Alephantiasis

Certainly not. First, read and understand my research... then, try to label it. That's a solid methodology, you should stick to it.

Part of the grad-school experience is to expand your horizon. Fit is important, but if you're going to grad-school only to work on what you already know, I think you're making a mistake. Try to see an opportunity to learn from people outside of your comfort zone instead of worrying about fit... Now, if you think it's a problem and that no one is going competent enough to help you pursue your own interests, that's a different story.

You could have a look at UT Austin Comp Lit program. You shouldn't have any problem finding someone fitting your interests.

I suppose it depends on the department. I would keep the initial e-mail short and direct, unless instructed otherwise. The instructions you mentioned don't seem to serve the same purpose: it looks less personal, more official and unilateral than a casual academic conversation. It's a matter of feeling what the places you're interested in expect from you and how they think about prospective grad students. I tried the first, more personal, approach and it worked out just fine. My potential (at that time) adviser offered me a different perspective on my project and his feedback helped me to revise my statement of purpose. Exchanging with someone also tells you whether you'll like working with him or not. That's why I'd stick with the personal (and yet efficient) tone rather than the bland cover-letter, gpa, gre scores nonsense option, unless I know for sure that's expected.

You might want to have a look at that: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/advice/prospective.html

Since you're likely to study different theoretical schools, I'd suggest using the plural. Something along the lines of: Theories of literary and cultural criticism.

If you can succeed in a class just by reading and learning someone else's notes, it's not a very good class. Besides, I've never taken notes and I don't find it useful. As for being a case copyright infringement, I doubt it.

I assume you're talking about the European Graduate School in Switzerland. If that's the case, keep in mind that the application process is not comparable to that of the US. Saas Fee is an amazing place and the EGS is a very prestigious summer school. As for your second question, it all comes down to your abilities. If you think you can do it and if you can afford it, don't hesitate.

I've attended a number of schools both in the US and in Europe. I did my undergrad in a little known, unranked school. Now, I'm working towards my PhD in the archetype of the pretentious school. Everything is designed to give an impression of power and to inspire awe. However, people are really friendly, open-minded and welcoming. In my experience: the less elite the school, the more pretentious the people and vice versa.

You'll probably have to fill a "change of committee" form and have it signed by a bunch of people (past committee, new committee and director of your department). In any case, I'd suggest you notify everyone, not just the prof involved.

Of course, you can find a theory behind everything. The interesting question is: should theory be the focus of the enquiry? I understand why students should learn about theory: it's important and easier to look at a simplified, more abstract models of your object of study. However, a scholar embracing a particular theoretical stance is not only predictable, but also plain boring in my opinion. Read one post-colonial article and you've read them all. Applying the same post-colonial/feminist/marxist/... nonsense time and time again doesn't require any critical thinking whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, a well-trained monkey could do the same. "Theory" is obviously liberating: it frees the reader from the constraints of the text. Marxist theory has been applied to virtually everything... Was it always justified, never mind relevant? I very much doubt so. As for entertaining the uneducated crowd, it's always a pleasure.

I'm not convinced by the Norton passage you're quoting. First, I've never called myself an "antitheorist" and I don't know anyone who goes by that kind of label. I don't deny that everything can be abstracted into a theory, but it doesn't mean that everything should be theoretical in the first place. Do you know the anatomical mechanisms allowing you to walk? Probably not, and yet, you can walk... I don't study literature "for itself" either. As opposed to most theory-oriented scholars, I don't presupposes anything when I encounter a text. I might look at gender politics, but I won't assume that it's always the most pregnant characteristic of a given set of texts. I refuse to look through the same lenses over and over again because I think it's a waste of time. More generally, I'm not convinced that race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on, are the most crucial elements in apprehending a text. To sum up, I rely on observation and precise knowledge of the historical, social, literary, cultural, ... contexts of the work I'm studying; I promote clarity and I suggest a way to read a particular text (as opposed to applying the same reading to every texts I encounter). Am I anti-theoretical? Do I follow some sort of theory without knowing it? I don't know and I don't care. I would like people to take my first book and say: "it's a good book to read for whoever wants to study XXX" and not "it's a good [insert a theory] book." Finally, I believe that some people in the Humanities take themselves much too seriously... and I don't intend to do the same. I'm studying literature because I'm really good at it. Taking things to seriously is (at least to me) the sign of a weaker mind. Montaigne contradicts himself all the time and I believe he is smart enough to know that there isn't any definite answer to big problems. I'm doing all the heavy-lifting myself and I don't want any theorist to do half the job by providing a framework and limiting the scope of my enquiry.

Many of "the greats" were "people of faith" and so were (and still are) many scientists. John of the Cross' Dark Night of the Soul is one of the most amazing pieces of Spanish poetry. You certainly don't have to be a sixteenth-century Christian to appreciate his poetry and the relevance of his argument. I wonder if Hitchens ever read any of the so-called "creation or 'end of days' stories"... Neo-classical mysticism can be very mysterious, beautiful, enlightening, overwhelming and chaotic.

Actually, I'm not the only one who says that close-reading is almost a lost art: it's a fairly common phrase in certain academic circles. Please, everyone knows that deconstruction isn't very fashionable anymore. Of course, some theorists still do close-readings and some will carry on, hopefully. If Derrida is the most recent example of theoretical close-reader you can name, it means that it's a pretty neglected approach. Hopefully, the new trend in cognitive cultural studies will revive formalism and structuralism. How scary of me! Two Expressos: Since when traditionalism is considered as literary theory? Origin=Goal: Have you read La Bruyère's Caractères? You should at least read Acis.

I think critical theory is a very convoluted justification of ones incompetence in the lost art of close-reading: lots of big words to avoid talking about the actual words on the page. Please don't answer that I must belong to the general populace. Because of this kind of argumentation literary scholars often looks like pretentious idiots despising everyone who doesn't get it. The humanities and literature in particular can be very rigorous and there can be only one good answer: stylometry and authorial studies are a good example. Not everyone is doing post-colonial-neo-kantian-pre-marxist-freudian-feminism theory. Some of us still care about the text itself: we have our data, our methodology and our set of tools like any other scientists. Focusing on methodology isn't that bad, it's just useless if nobody ever apply it.