I'm sure that you are a bright and capable person. That being said, if the only contact I ever had with you was this SOP, I would think that you are absolutely not ready for grad school. I'm sure that you can do much better, and I don't mean that you *actually* aren't ready for grad school, just that in this case you come across as very unprepared.
First off:
Do not, do not, do NOT use this anecdote. High school should be irrelevant at your stage of the game, and a story about a bad teacher you had when you were 18 doesn't tell adcoms anything about who you are as a scholar now.
Deconstructing the word 'text' sounds like a cool undergrad discussion to have, but it really is terribly cliched. Deconstruction has been done to death. Also, deconstruction is a serious challenge to structuralism, which is what Saussure inaugurated. You can't deconstruct anything in a Saussurean fashion. (And 'in a Sassurian fashion' is both a typo and a dangling modifier.) Besides, Saussure has been dead and gone for decades upon decades. His insight that signifiers are arbitrary will be incredibly old news to every professor on the adcom. The fact that signifiers are arbitrary absolutely does not mean that "a valid common definition cannot be coined". Saussure believed that communities determine meaning. He believed that meaning changes with use, but believed in meaning. This section says incorrect things about largely irrelevant ideas. Best case scenario, you run the risk of boring them with this section. Worst case scenario, you run the risk of looking out of date and ill-informed.
English scholars might not like hearing language referred to as 'superficial'.
'Coerced' and 'oversight' are both mis-used here, and you the referent of 'which' is unclear--I know it refers to the expectations, but it sounds like it refers to the oversight.
Again, not an interesting idea. This has been discussed ad infinitum decades ago.
Frankly, this all makes you sound uncommitted, and like you've sacrificed depth for the sake of breadth. I get the sense that you've studied a lot of different things, but there's no coherent thread through them. Your thesis topic is one that gets chosen a lot by people who are dabblers and want to do a little kids lit, a little medieval, a little film, a little 20th C... you need to really work to show that you're doing something rigorous and inventive with this topic, since at first glance it looks... well... fluffy.
Giving a more detailed version of your argument would help. The insight that the film is different than the book is obvious. How is it different? To what end? What have key critics said about the process of adaptation, and how are you building on them or challenging them? Your account of your thesis is very vague right now. If you only have a vague concept about where it's going right now, then maybe this is not the time to apply for grad school.
Doing graduate level research should be primarily about contributing to an ongoing critical discussion. Following your own interests is part of that, of course, but it shouldn't be the only reason you want to go. Saying that you want to explore your interests won't convince anyone to fund your studies. It sounds solipsistic.
Your topic is way too broad here. Twentieth century British literature? Which? What decade? Pre-war? Post-war? What genre? Critical theory is also a huge, huge field with a complex history and about a kazillion schools of thought. You need focus--this could cover anything from a post-structuralist Marxist reading of P.G. Wodehouse to a formalist linguistic project on... I dunno. One of the other bazillion British authors from the 20th C.
If you're applying for an Old and Middle English program, you need to mention which old and middle English authors and texts you want to work with. The fact that Tolkien picks up on some old tropes does not change the fact that your undergrad thesis is about a 20th C adaptation of a 20th C book. You need to prove that you can work with medieval texts.
Graduate TA programs are not unique, and I'm sure that there are other schools with similar academics. This sounds over the top.
You need to get in contact with any professors who support you, like your letter writers, and talk to them about grad school. Tell them why you want to go, and what you want to work on, and explicitly ask them if they think your proposed topic is feasible. Ask for suggestions about how to focus your ideas. Then get to the library, and do a preliminary lit review of the key elements of your proposal. Read what academics are writing NOW, as in during the past 5-10 years, on your areas of interest. Find a niche that hasn't been covered yet, and make it your own. I think these two steps of prep work are absolutely necessary if you're going to get this in shape.
This is probably the harshest critique I've written on this site. I hope that it doesn't come across as mean-spirited, and that it helps somewhat. I'd just hate to tell you polite half-compliments when I really do think that you need to put a lot more work into this. I sincerely wish you good luck in forming your goals.
I am currently making a list of my top 20 grad schools to apply to - I am interested in MA,PhD English Programs or MFA Creative Writing Programs. Some schools have very poor websistes and are more than mysterious about their funding - often not even mentioning if assistantships, grants, etc are an option, let alone any details about them.
The potential financial aid package is a huge deciding factor on where I am going to apply, so I was wondering if it would be considered appropriate to contact the departments I am interested in even before applying and inquring about their funding opportunities? As always, discussions about money can easily be interpreted as rude or "focusing on the wrong thing" and I want to make sure I am not making a misguided move.
