Origin=Goal

Now there is some sanity! I'm really glad to hear this process has been as grueling for other folks as its been for me...especially for those of us who are writing finals, writing/grading papers, trying to graduate, etc.

@ vordhosbntwin Great Adorno quote (though that seems to deal more so with the famous disjuncture between the dialectic and the "untrue," totalizing system Hegel intended to superimpose over his method). For me the prize goes to Heidiegger though for me much post-structuralist thought (pace Derrida) is obfuscated language-fetishism.

I third the French/German recommendation (especially the former), but seen important fairy tales/fables that fall under the category of "Chiildren's Lit" in Arabic, Japanese, Farsi, Danish (a la Hans Christian Anderson)...

@ rawere: Impressive discipline, but I'm not one to buy into the myth of scarcity

If they are substantially late you have to write to whoever hung you out to dry and diplomatically tell them they *need* to write to the DGS of the programs whose deadlines have past. This is the only way (from personal experience) to try to remedy late letters and the possibility of getting your app tossed (though most programs are flexible with these things). It's not only an important part of their job to make sure the recommendations they agree to write get there as promised, but an immensely immoral breach of conduct to not do so, IMO.

Only three applications in and I'm spent! A couple really good people at Duke (just submitted two hours ago), though I'm not as floored with most of the Romance Studies dept

Similar situation is unfolding here, as two of my recommenders have yet to begin their letters assuming there is an implicit grace period. Unfortunately several of the department heads I contacted today have said otherwise (i.e. they need to be in by the first or else)! Anyone have any insight into this? Most of the schools are UCs.

This is the most humbling process I've ever engaged in. Getting feedback and criticism from seasoned scholars and professors on every aspect of this consistently forces you to realize "No, you are not the shit." Every word matters, every sentence must fit into the well-thought out and structured whole, much to my continuous frustration I feel like 'm never clear, concise or concrete enough. Guess that means I'm doing it right...

I have four letters and will be submitting as many to nearly all programs. I've yet to see an app that says "no more than three" and I can't imagine four strong letters will at all harm my chances.

I'm following the same route as the OP and I've heard this advice a lot. But I have to say that adequately summarizing a 60 page thesis and contextualizing a 10-15 page extract so as to render it comprehensible is easier said than done, especially "briefly." I doubt I could do so in less than 2-3 pages.

I was excited to see this topic pop up, but I agree that quasi-plagiarism is a serious matter...I was especially taken aback by how the OP, in addition to being unable to formulate a summary of Marx's critique, also asked what his opinion should be on assessing his success/failure! Asking how to think is the most un-Marxian thing I've heard in a long time.

Your still supposed to tie in the autobiographical details, experiences, etc to your academic interests; maybe also a little bit about why you think your research is relevant to non-academic areas (if it is) and how you would enrich the current program (especially if you have a unique personal perspective such as being an immigrant or an ethnic minority)

I'd be happy to participate in a mutual critique (all the more so as we seem to have similar interests, as far as theory goes), send me a PM.

If that info fills up enough space, I think you covered the important parts (obviously, in addition to where/when you graduated, degree info, contact info, etc). I'm also listing relevant courses for a few classes whose content can't be understood with quick reference to the transcript (i.e. certain seminars and two grad courses)

If you're looking for a masters program, I'd apply to this one: http://www.schoolofvisualarts.edu/adm/index.jsp?sid0=4&sid1=58 It looks pretty innovative and Robert Hullot-Kentor is on faculty(!)

It sounds to me like you're doing Comp Lit programs. If this is the case many of the "Language History" sections or on supplemental forms have space for "other" comments where you could mention your private Latin Study and Spanish fluency; others will have space to list two native languages (though some don't). Each varies app to app, but I feel like most will have a space where you could note both extenuating circumstances without having to bury this important information in your CV (from the ones I've seen so far, Berkeley for instance has an area where you could include both). The most important thing really is your reading and writing ability in the second language, so if fluency in this manner is not an issue you should make sure they know about it (esp. if it accords with your research interests). Worst comes to worst, shoot a concise email to the DGS or a POI, its not against the rules

I don't think that's poor form at all, two months in advance seems like plenty of notice to me; I'd email the potential substitute reader now, especially since it is either early on in the semester (or if you're on the quarter system, which hasn't even begun yet, even better). I'd probably still send an email to Prof. X, as I doubt your decision will be either a big deal or offensive in the slightest, as it seems like she is pretty busy with her own work at the moment. Good luck!

You might be right in terms of larger trends, empirically speaking I haven't found that to be the case--I've taken more than a handful of courses where it serves as a primary mode of analysis (frustrating as it might be sometimes, having read the rest of a difficult text, e.g. Dialectic of Enlightenment, and only discuss a few paragraphs). Deconstruction as such has fallen out of favor since the early 1990's (the "de Man affair"), but I was referring to the amalgam of Derrida-influenced (granted, among other) forms of criticism that serve as the primary methods of contemporary currents of postcolonial and third-wave feminism theory (Homni Bhabha, Spivak, Butler, as well much of the modern school of Latin American cultural studies; they may not close readers in the vein of an I.A. Richards, but in derivative, post structural schools close reading lives on). I actually come said theoretical approaches more often than alternatives, maybe its a matter of being in different fields. Regarding the cognitive approaches to literature, yes, many seem undesirable in my view; I actually agree with you in the sense that "Theory" often spirals beyond the plane of its object of analysis, and thus its own usefulness. We just diverge in the ways this should be remedied. No, sadly I'm unfamiliar with many works from the French tradition (especially pre-Rousseau), I've been a little parochial in sticking primarily to the mid-19th century on; thank you, I'll add it to my short list.

Restaurant Savant

Bumping this topic. For anyone concerned reading page two will save a lot of time.

There will also be PLENTY of time for theoretical excursuses. I always go by my interest in the reading list coupled with the professor and his/her approach. But fullfilling degree requirements is also an important factor: don't lest us be the reason for your having to take a 5th year

I don't disagree you with you in one sense, as it seems to me like a LOT of the theory has strayed from rigorous, grounded necessity into the "bad infinity" of pure abstraction. For me, this occurs with the rise of post-structuralism, which in transmitting social material and as well as aesthetics into purely discursive or textual realms (a la Foucault and late Barthes/Derrida) results, for me, in a hyper-abstract form of idealism, whereby and political negativity and rigorous historical grounding give way to subversion (the sine qua non of apolitical politics) and "blurring lines." Theory as a monolithic category, is useless and even obfuscating when bandied around without concerns to the specific problematic for its application (which "grounds" it or renders it necessary) and a more precise notion of which "Theory" is the methodology in question; examining a text "theoretically" is itself a meaningless tautology. However,Alephantiasis, your glib, cantankerous jabs at the empty of babbling... who exactly? Is it after Kant that academic undergoes its fall from paradise you so ably show? If so, are positing Kant as the solution to your exhortation against the "incompotence" of the non-close (far?) readers (this is laugable for anyone slightly familiar with how difficult and abstract his concepts/system is)? Your proselytizing of the "lost art" of close readings is mis-informed, like two espressos pointed out; there are just as many was to become hyper-abstract from a close reading as there are from any others (it seems like your contradicting yourself as sticking closer to the text, which should ground all aspects of its analysis, would imply a holistic, including thematic reading, rather than simply a close reading, which can lead to various types of formalism; haven't you read Eagleton's Literary Theory?) Finally, the high road you take as a "scientist" with your own "methodologies and set of tools", while I'm sure is only meant as a metaphor to show your rigorous engagement with the text and the historical context it exists in, has a scary resonance in an era when scientific positivism has brought cognitive approaches to literature (which makes me a bit uneasy, quite honesty). I understand criticism of the loose-baggy (not to say potentially ideological) monster that "Theory" has become, as you alluded to; but I think its criticism and qualification (bringing it out of the purely abstract stratosphere) is more important than its rejection en masse, which, if this position is not merely an exaggerated form of the criticism I just referenced, will at best lead back the formalism of New American Criticism.

Hi cafeomuerte, My emphasis is Latin American (particularly Spanish language) lit. I've been researching the Spanish departments of the comp lit. programs I'm interested in, and I was curious what about Brown's program makes it so exceptional, in your opinion? I'm not arguing the contrary, just curious if they have a particular reputation I'm not aware of; I couldn't help but notice that they only have three tenured faculty members and 1 TT professor in the department (only one of which is involved with the Comp Lit core). It seems to me that the Portuguese/Lusophone studies department (which I had heard of-- I hope to go into to Portuguese as my secondary) easily eclipses the former in terms of resources, reputation, etc, is this incorrect?

Props on this one, definitely a lit-lover's title; still working on the title of my writing sample, which will be part of a current project. On another note this thread gave me the masochistic urge to find my worst-titled paper: although I might have an even worse ace up my sleeve, for now the prize goes to an essay I wrote on Benito Galdos last year entitled "La Moralidad de la clase media: la ética y lo capital en El Torquemada en la hoguera" if, for nothing else, the sheer unimaginativeness of my translation of the famous GB Shaw quote

Not me, for better or worse I've always been brazenly vocal in class...when I think back on some of the things I said in my first graduate level course, which I took when I was a freshman---wait, I'd rather not think about it!