My new home

[Strong Flat White]

Dear people who visit this disciplinary forum:

I live here now, with you, cohabiting this space, peacefully coexisting. Just moved in from IR-land. I have switched fields. Officially. As of, I guess, today. Branwen daughter of Llyr has already welcomed me to the neighborhood, baked me some cookies, if you will.

Um, I'm a little shy, don't really know what I'm doing, and I am likely to get lost. Plus I have a funny accent. Please don't make fun of me. Tread gently. This is my way of coping with rejection and I have a lot of questions!

Cheers,

Newbie

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Dear people who visit this disciplinary forum:

I live here now, with you, cohabiting this space, peacefully coexisting. Just moved in from IR-land. I have switched fields. Officially. As of, I guess, today. Branwen daughter of Llyr has already welcomed me to the neighborhood, baked me some cookies, if you will.

Um, I'm a little shy, don't really know what I'm doing, and I am likely to get lost. Plus I have a funny accent. Please don't make fun of me. Tread gently. This is my way of coping with rejection and I have a lot of questions!

Cheers,

Newbie

Ennzedd accents aren't as funny as South African accents, just so you know (and they're not HALF as funny as Scottish accents... sorry, Glasgow folks!). I've never been to NZ - but a really good friend of mine moved there a few years ago, and I've been dying to go. Do you feel so comfortable in Boulder due to the similarity to the Southern Alps or something? (just teasing LOL).

Welcome!

[diehtc0ke]

/wave.

You'll find this forum rather friendly and helpful. Are there any initial questions you're dying to have answered? (and why the switch if you don't mind me asking?)

[Pamphilia]

Ah! You come from Aotearoa? Sweet as.

[Strong Flat White]

Ennzedd accents aren't as funny as South African accents, just so you know (and they're not HALF as funny as Scottish accents... sorry, Glasgow folks!). I've never been to NZ - but a really good friend of mine moved there a few years ago, and I've been dying to go. Do you feel so comfortable in Boulder due to the similarity to the Southern Alps or something? (just teasing LOL).

Welcome!

Sorry, all - I spent time in NZ, yes, but my accent joke wasn't to imply that I'm actually Kiwi.  I was just trying to be overly literal.  You know, now that I'm a literature guy and all!  But yes, I do think there is a strong affinity between the cultures and geographies of the Rockies and NZ's southern alps!  For sure, and thanks for the welcome.

[Strong Flat White]

/wave.

You'll find this forum rather friendly and helpful. Are there any initial questions you're dying to have answered? (and why the switch if you don't mind me asking?)

Thanks, I've actually dug through a lot of GRE subject questions already with Llyr, which has been helpful, and now I guess I'm thinking ahead to the discipline itself.  As in, what can I import from my previous field?  In IR, I studied nationalism.  I think that could dovetail nicely with the Romantics or even post-colonialism, possibly some other -isms.  Ideas?  Another one is that in IR, I had this idea that I could reconcile the realist and idealist critical theories, and I think a similar thing could be applied in Lit, but I'm way too far out of my league to know what that would look like, yet.  Ideas?  You know, big picture stuff...

As for the switch, it is a play to my strengths and away from my weaknesses in an area that I do truly love.  I'm only just now getting brave enough, after demoralizing IR rejection, to tackle it.  Strangely, I feel that I have a better shot at entering PhD programs in a field in which I have zero credits, as opposed to the field where I have a masters.  Crazy, eh?  But the thing is, I actually feel it to be true.

I hasten to add that the last statement in no way implies any feelings on my part that Lit is a lesser discipline; just the opposite.  It's just a weird scenario that this should turn out to be this way for me.  Personally, I'm miffed at my former field for its pretensions and snobbery.  They think (and I can say this, because I used to be one of them) that they are scientists.  As a good lit guy, I recognize that the "science" in political science is figurative, or at most an obvious reference to science.  I don't have much patience for the behavioralists over there.  And since the whole field is moving that direction, it's time for me to move on.

[Strong Flat White]

Ah! You come from Aotearoa? Sweet as.

Ha!  Yes, sweet as and kia ora, mate!

Again coming clean -- not actually Kiwi, just a very appreciative American who got his masters over there.

[Strong Flat White]

Ah! You come from Aotearoa? Sweet as.

That beached whale clip -- I work in a study abroad office and I've actually shown this to my NZ-bound students!  It's a riot.  But what's funny is, they don't get it till they've been there.  "And back."  Like hobbits to that magical middle earth.

[bluellie]

IR to Lit? Excellent. Do you think it would be possible to go the other way, from Lit to IR? Or what sort of related but non-IR field could blend nicely with IR?

[artist_lily]

IR to Lit? Excellent. Do you think it would be possible to go the other way, from Lit to IR? Or what sort of related but non-IR field could blend nicely with IR?

I second bluellie's response! I've got a B.A. in English and Government and as the rejections are streaming in this season, I often debate whether I would have had a better go of it over there in the political "science" (/Strong Flat White) world

[Strong Flat White]

I second bluellie's response! I've got a B.A. in English and Government and as the rejections are streaming in this season, I often debate whether I would have had a better go of it over there in the political "science" (/Strong Flat White) world

To Bluellie and Artist_Lilly, yes, I definitely think going the other way is feasible.  No subject test, for starters, but definitely a lot more emphasis on quantitative aptitude.  Besides that, though, I think it's your standard prove-your-serious-and-get-eligible routine.  I was informed of a director of graduate admissions that my lack of publications hurt my application a lot (DU, Josef Korbel school of International Studies).  I also think that it helps to move away from a purely philosophical methodology and embrace a certain premise; for example, you're a huge proponent of human rights and have therefore worked with multilateral international law orgs and helped start water treatment plants in sub-Saharan Africa.  It's all about practitioners changing the world these days, not about the actual study of how the liberal-realist international society actually interacts.  Straight academic accuity seems to count for less if you haven't machete'd your way through some guerrilla-laden jungle.  

Sure, there is some pessimism there, but I think if you read their admissions blog and talk to their director, you'll see what I mean.  Still, if you get your theoretical base and start with an MA, then I think a PhD is definitely within the realm of cross-over feasibility.  Good luck!

[Strong Flat White]

... Or what sort of related but non-IR field could blend nicely with IR?

Well, literature, for sure.  They are both disciplines that (in my view) are best done by applying critical theory to the world of literature or politics.  Also, anthropology, especially where identity - as in identity politics, comes into play.  As a purist, I believe that IR is a subset of political science, but as I've alluded to, it's less and less pure with fewer people subscribing to this.  Now everyone just wants to call it "multidisciplinary."  Economics and history and law (international law) are also obvious tie-ins.  Social psychology.  And, lastly, I'd say a very strong tie-in with philosophy, especially for political theory (from Plato and Aristotle through to Kant, etc...).

[callmelilyb]

Hello! I am an IR transplant myself (though only my BA in IR, with a minor in English) and have been successful getting into PhD programs in English Literature this application round. I think having a different background worked in my favor and of course my area of interest directly relates to the things I studied in IR as an undergrad. I too, worked on nationalism, but the bulk of my research and interests were in immigration history/policy, theories of assimilation and acculturation/accommodation, and subaltern studies. So my interests are in immigrant narratives, migrant literature, subaltern studies, bilingualism, discourses of mestzaje, post-nationalism, blah blah blah.

I think an IR background lends itself quite well to some of the major trends in literature...questions of globalization, identity, ethnicity, of course postcolonial lit/theory, subaltern studies, national identity, social, ethnic, cultural and critical race theory, etc. etc.

I'd start with poco stuff if I was you (in the way of Spivak, Bhabha, Said, etc.) and I think you'll find a lot of interplay exists between the two fields. I'd also look into transatlanticism.

Do you have any foreign language skills? If so you might want to look into Comp Lit, which lends itself quite nicely to incorporating other fields...although I feel like the trend in most English Lit programs these days is toward a "comp lit" interdisciplinary methodology.

For one example of a recent book that blends IR and Literature take a look at Joseph Slaughter's "Human Rights, Inc." in which he demonstrates that the twentieth-century rise of "world literature" and international human rights law are related phenomena. Just an example of the type of work you/I could undertake by blending the two fields.

Hope this helps! And welcome!

[Strong Flat White]

Hello! I am an IR transplant myself (though only my BA in IR, with a minor in English) and have been successful getting into PhD programs in English Literature this application round. I think having a different background worked in my favor and of course my area of interest directly relates to the things I studied in IR as an undergrad. I too, worked on nationalism, but the bulk of my research and interests were in immigration history/policy, theories of assimilation and acculturation/accommodation, and subaltern studies. So my interests are in immigrant narratives, migrant literature, subaltern studies, bilingualism, discourses of mestzaje, post-nationalism, blah blah blah.

I think an IR background lends itself quite well to some of the major trends in literature...questions of globalization, identity, ethnicity, of course postcolonial lit/theory, subaltern studies, national identity, social, ethnic, cultural and critical race theory, etc. etc.

I'd start with poco stuff if I was you (in the way of Spivak, Bhabha, Said, etc.) and I think you'll find a lot of interplay exists between the two fields. I'd also look into transatlanticism.

Do you have any foreign language skills? If so you might want to look into Comp Lit, which lends itself quite nicely to incorporating other fields...although I feel like the trend in most English Lit programs these days is toward a "comp lit" interdisciplinary methodology.

For one example of a recent book that blends IR and Literature take a look at Joseph Slaughter's "Human Rights, Inc." in which he demonstrates that the twentieth-century rise of "world literature" and international human rights law are related phenomena. Just an example of the type of work you/I could undertake by blending the two fields.

Hope this helps! And welcome!

This is great! I'll take a look at those recommendations. Did you go straight from an IR BA to PhD in English, or do you have another degree tucked in there somewhere?

[callmelilyb]

This is great! I'll take a look at those recommendations. Did you go straight from an IR BA to PhD in English, or do you have another degree tucked in there somewhere?

I'll be going straight from a BA in IR to a PhD program in English this Fall. I had actually only finished up half my English minor at the time that I applied to programs. I think coming from this kind of background makes the SOP even more important -- you've got to make some sort of claim for why the non-English baskground you've got has prepared you to undertake advanced study in your new field. Not sure that I did the greatest job of this myself but I think it's a different kind of SOP than traditional English majors/English MA-holders would write. As I mentioned I think there's a big move toward interdisciplinarity in the field at most major programs so as long as you've got the rest of your credentials lined up I think it's actually a plus to be coming from a different field! One of the other people on the forum right now that's been wildly successful at getting into major programs double majored in Economics....definitely makes you stand out in a crowd of 500 applications when 450 of them are English majors.

[Strong Flat White]

Next question from the novice: what intro books should I start w/, if I want to get a jump on theory and analysis before the fall semester? Any good recommendations out there?

[callmelilyb]

Next question from the novice: what intro books should I start w/, if I want to get a jump on theory and analysis before the fall semester? Any good recommendations out there?

Lots of people will probably chime in here with different opinions.

If by "Intro" you mean a good way to get a quick and understandable survey of the major schools of literary theory (to see what interests you) then I'd highly recommend Jonathan Culler's "Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction." Very straightforward and easy to understand.

If you're looking for something more in depth then the good ol' "Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism" is always a good place to start.

Personally, I use "The Critical Tradition" ed. by Richter.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Next question from the novice: what intro books should I start w/, if I want to get a jump on theory and analysis before the fall semester? Any good recommendations out there?

Well, this: Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays is a good survey of the methods applied until 1957 (and he is an EXCELLENT writer).

Also, Critical theory since Plato by Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle is a good book for a general survey of the most influential critical literary theories in western civ. Doesn't go deep, but goes wide - excellent for a first time exposure.

For my subject GRE studies, I'm using Penguin's Dictionary of Literary Terms and Theory - they also have a Dictionary of critical theory - worth a buy - very comprehensive

[Strong Flat White]

Lots of people will probably chime in here with different opinions.

If by "Intro" you mean a good way to get a quick and understandable survey of the major schools of literary theory (to see what interests you) then I'd highly recommend Jonathan Culler's "Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction." Very straightforward and easy to understand.

If you're looking for something more in depth then the good ol' "Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism" is always a good place to start.

Personally, I use "The Critical Tradition" ed. by Richter.

Gracias!  I saw Culler's on Amazon and it got better reviews than most... the Norton looks brickish but worthwhile for what I'm trying to do (as you say, a survey of the major schools of literary theory), and if since you have a personal favorite I'll look at that, too.  (Could get pricey!)

[Strong Flat White]

Well, this: Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays is a good survey of the methods applied until 1957 (and he is an EXCELLENT writer).

Also, Critical theory since Plato by Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle is a good book for a general survey of the most influential critical literary theories in western civ. Doesn't go deep, but goes wide - excellent for a first time exposure.

For my subject GRE studies, I'm using Penguin's Dictionary of Literary Terms and Theory - they also have a Dictionary of critical theory - worth a buy - very comprehensive

I like the idea of "since Plato," since I really do want to know about the entire development of the field, and not just the recent development.  Also, wide but not deep sounds good for the GRE subject test... and your distinction, lastly, between Penguin's "literary terms and theory" vs. "critical theory" brings me to my next newbie question:

Criticism vs. analysis: a subtle difference in "theory?"  It seems like it, but (until I read one of these recommendations) I can't seem to find a formal distinction... obviously I can use my context clues and I have a hunch, but there does seem to be an awful lot of overlap and/or confusion.  What say you all to that? 

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I like the idea of "since Plato," since I really do want to know about the entire development of the field, and not just the recent development. Also, wide but not deep sounds good for the GRE subject test... and your distinction, lastly, between Penguin's "literary terms and theory" vs. "critical theory" brings me to my next newbie question:

Criticism vs. analysis: a subtle difference in "theory?" It seems like it, but (until I read one of these recommendations) I can't seem to find a formal distinction... obviously I can use my context clues and I have a hunch, but there does seem to be an awful lot of overlap and/or confusion. What say you all to that?

Hrm. That is a good question. Analysis can be just "close reading" and such (i.e. analyzing text, subtext, etc.). Critical Theory is more of a framework using other fields (i.e. psychological theory - the leading theorists based their ideas on Freud and Jung, and of course, Marxist theory - the leading theorists based their ideas on Marx, class struggle, etc.). so Theory is something already "developed" that you use to analyze a text. However - even "close reading" has evolved from literary theory (although you don't use "outside" references for it) - New Criticism is all about close reading.

For example, in Anatomy of Criticism, Frye uses a few theories to analyze several passages of The Faerie Queene. (and yes, he developed some theories on his own, as well). The borders get somewhat blurry when you develop a theory and then use it to analyze a text (Howard Bloom does that).

It can get confusing. so don't worry to much about the distinction between the two, and just get the terminology straight Plenty of time to delve into the nuances in a literary theory class!

[Strong Flat White]

Plenty of time to delve into the nuances in a literary theory class!

Good call. I look forward to that.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Good call. I look forward to that.

Of course... I meant HAROLD Bloom, not Howard. Silly Branwen! Silly! Misspelling her favorite popular critical theorist!

[Strong Flat White]

Of course... I meant HAROLD Bloom, not Howard. Silly Branwen! Silly! Misspelling her favorite popular critical theorist!

I saw a Harold Bloom reference when I picked up a GRE subject test prep book (Kaplan, I believe) and skimmed their 3-page overview of critical theory. It's good to know that starting totally from scratch, one can still get the framework, vocab, and big names under one's feet. By fall classes, I hope to be halfway fluent. I think I'm on pace.