rems

Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions! I was skeptical of it because it seems like unnecessary use of page space. Next question, is anyone using a writing sample that is a part of larger piece and using an abstract? I'm pretty sure this is what I'm going to do with mine instead of using a cover letter, I think.

Yes, yes it is. Sorry about that -- I honestly didn't think before commenting! That is, as the cool kids say, my bad. Translated pieces will be on on the GRE Lit. Sorry for the confusion!

It was suggested to me the other day to include a cover letter with my writing sample. Is anyone else planning on doing this?

Actually, quoting "theory" can be done in translation, but if you were going to write a book on Foucault or your dissertation, then you must work with the original. Also, studying a piece of literature or text has to be done in the original language. That's why we have language requirements for a PhD in English Lit. Not trying to say it doesn't have its place, and that we shouldn't read translated pieces, but ever read an English written article on The Divine Comedy? The poem is quoted in Italian, the rest of the article is in English. Also, once you get to the publication level, even the edition from which you quote matters -- these things are very particular once you get into the "professional" levels of being an English scholar.

I agree that it should be asked, and that it's way too detailed a discussion to have over a forum. The only issue I had with mentioning it here is that a discussion of what is "good" literature has no place in this debate. I'm pretty sure we're essentially saying the same thing. This is obnoxious, and you're being antagonistic toward someone who is actually agreeing with you instead of moving the conversation forward. Not trying to pick a fight or anything, but it's really annoying when people throw out the "racist/antigay/antiwoman/ HUH????" card in an argument. I'm pretty sure I made a point NOT to do this to you earlier in this exact same conversation. So don't do it to me.

Email the department and ask what they prefer. Just explain: "I have a GPA that requires 2 decimal places, and your application only allows for one. In order to remain accurate, would you suggest I round up or round down to the nearest decimal?" So to answer the question, I don't know.

I don't think anyone is saying that the two fields have to be divided. Rather, that the two fields can be and those studies NOT focusing on sociological issues are still as valid as those that do. I even had a fellow grad student once say after a theory class that they thought semiotic theory was stupid, and when I asked why they responded, exactly: "Well I study queer theory which is, like, helping people who are discriminated against. But if you're, like, a semiotic expert how are you helping the world? What's the point?" I think the question we're evading here when it comes to philosophical and theoretical questions in narrative theory is: What's the point of it? It's easy to see the "point" of studies that focus on marginalized groups OR examine the dominate groups. Here's another example of the two issues we're facing: My Whitman prof told me in the 70's, when he was a grad student, his prof wouldn't say anything at all about sexuality in Whitman's poetry. We, graduate students, were all like, "Then how the hell do you study Whitman if you don't want to talk about sexuality?" And he replied, "You studied the poetic structures and shit." (He swears a lot.) So, is a service to the world at large to do a queer reading of Whitman? Absolutely. But is it also a service to the world to study the poetic structures? Absolutely. Can we combine the two and do a super study that would blow everyone's fucking minds? Totally. There is no "correct" school of thought -- all I'm trying to say that studies not focusing on sociological issues also have their place. I'm also pointing out that we are the cusp of civil rights in our society, so sociological studies are very important right now because that's what's important in our society right now. Call it a "trend," call it a "fad," call it "the word of god," whatever you want to call it, it's BIG right now. And it should be because we're only in the beginning of civil rights and equality for people who are white, rich dudes. BUT, when women, gays, and poor people are a part of the "canon" and no one remembers Harold Bloom, where is theory going then?

Change the word "literature" to "narrative" and I agree with TripWillis because anything can be deemed a "narrative" from which we can "read." However, when you start throwing around the word "literature," which has a subjective meaning, you might as well be asking what is "good literature" and what is not which is a fucking can of worms so big it encompasses the entire genre. You're right, there is no satisfying answer to this because there is no answer to the question. fist bump. Is it translated from French, despite the fact that Derrida was, in fact, Algerian, and there are multiple ways to translate. asleepawake's translation is not any more incorrect than your English translation because it's a TRANSLATION.

Yah, that's why I wish I had a better word for it -- I'm sure it exists but I don't know what to phrase it as exactly. In fact, "sociological theory" isn't even a thing, it was just the closest term I could find. What I mean by "theory" theory is for people who conduct close readings and apply semiotic or deconstructionism or linguistic theories or even genetic studies while staying completely away from feminist, queer, postcolonial, racial, socioeconomic, etc. theories. And culture and theory are absolutely tied together! But sometimes they aren't. I even study postcolonialism and gender so I'm way more in the cultural end of this field, I just think it's always worth questioning. I can also understand why it's irritating from a more "theory" theory point of view to be annoyed with the fact that when you aren't studying anything cultural people probably accuse you of not caring about marginalized or oppressed groups. Like everything in literature and the study of literature, there is no black and white -- just varying shades of grey. One of our jobs as critics is to constantly question our critiques, so playing "devil's advocate" even for something as obvious as why we study marginalized groups is always necessary or else we end up with too firm a paradigm... again.

I don't believe that theorists are waiting for the canon to come back in any way, but I do understand the frustration with not wanting to study the sociological aspects of literature but feeling forced to. I think that's how this whole thread started. Are there going to be marginalized groups 20 years from now? Shit, 200 years from now? Absolutely. I by no means am trying to say that I think all discrimination and our patriarchal system are going to be fixed by 2032. What I am saying is that studying sociological aspects of literature are very popular right now -- as they should be -- but that doesn't mean that, oh how I wish I had a better word for it, just "theory" theory doesn't still have it's place.

Yes, I think this is a good point. For lack of better term, I will admit that it's probably "easier" to get into programs if you study something more cultural than bare-bones theoretical. However, I think you may start to fall into line with Medievalists: there's usually about 1-3 per department whereas you can have anywhere form 10 + for modern or contemporary lit, esp. regarding intersections of queer or postcolonial studies. Long story short, you have your place, but it's harder to define, and it's harder to prove. But, I wonder, just how far can we push that side of theory? I think that's an interesting question to pose. We're on the cusp of civil rights and giving marginalized and suppressed voice their place. In fact, many of us are making a name for ourselves with it. However, are we going to eventually reach a point where we have no one else to stick up for? What happens in 20 years when we can't find any more marginalized groups? Where will theory go then? I don't want to sound like a jerk with all this, but I think it's worth considering. I also don't mean to totally derail this thread which really has nothing to do with this, but here we are, again.

Is it legal to do that? I know little to nothing about the law surrounding this, but that seems strange to me. I guess maybe they're just curious about it, or maybe it's for statistical purposes. I can't imagine it would keep you out.

I only have one school asking for this (Stanford, ek), and I've been wondering the same question. They might just be interested for varying reasons, but I'm a little worried that they might want to see it to assure that you're not a better fit somewhere else. Like, if your primary focus is one field, and they are a good fit, but another program is a better fit, they might reject you assuming you should go there... I think I'm being totally paranoid about this.

Well yah, you're a blade runner.

This absolutely. I took the test last year, bombed it, and decided not to apply to schools that require it. In the 11th hour, I've decided to apply to one that does require it. It's too late to take it again, but my scores were abysmal. We're talking 52% abysmal (cold sweat breaks out just typing that number). I had one really nice and optimistic prof tell me that the important thing is I took the test, and I scored above 10%. I also already have a MA in English Literature where I have a good array of survey classes demonstrating my ability to read literature outside of my field... She's just trying to be nice. I know the truth about this score. I'm still going to apply because I don't want to say wouldacouldshouda my whole life, and, hey, I was just gonna spend that $125 application fee on booze anyway, so why not? But I'm fully aware that I'm doomed. DOOMED I SAY. Oh life, why you no easy?

Yah I'm guessing this is a definite email situation. I already emailed a program once to ask about length and they responded "2 pages." I didn't want to email them back and annoy them asking if that meant double or single spaced, so I posted here instead, and then emailed them back anyway. Still haven't heard back from them -- great, I've upset the administrative assistant.

Quick Question: If a department website doesn't specify if a SOP should be single or double spaced, should we assume it should be double spaced? Or should we email and check?

Love it.

I think you raise an interesting question here. And I wouldn't say that other disciplines have a "better grasp" exactly, but they think they have easier parameters in which to measure progress. Like, it's probably "progress" that we're moving towards an affordable vaccine for HIV. But is is "progress" that we've now developed literary theories that explore the cultural implications of disabled Native American veterans? From a purely cultural standpoint, definitely. But from a theoretical standpoint? I'm not so sure. I think we're, honestly, moving away from more "theoretical" fields of theory (think something like semiotics) and into more sociological fields on literature. Click through the faculty list at any top 20 school, and you'll see 15 people +++ who have "queer studies," "postcolonial," or "transnational" as a listed interest. These fields are exploding because literature studies are moving away from isolated close readings and into more cultural/sociological studies. This is, of course, not the end all end all of literary theory. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're asking how do we determine which of these new" fields of theoretical inquiry are legit, and how do we determine that? We don't have clear cut lines as the sciences -- that's what makes us English. And it's ironic, kinda, because we have all the words! And we can't even seem to figure out how to use them in order to come up with effective definition. Damn ambiguity.

That's totally legit -- that's the point of intellectual discussion. I see what you're saying here, and I agree that it's not self evident. I didn't mean to imply that all theory in literature progresses the field forward. More along the lines of what I meant was that I believe theory doesn't stand alone -- it typically came from somewhere and it's moving something. Does this apply to every single theoretical field in literary studies? Of course not. But take post-structuralism for instance: It's not a breakthrough field anymore, but it's certainly not irrelevant. To be a literary student, particularly one who studies theory, you have to be aware of the schools of thought that came before. For example, if you want to study Derrida you might want to know something about phenomenology and so on. I believe it's incorrect to state that a field is "dead" or a "fad." Some are, of course, but most still have their place in the field. You never know what literary theory will look like in 50 years. All I meant by this statement is that a study of the combination of these two marginalized groups seems like a progression to me. I know little to nothing about the actual field so I cannot attest to its merit as an intellectually engaging endeavor of literary theory, but I would hope for the sake of humanity that we study BQS the same way that 70 years ago we have hoped that women's literature was considered part of the canon eventually. As I stated before, I have nothing to back this up besides I think black queer studies is another step forward in humanity if not only the humanities. Sort of like how Laura Mulvey's work on the male gaze is no longer considered relevant, but if you want to study film theory let along literary theory you probably want to know her work. Perhaps B.Q.S. will be in the same way in 30 years. I don't mean to sound like a super PC dick or whatever or make you sound like an asshole by screaming " Are you saying you hate marginalized groups, huh?!" in order to evade my own inabilities to answer the questions. Rather, I don't have any "criteria for a critico-theoretical apparatus," rather I was just commenting on how I don't think that field is a "fad" and it's dismissive to suggest as much. But, let me ask you this: How would you define these fields? What is making you disagree with my statements?

I mention it a lot in my sop, and I leave it not capitalized. I just write "literary theory" just like that. My thesis adviser told me to just call it this, and the adcom will know what I'm talking about and/or what I'm referring to... Hopefully.

FINALLY heard back. Cut and pasted from email: "There are no specific requirements about length and format of the statements." There you have it folks.

Theory and study in literature doesn't end -- it progresses forward. Poststructuralism has simply turned itself into many different fields. Are you going to be able to write a book on poststructuralism and get it published at this point? Probably not, but you do have to understand what it is and where it comes from. Same thing the more social fields. Does "B.Q.S." have its place in the canon and is not just a "fab"? Absolutely, but it will lend itself to the next field of study so students in the next 10 years will see the progression of said theory instead of just seeing the theory as stand alone.

One of my letters writers just got her PhD there in 2006 (so fairly recent info), and I'm applying as there as well. She told me that funding is not guaranteed and they do what a lot of state schools do: Bring in the students they want with funding, bring in second tier students with no funding. At the lower state level (like where Colorado is), this is how they make a lot of their money: people paying for PhD's. She told me to watch out for this because if a program really wants you, they'll give you funding. If they accept you with no funding, then you were pretty much rejected and are now only a money maker.