Two Espressos

I don't currently have time to respond to all your points in depth, but I disagree strongly with the sentiment (not necessarily yours, as you've heretofore stated) that "all criticism (or theory) is equal." Truth is relative, and some criticism or theoretical scholarship is better than others. I do not think these statements are mutually exclusive. Humanistic inquiry does not have the same absolute basis as empirically proven scientific inquiry, but I find the following maxim to be true: "There is more than one right answer, but there are many wrong ones."

Yes, the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism is an English major's best friend. I actually have my copy sitting next to me as I type this. For those reading this post who do not have a copy, buy one immediately. You can thank ecritdansleau and I later.

truckbasket and GruntyDaGnome: Ah, Marcel Duchamp! Ala Duchamp's Fountain, right? I think that's a bit too tangential for my project, but "anti-art" is extremely interesting. I will look further into the Agamben/Foucault thing. I think that paper you mentioned earlier, truckbasket, might be a better idea than reading a full work by Agamben. I have to limit my reading list at some point.

Thanks for the recommendation!

I agree with other posters: it's rather difficult to say anything substantive in less than 20 pages or so. The longest paper I've yet written was only 12 pages, so I guess that means I've never said anything substantive.

Excellent post, I agree completely. By the way, TripWillis, you've a fascinating mix of interests.

Feminist psychoanalysis and gender theory are not areas in which no original work can be produced. I staunchly disagree with the professor who told you, more or less, that those are obsolete areas of research. As for one's SOP just being a regurgitation of the theorists one likes (mentioned by perrykm2), I wouldn't worry about that too much. I don't see how admissions committees could possibly expect evidence of completely original theoretical work in a BA applicant's SOP. I only worry for applicants who attempt graduate school without prior knowledge of theory. There are those on these forums who have successfully applied to PhD programs without it, but I imagine that they are special cases.

Thanks for the info! I'll add those readings to my list and parse it out when I bring it to my professor.

Excellent, I'll definitely read it then. One or two disability studies articles might be worth adding. Are there any articles that you would specifically recommend? Cool, thanks for the recommendation! I think I'll pick Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Neuromancer, or Mindscan for the fictive text.

Thanks for all your help. I've spent some time thinking about Gravity's Rainbow, and I think I'm going to choose one of the other texts instead: as you and others have said, it's a very difficult text, one that would needlessly exacerbate the writing sample's difficulty. I don't want to write a 30 page paper that carries a wildly off-base interpretation! I WILL read GR sometime soon though, perhaps this summer.

Also, What text or texts would you recommend for Deleuze?

I have First as Tragedy, Then as Farce by Zizek (I planned to use it for a seminar paper due later this term). Would that be worth using? Regarding Foucault, I borrowed the Oxford Very Short Introduction from the library a few days ago and have been skimming through it. I think I'll blaze through it in the coming week so as to get a general scope of things. I did want to read a primary text by Foucault so I could really delve into his ideas; I know only a little about Foucault, so if you think that the Pantheon reader would be a better overview, then I'll go with that. What do you think about using Scarry's The Body in Pain? No one has commented upon that yet. The professor overseeing this study recommended it as a possible supplement, and I've always wanted to read it. And I never thought about reading Gravity's Rainbow! I like that idea better than the texts I was considering--Neuromancer by William Gibson or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick. I'm going to compile a list of all the texts that you and others have recommended and show it my professor next week. Hopefully she can help me narrow things down in a cohesive way.

Would you recommend reading that Pantheon Foucault Reader in lieu of Discipline and Punish then? As for a text that deals with utility/praxis within the humanities (I'm assuming "theory" will be a main topic?), do you have any suggestions? I've read some meta-theoretical articles both for and against theoretical inquiry, but if a collection of these texts (or a really seminal text that I am perhaps missing) exists, then I'd love to use it. As for some work dealing with late 19th and early 20th century issues of industry, capitalism, etc, you mentioned Jameson as a good source. What books/articles would you recommend? I'm familiar with "Postmodernism and Consumer Society," but that's about it. Thanks for your help thus far by the way. I truly appreciate it! If others have advice to add, please do so.

truckbasket and runonsentence: Thanks for the suggestions! Some of them are familiar to me (either I've read them or am cognizant of their arguments), but many are new! Runonsentence, I was thinking of using How We Became Posthuman by Hayles: your recommendation has solidified that thought. As for Foucault, I wasn't sure what text(s) I should use. I wanted to read a primary text as opposed to a secondary guide, but if you think Discipline and Punish wouldn't be useful enough, I'll have to reconsider. This independent study is only 3 credits, so the reading load is only supposed to be 3-4 theoretical books, 12-15 theoretical articles, and a work of fiction; my analysis of this will culminate in a paper of 20-30 pages. Delimiting the reading list in a coherent way is starting to seem difficult.

Thanks for the link!

Hello all, I'm in the process of designing an independent study next spring entitled "Contemporary Theory and Technology." As the title states, I intend to look at technology and its effects; in particular, I'm interested in the relationships between technology, ethics, power structures, gender, and the posthuman body (it's very general, I know. The professor overseeing this study encouraged it to be, so that I would have a large context, giving me freedom to pick a specialized topic). The reading list is going to be entirely theory-based, barring a work of fiction (or film, etc) to discuss. Texts that I intend to read thus far include Foucault's Discipline and Punish and Elaine Scarry's The Body in Pain. I also plan on reading work by Donna Haraway ("Manifesto for Cyborgs" especially) and N. Katherine Hayles. For this study, I need 3 or 4 book-length theoretical texts as well as a dozen or so theoretical articles, but I don't know what other texts I should pick! Do any of you have suggestions on other book- or article-length texts to supplement what I have thus far? Also, what works by Haraway and Hayles would you suggest? Thanks everyone. An addendum: As the course title is "Contemporary Theory and Technology," recent articles (within the last few years) of theory on technology are most welcome.

This is an excellent point, one that I haven't yet heard. I guess that's one of the few benefits, besides reduced cost, of attending a small, non-elite university. Then again, while talking to my adviser about graduate school, she mentioned that four or five other students had talked to her about graduate school (in English) in the same week. I thought, "Four or five other students? . . .the fuck?" I come from a small university of <3500 students or so, so four or five other English majors applying to graduate school is a major event. More competition. . .damn.

I think this is a hilarious idea and a great way to relieve the distress of rejections. This should happen.

Firstly, It most certainly is a word, one that I happen to like quite a bit. I'll offer my humble perspective, from lowly undergrad to lowly undergrad: As I see it, "trendiness" in academia is cancerous. I'm not naive enough to ignore its existence, but to the extent that I can, I intend to avoid it. I do not think that admission committees, overall, will be concerned with the "trendiness" of your theoretical approach. A PhD student--not to mention a professional academic--will be expected to have a strong grasp of the current theoretical trends in their subdiscipline, but I cannot see this grasp as a vital prerequisite for an applicant. The purpose of a PhD program is not only to facilitate one's research/dissertation; it's also to nurture and develop one's knowledge in the field. Perhaps the most elite institutions are more demanding as regards theoretical knowledge, but I'm not certain. I concede with truckbasket's point, however: if your primary area of interest is a relatively new one (digital humanities, disability studies, etc) then I think having a greater familiarity with current theoretical work is more necessary, if only because these texts essentially constitute the subdiscipline at this point (the field is a new one, so these relatively current texts may very well end up being "canonical" to the subfield as it progresses). Also, older theoretical work--at least the most important texts--will remain a part of critical conversation. Think about philosophy. Kant's work is hundreds of years old, yet scholars continue to engage with his ideas in a major way. Granted, philosophy is not literature, but as many have noted here and elsewhere, philosophy and literary theory intersect, blurring the lines between the disciplines. I think the most important aspect of the writing sample, as evidence of the applicant's potential overall, is one's ability to think on a highly sophisticated, critical, and creative level. . . I hope admissions committees share this belief when they evaluate my application, as I'm not very conversant with the most current theoretical trends either.

I read this article shortly before I logged onto The Grad Cafe. It's an interesting discussion, one that I hope other readers of this site will notice and read as well.

I've anecdotal information for you. I asked a professor of mine, one whom I highly trust and one who has had some success in academia, about this very issue. Her response was, more or less, that I should not produce a laundry list of potential professors in my SOP, for two reasons: firstly, one, as an applicant, has no insider information on which professors may be retiring or otherwise leaving the university; also, academia is highly political, such that mentioning certain professors exclusively may in fact alienate or annoy the admissions committee. Alternatively, she suggested that I talk more generally about my interests and then about how they would fit within the overall work being done in the program. I realize that those concerns have been expressed by others in this thread and elsewhere on The Grad Cafe, but I wanted to supplement this information with my own.

As regards me personally, I'm fairly confident that I possess the requisite intellect (and mad endurance!) to survive in a PhD program. The problem is that, as we all know, a large majority of highly-qualified and intelligent applicants never get accepted. I'm worried about this, especially coming from a fretfully average public university with no prestige whatsoever: others have said that prestige does not matter, but I have a hard time believing that, especially seeing how hierarchical academia is. At the very least, it's going to make my application less likely to stand out among the others... *SIGHS*

Yes, I had thought about that too! I'm in no position right now to talk about current conversations in theory, but I aim to change that via an independent study in "Contemporary Theory and Technology" next spring. The main purpose of that study--besides working with Dr. Cool Gender Theorist --is to overhaul my understanding of theory and produce a theory-heavy writing sample of 25 pages or so.

I'm pretty sure that theory will be my primary focus, so that's why I was wondering. And that's interesting concerning SUNY Buffalo. They seem very theory-oriented there, more so than other places. Hence why I'd love to attend there.

So, then, mentioning theorists that have informed one's research interests or something of that sort would be OK?