Two Espressos

You seem to be in good shape; I wouldn't be too worried. Attending conferences is good, as is having a potential publication. Remember that quality is always better than quantity (at least most of the time). Yes, there will be those extreme applicants with multiple conference papers and perhaps a publication or two who also have perfect grades, superb GRE scores, and LORs from top-line faculty. But these people are not the norm. I would imagine that admissions committees would be more concerned with how your MA program enriched and prepared you as a potential scholar than with how many conferences/presentations you have. I also echo lolopixie's sentiments: you'll probably be held to the same standard as a domestic applicant.

Not necessarily. Though if you are a MA graduate, I'd be concerned about your lack of conferences/conference presentations. Applicants holding MA degrees are held to a higher standard than BA-only applicants, for obvious reasons: the former have had one to two years of graduate training and are expected to have a much more refined intellectual focus (though, to be honest, every successful applicant, BA or MA, has had a relatively narrow and refined focus).

Thanks for the info! Over the past year, I've considered philosophy, literature/literary theory, and composition/rhetoric. I keep vacillating, but I'm almost positive that I'll apply to theory-heavy literature and interdisciplinary programs next fall: it's what most interests me (just the mention of Butler or Zizek makes me foam at the mouth, lol), and it's where I fit best. Part (though not all) of my motivation in considering the comp/rhet route was the better job prospects. I realized after reading (and hating) Bartholomae's book that that wouldn't work out for me in graduate school (I realize that Bartholomae's work is merely one aspect of comp/rhet, but I still find my reaction telling). I'm still struggling to find my academic identity, but I'm nearly positive that I'll end up in a theory/literature program (assuming I get in anywhere ).

Indeed they are! And yes, that situation was extremely awkward for me.

I staunchly disagree. I can certainly understand why one would be opposed to theory overtaking the study of literature, as a compelling argument can be made against it. As for me, however, I want theory to be my primary focus; just studying literarture bores me (hence, I've considered alternate graduate school routes, including a PhD in philosophy and American University's human rights MA program). Theory is central in some graduate programs, such as Cornell, which specifies theory and criticism as a pursuable subfield (one of the many reasons why Cornell appeals so much to me). Your generalization of theoretical articles is patently false. As with practically every field of inquiry, be it science or the humanities, complexity and nuance are ubiquitous. It's simply incorrect to presume that all positions within a theoretical school are the same; for proof, just look into feminist theory, which is fiercely divided on many key issues. I do agree that sometimes theory can reach absurd levels of abstraction, levels where practicality is thrown to the wind. But this is the case in many fields of inquiry, especially philosophy. A lot of metaphysics is really tenuous and perhaps irrelevant.

Congrats! It's just an undergraduate conference, but I'm presenting my first conference paper in October. I'm very excited and extremely nervous.

I never said you were an antitheorist. I only supplied the antitheorism section of my quote because I felt it was necessary to support the latter section. As for antitheorists, they do exist: I don't remember the authors of these pieces, but both "Against Theory" and "The Race for Theory" are quite anti-theoretical. The authors may not specifically use the term 'antitheorist', but they are essentially antitheorists in that they "deplore the shift toward 'theory.'" There are theoretical constructs behind every argument. In "The Commitment to Theory," Homi K. Bhabha discusses how theory and social practice go hand-in-hand. It's an interesting article, though it is Bhabha so it's painfully obfuscatory. I don't understand your walking analogy. We can certainly walk without knowing how we do so, but it would be foolish to assume that we "just" walk and that there are not complicated processes behind our walking (much like how one can read a text without knowing the complicated, theoretical constructs behind the text, but it would be foolish to assume that these constructs do not exist). You say you rely on "observation and precise knowledge of the historical, social, literary, cultural, ... contexts of the work." That's absolutely a theroetical position. Certain theoretical schools would argue that looking at the historical, social, literary, cultural contexts is wrong; they would argue that only the text itself can be used in critical examination. Scholars in every field have a propensity to take themselves too seriously; I've seen especially egregious elitism in analytic philosophy. It's your prerogative to study literature for whatever reason you so choose. I don't think that all theorists take themselves too seriously. Perhaps one day I'll consider myself a 'theorist' of some strand; I don't plan to take myself too seriously. I also think that theory can be liberating rather than limiting, but you probably feel differently.

Ugh, this thread reminds me that I'm terrible at relationships! I'm currently "dating" a guy (as in going on dates but not an "official" relationship), and he mentioned that he plans to go to California for music school after he finishes his BS (which will be in fall of 2012). I actually brought up the schools that I could attend that would be nearby (California does have a great array of English programs, such as Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UC Santa Cruz). And we're not even dating! It was a terrible mistake on my part. We both are very attracted to each other, and we will likely be an official couple soon. But he said that it was foolish to think about these things so far in advance; he was right. I realize that that anecdote was largely tangential, but I hope it was of some use.

I am quite unfamiliar, though I do know of one person who attended the program. I am only an acquaintance, so I only have a little info. She said that she really enjoyed the program, but she was frustrated and annoyed by many of her peers, whom she described as being "extremely snobby." Take that with a grain of salt though, as many graduate programs have their share of elitists. After finishing the program, she was admitted (with funding) to a lower-ranked PhD program (to protect her---and my---anonymity, I am withholding the school's name). She left the program after much soul-searching and has now returned to my undergraduate institution to take a few courses so she can have a secondary education certificate in English. That's all I have to offer. Perhaps others have more input?

I don't have a problem with him attending Yale, though it's rather curious that he's attending two (or is it three?) graduate programs simultaneously. I don't know how he does that. I dislike him because he's a shitty actor, starring in mostly terrible roles. Wow. I remember somewhere that something (shadows, maybe?) was described as being "shadow-colored." What? I might borrow it from a local library out of mere curiosity. I will probably just skim it, reading a few stories here and there. As far as enjoying reading bad fiction, I quit my role as a member of my university's literary magazine precisely because I hated reading such bad fiction, poetry, etc. I told myself at the start of last year that if the magazine published a large quantity of bad writing, I would leave. I was actually ashamed by some of the stuff that got published.

Please remember that I'm just an undergraduate and have only a rough working knowledge of the main theoretical schools. I'm sure that there are many more current theoretical close-readers of whom I'm simply unaware. Not scary at all. I have no problem with formalism and structuralism, but... I think it is disingenuous to presume that these schools are not inherently theoretical. "Traditionalism" and "common sense" are very contentious terms that rely on very specific and debatable concepts. From the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (Second Edition): "Some literary scholars and writers deplore the shift toward 'theory,' regarding it as a turn away from literature and its central concerns. These 'antitheorists,' as they are called, advocate a return to studying literature for itself--yet however refreshing this position may at first appear, it has problems: it itself presupposes a definition of literature, and it promotes a certain way of scrutinizing literature ('for itself'). In other words, the antitheory position turns out to rely on unexamined--and debatable--theories of literature and criticism. What theory demonstrates, in this case and in others, is that there is no position free of theory, not even the one called 'common sense'." I think that that's a solid defense. Then again, you're a D.Phil student in a Modern and Medieval Languages program. I'm an undergraduate. You're bound to know far more about this than I do.

Yes, I have an abnormal James Franco hatred as well. My former roommate is, conversely, a huge fan, and she read Palo Alto. She said the stories were good, but I had heard otherwise. Flipping through it, it seemed...well, not so good, to put it lightly, lol.

This is the case with the course I've previously mentioned: lots of theatre majors. Once again, this perfectly describes the level of discourse to which I'm accustomed at my university. Sigh. But you're right, I shouldn't be so dismissive. I have this class shortly (within 15 minutes of this post's publication), so maybe today will be different.

Yeah, I apologize if my prior post sounded bitchy or elitist; I didn't mean it that way. I just get really excited about seminars, being able to engage with others' ideas. So when class discussion fall short of what I (perhaps fallaciously) expect, I am disappointed. Haha, well I wouldn't give myself that much credit! I would like to audit a graduate course or two, but my university is essentially undergrad-only. There are no nearby universities where I could take graduate-level courses either. So I will just have to wait until graduate school.

Teaberry is my definitive favorite, though I don't get to eat it very often. I also like black raspberry, cherry vanilla, and other fruit-based flavors. And frozen yogurt is delicious (and healthy!) as well.

I'd imagine that these pathetic individuals will fail utterly if they choose to pursue a PhD (assuming they even get admitted, which seems unlikely). One cannot choose to "not read" the books that one will be tested on for comprehensive exams; you cannot bullshit your way through a dissertation. I suppose that you're right. The other day in one of my seminars, we were discussing our thoughts on Lilian Hellman's "The Little Foxes." Mostly everyone brought up rather banal things, like discussing which characters they liked the most. Which is fine (I guess), but it grows tiresome when eight people--most of whom openly admit to having only read a small portion of the play--bring up essentially the same points consecutively. When it was my turn to speak, I purposely censored myself to avoid looking like a prick. Only after another student suggested that the work was a satire of capitalism did I mention Marxist theory, which I had intended to discuss originally ("The Little Foxes" begs for a Marxist reading, in my opinion.). The professor stated that much Marxist criticism had been written about the work, but after her fascinating digression, the other students again returned to discussing which characters they liked the most. I had planned to discuss the Marxist theory thing with the professor after class, and I wish I had so done: no one engaged with it at all, lol.

Close-reading is fine; I have no problem with those that employ more "traditional" methodologies. I think humanities scholars need to be more ecumenical, not hasty to scoff at other forms of literary scholarship. It is important to note, however, that formalism/traditionalism is theory. http://forum.thegradcafe.com/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png' alt=':)'> I wouldn't write off critical theory as being a "convoluted justification of one's incompetence in the lost art of close-reading." Derrida, for instance, was an extremely close reader. On this thread, , is a germane discussion. I encourage you not to disregard critical theory so readily.

This is a fun topic! I'm taking: Intro to Shakespeare (required for literature majors) Intro to Macroeconomic Theory Intermediate French 1 Major American Dramatists (upper-level seminar) History of Literary Criticism (an upper-level seminar, easily my favorite, which is taught by one of my favorite professors)

Great responses, everyone! I'll offer my own thoughts, which echo sentiments heretofore expressed. In defense of the study of literature: Literary works are historical, cultural, and societal artifacts. By reading, dissecting, and analyzing them as such, we gain insight into their frameworks. As these works come from the human imagination, we also gain insight into the human mind, which helps us to understand the human condition, exceedingly complex though it is. In short, by studying literature one learns more about the world in which one lives. By dedicating one's life to literary scholarship, one is able to share this erudition to anyone who dares listen. No further defense is needed. In defense of Critical Theory: As literary scholarship advanced through the 20th century, many scholars realized that literary study, though relatively short-lived as a formal discipline, stood on unstable ground: the notions of canonicity, of literary value, and indeed literature itself were tendentious. Scholars began to peel formalism away, exposing and critiquing conventions, supposed beliefs, common sense. Formalism's hegemony collapsed; literary theorists began to reexamine literature without being overshadowed by formalist thought. This process of reexamination, of taking nothing as absolute, became Critical Theory. Critical Theory is no more political than that which it critiques. Critical Theory, and the humanities altogether, are unique in that they are without absolutes, unlike the sciences. This is not inherently a negative thing and can actually be empowering. With literary study, there is not one definitively correct answer, though there are many wrong ones. It is important to recognize that literary theory is not a field where every idea has equal merit: positions that cannot be rigorously defended are easily refuted. Lacking in absolutes, humanities scholars, including Critical Theorists, dance on a razor's edge of limited footing but endless possibility. ^So that's my wordy, rambling opinion, which I firmly support.

This is a very interesting thread. I've struggled with justifying the study of literature before, so this was definitely a welcome find! I have a similar query: How does one defend capital-T Theory, which dominates the discipline? Literary theory has gone beyond mere close reading and has now encompassed other "texts" beyond the literary (a good thing, in my opinion, as "literariness" is very diaphanous). The general populace, as well as academics in a variety of fields, castigate Theory for being inherently political, poorly-argued, and fiendishly faddish. What do you think?

I'm one week into the semester, and I'm finding myself talking a lot more in class. So much for being a reticent student.

I didn't know that Vanderbilt was that interdisciplinary. Thanks for the info!

Thank you both! I didn't know about UT Austin's Comp Lit program. I'll have to look into it. And it's good to know that SUNY Buffalo's program is as interdisciplinary as I had hoped!

Hello, Grad Cafe. I did some sleuthing on the literature boards and was unable to find a topic like this, so I decided to start my own. I apologize if a thread like this already exists. Anyways, my question is this: what programs do you know of that have either very flexible course requirements or no requirements at all? As I am parsing out my research interests, I am beginning to narrow my focus towards more progressive and interdisciplinary programs. Granted, literature departments in general encourage interdisciplinarity, but I'm searching for those that go above and beyond, so to speak, the norm. Any feedback is highly appreciated. I'm interested in both explicitly interdisciplinary programs and traditional literature programs that strongly encourage interdisciplinarity. Here are some flexible/interdisciplinary programs of which I am cognizant: Cornell Washington University in St. Louis UC Berkeley (Rhetoric) Chicago SUNY Buffalo Stanford (Modern Thought and Literature) UC Santa Cruz (History of Consciousness) Johns Hopkins (Intellectual History)

I only got to read Cat's Cradle (I wanted to return the book because classes start 8/29), but I didn't really like it. I didn't find it to be very funny, and it didn't seem to have much substance. Granted, there were aspects of it that I liked; the novel was also quite short, so it was an easy read. But I was disappointed overall. Whenever I have some free time, I plan to borrow that 4-novel collection again and read Slaughterhouse Five as well as Breakfast of Champions. I feel like I must read those novels at least before I can pass judgment on Vonnegut.