally citing page numbers (or, you know, the entire chapter, lol).

As a way of venting my frustration over this seminar paper, I want to ask fellow Grad Cafe members: which theorists, philosophers, etc. are the worst writers--obscure, needlessly wordy, unnecessarily difficult--that you've encountered? My vote goes to Hegel. And I thought Lacan was bad! It's basically impossible to quote him, as he takes pages upon pages to explain himself. Lacan takes second place. I kinda like him, but reading him is really rough. Thoughts from other members?

I'm familiar with Jeffrey Eugenides, but I hadn't heard of this book before. It's about English majors, so I don't think I can resist. I'm definitely going to read this over Christmas break.

Also, Question: Are you simply a non-sentient computer program? Answer: Yes. At least it's honest! haha

Following the last two posts: Question: Will I have success applying to graduate school? Answer: Definitely. Question: Will I be the next Judith Butler? Answer: No way! Question: Will I ever get a tenure-track job? Answer: No way! Question: Will I be an adjunct for the rest of my life? Answer: Absolutely! I'd wager that this magic 8-ball knows its stuff. It's certainly aware of job market prospects! Thanks for the lulz, bespeckled!

Oh, I know it isn't as banal as the Twilight series, but it's still primarily a book for adolescents. I don't know very much about it, though I have read some articles on the series, and it seems simplistic to me. I don't think I'd enjoy it at all, but it's perfectly fine that you (and others) do!

Of course we won't ban you! But I don't think I'd ever touch that series except with a ten-foot pole. On a less snarky note, I recently read Closer by Patrick Marber. I own and love the film version (and have seen it several times), but I had never read the source material until last week. As much as I like the movie, I find the play to be vastly superior. The movie version glosses over some of the darker elements the play, and the ending is much more depressing in the original, which is funny considering how melancholic the film was. So I totally recommend reading Marber's original play. It's rather short, less than 100 pages in my copy, and can be read within an hour or two.

Based on prior forum posts, I'm quite sure all of you have a much better chance than I will (come next fall). You all seem to be quite intelligent and focused. I, on the other hand, can't write a seminar paper worth shit. Every one thus far this semester has failed miserably in saying anything worth reading. I'm still applying to graduate programs nonetheless, as there aren't many alternatives beyond law school or working a minimum wage job...

After reading this thread, I went to Staples and bought a pack of Sharpie pens. They're wonderful!

I'm pretty sure it's the latter, unfortunately.

Haha! I was cognizant of the UC Davis incident, but I didn't know a meme had sprouted up. The Modern Warfare 2, Mario, and Pink Floyd pepper-spraying memes are my favorite. Thanks for the link; I nearly cried from laughter!

Thanks for the info; I'll look into it!

Thanks!

Would it be possible to use portions of the Adorno/Horkheimer and Hardt/Negri texts, or would that not be a good idea? I don't think I can add any more book-length texts to this study, lol.

Okay, thanks. I'm about halfway through Foucault: A Very Short Introduction; I'll pick up the Pantheon reader aforementioned.

My university's food is awful. Sodexo is here too. I'm a vegetarian, and I sometimes have a hard time finding food, especially in the student cafeteria: 90% of the food is deep-fried. Subway is alright though, and we do have an extremely Americanized "French" restaurant on campus that is pretty good, all things considered. However the absolute derth of options means that I eat at the aforementioned French restaurant almost daily. And I order the same thing 99% of the time because most of their soups and sandwiches have meat on them. I don't even have to order; the employees just smile and ring it up for me.

So would you recommend something by Heidegger? I thought about incorporating him in some way, but as you and others have said, his work is vast and challenging. I believe the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd ed. has a selection of his on language; would that be worth a look?

Are you suggesting that I ditch Foucault for others? Or would reading selections from the Pantheon Foucault Reader you mentioned earlier be OK?

An update: I typed up a preliminary reading list, incorporating both my initial selections as well as this thread's suggestions. The professor overseeing the study said that it looked great; thanks for your help, everyone! Also, truckbasket, the professor agreed that it would be better if I read selections from Foucault's key works rather than reading Discipline and Punish in its entirety. She also said that she was not familiar with Agamben, but after I explained his significance (based on what you and others have said), she OK'd his inclusion.

I second this: you all did great. I'd be happy with any of your scores!