Hailing all Medievalists

[Medievalmaniac]

In terms of who can be on your dissertation committee - it's standard to have 4/5, I think, and one of them HAS to be an outside, PhD-holding scholar (which is why conferencing is so useful - meeting professors from all over who might be willing to sit on your dissertation committee). Every university has what is called "tenure track" faculty and then adjuncts, lecturers, and the like. Most of the time, tenure track faculty are also on the graduate faculty, and are therefore eligible to serve as dissertation committee members. Ideally, obviously, at least one professor on your committee should be a full prof, but you can certainly have an associate professor as the dissertation advisor. As an MA student, I had only assistant professors sit my thesis committee, because they were the only professors available to me (the department was in the process of changing over and it happened that none of the older scholars worked in anything like my field). Since they were tenure track, and none were up for review when I was completing my thesis, this was acceptable. It certainly depends on how long the professor has before review, though - you would NOT want to have an assistant professor on your diss. comm. who is up for tenure before you defend, if you can humanly help it, unless it is absolutely certain that person is getting tenure. I do not know what the rule is for having an assistant professor as your dissertation advisor, although now I think I'll have to look that up because it's an interesting question.

[Medievalmaniac]

<br /><br /><br />

You guys should check out the Journal Postmedieval. It just came out with its first issue (published by routledge I believe...). One of my undergrad profs co-edits it, and she is the best medievalist I know. I doubled in the whole english thing...

It's incredibly expensive for someone who doesn't use postmodern theory often; while the articles are interesting, this journal has been somewhat divisive in the medieval studies field - theorists love it, and purists hate it. The problem, of course, is that Joy and Cohen are involved, and since there are few (no?) scholars who don't personally like them both, it becomes dicey; no one wants to criticize the journal because they would like to see it succeed for the sake of the people involved in it. For my part, the articles are interesting, and I'm glad to read them; but overall, this is not an area of study that either interests me or influences my thinking in a positive or productive fashion. I don't think it's a bad idea to check it out, especially if you aren't familiar with current modes of thought being employed in medieval studies, because it can certainly help to frame the new theoretical paradigms for people who haven't worked with them. In my case, I prefer the more established theoretical models, if I have to use theory at all (which I avoid as much as possible, because I prefer to focus on the text, itself!!)

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

You'd be very wise to go to Harvard, then. Seems like a wonderful fit for you. I only said gender (and unconsciously allowed sexuality to slip in there) because the questions you presented begged for a feminist theoretical lens (though with my limited medieval background, what do I know? I'm a 20th c. Americanist through and through) and the Grad Center is A+ for that kind of work. I may be biased because I went to Queens College, which is also a part of the CUNY system and have worked with a few really great professors whose interests were Medieval lit, children's lit, contemporary sci-fi/fantasy and Celtic myth so I think that EVERYthing associated with CUNY would be a good fit for that kind of research. Admittedly, this may or may not be the case.

I have a very strange relationship with feminist theory for some reason. Although I'm far from being anti-feminist (I'm an equal-rights, equal-pay, equal-responsibilities type of gal), when it comes to literary criticism, I have a hard time with many feminist theories, especially the more militant ones. When analyzing character, I'm a humanist at heart - I'm interested in the human condition and its reflection in literature, social ideologies and agendas (and why they occur) - so analyzing attitudes towards women and analyzing female archetypes is very interesting - but in perspective and context (i.e. how do male archetypes change at the time, what ideologies are being promoted or rebelled against, etc.). I began an MA program in gender studies a few years back here in Israel and I couldn't stand it (it may have been the teaching methodologies that made me cringe, however). I do think that some feminist theoretical lens will be used in my research, but only as part of the whole (after all, female characters play vital roles in the Arthurian cycle and in Welsh tales of the period). I'm not completely swimming in theory yet - I definitely wasn't exposed to enough theory during UG, and I'm the type of scholar who likes mixing and matching - I take a little bit of this and a little of that and try to create something new. I do know that I can't stand deconstruction (drives me insane LOL), but I can't really say what theoretical work I'll use in my criticism. Most likely a blend of theories.

I will give CUNY a deeper look, however.

@MM - thanks for the detailed info on dissertation committees. I'm going to take it as a given that I'll be conferencing during my PhD (at least I fully aim to do so).

[Squawker]

I used to feel the same way you do about the feminist approach to history/literature, but a class I'm currently taking is causing me to change my mind. Like you, I don't always agree with what's being written and it kind of annoys me how some feminist historians put too much emphasis on certain details, or constantly feel the need to talk about women as victims who could never hold their own power or express their own opinions - there's just not much nuance or room for complicated human motivations in such interpretations. However, that's one reason I find it interesting to learn about - it's an area that needs quite a bit of additional research as well as theoretical tweaking. Also, approaching medieval studies from a gender-oriented viewpoint can open up other areas of interest and provide an interesting way of looking at the period. For example, learning about the roles and depictions of queens can open up new ways of thinking about kings. I'm not suggesting that you commit yourself to feminist theory and write a dissertation about medieval women, but I'd discourage removing programs and people from your list because of their involvement in gender studies. Many of the people whose academic biographies describe them as experts in gender studies, feminist theory, whatever, will be entirely capable of supervising a dissertation that has little or nothing to do with gender. Although I'm not in the same field as you and know little about late medieval literature, my guess is that your most important concern is to find a supervisor who is deeply familiar with the specific texts or group of texts you are most interested in, whatever their own personal interpretations of those texts may be.

[Sparky]

When analyzing character, I'm a humanist at heart - I'm interested in the human condition and its reflection in literature, social ideologies and agendas (and why they occur) - so analyzing attitudes towards women and analyzing female archetypes is very interesting - but in perspective and context (i.e. how do male archetypes change at the time, what ideologies are being promoted or rebelled against, etc.).

You are mixing up "feminist" and "about women."

It's very, very possible to study women from a non-feminist standpoint, and to study other topics (for example, how/why male archetypes change) from a feminist perspective.

I mean, if it's not what rocks your cradle, don't go for it, but don't dismiss it as "not about the Human Condition." For goodness' sake, the entire point of feminism is that women are humans!

[bigdgp]

You are mixing up "feminist" and "about women."

It's very, very possible to study women from a non-feminist standpoint, and to study other topics (for example, how/why male archetypes change) from a feminist perspective.

I mean, if it's not what rocks your cradle, don't go for it, but don't dismiss it as "not about the Human Condition." For goodness' sake, the entire point of feminism is that women are humans!

Actually, I think Branwen is precisely NOT mixing up "feminism" and "about women," a mistake I think many people who think they want to go into feminist criticism make. A new historicist can honestly study the way a forgotten woman was informed by and helped to inform her cultural milieu. However, in my experience, feminist critics tend to begin with the premise that every decision and action throughout the whole of human history has been a deliberate and calculated attempted to screw over the female gender. (OK, maybe I am doing a little personal superimposing of my own by putting it in such hyperbolic terms, but you all get the idea. And I'm pretty sure somebody is going to turn this into a fairly spirited and entertaining discussion despite this retraction, which will, in turn, illustrate my point).

I'm with you, Branwen, on almost everything you said about criticism (ESPECIALLY DECONSTRUCTION). I find that I am drawn to new historicists more than others, though.

Edited April 15, 2010 by bigdgp

[Historiogaffe]

…feminist critics tend to begin with the premise that every decision and action throughout the whole of human history has been a deliberate and calculated attempted to screw over the female gender. (OK, maybe I am doing a little personal superimposing of my own by putting it in such hyperbolic terms, but you all get the idea. And I'm pretty sure somebody is going to turn this into a fairly spirited and entertaining discussion despite this retraction, which will, in turn, illustrate my point).

I feel I should throw in a word for the viewpoint that the "screwing over of the female gender*" throughout history is by no means always deliberate and calculated. That's the point of institutionalization, right?

*"female gender" being a – say it with me – problematic term, natch

Happy to half-prove your point: discussion is something I generally go in for, but I don't agree that everything has been "a deliberate and calculated attempt to screw over [women]". I'm also not a feminist critic. (Just a critic and a feminist. I'm sure they'll overlap someday...) My bugbear about feminist criticism tends to be its close connections to psychoanalytic theory, which I don't go in for at all. Deconstruction, though... *grin*

Sparky, I have to agree that Branwen's not necessarily confusing "feminist" and "about women." Only because, Branwen, your description of the human condition sounds very feminist to my ears, which immediately makes me curious as to other interpretations. (I'm either keen or paranoid.) New historicism is definitely an excellent things to emerge from the 80s, which is saying a lot!

Okay, new historicism and Flashdance. And many applicants on this board. But seriously. Good stuff from 80s, thin on the ground.

Edited April 15, 2010 by speakwrite_

[bigdgp]

I feel I should throw in a word for the viewpoint that the "screwing over of the female gender*" throughout history is by no means always deliberate and calculated. That's the point of institutionalization, right?

*"female gender" being a – say it with me – problematic term, natch

Happy to half-prove your point: discussion is something I generally go in for, but I don't agree that everything has been "a deliberate and calculated attempt to screw over [women]". I'm also not a feminist critic. (Just a critic and a feminist. I'm sure they'll overlap someday...) My bugbear about feminist criticism tends to be its close connections to psychoanalytic theory, which I don't go in for at all. Deconstruction, though... *grin*

Sparky, I have to agree that Branwen's not necessarily confusing "feminist" and "about women." Only because, Branwen, your description of the human condition sounds very feminist to my ears, which immediately makes me curious as to other interpretations. (I'm either keen or paranoid.) New historicism is definitely an excellent things to emerge from the 80s, which is saying a lot!

Okay, new historicism and Flashdance. And many applicants on this board. But seriously. Good stuff from 80s, thin on the ground.

Haha! Well done! But don't forget, Back to the Future came from the 80's too.

[Historiogaffe]

Haha! Well done! But don't forget, Back to the Future came from the 80's too.

Shoot! You're right! My vision's been obscured by synth, neon, unitards and the headband/side ponytail combo.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Wahoo - I love sparking controversial conversations

Sparky - no - I'm definitely not confusing "about women" and "feminist criticism". There are certain feminist theories that just don't agree with me. Especially those who look at things from the "horrible patriarchy" angle. It's just too black and white for me - even in the middle ages (a period of general horrible patriarchy and repression of women) there are subtleties that just don't fit in to those theories, at least in my mind. So although I am a feminist (i.e. equal-rights etc.), I tend to avoid militant feminist theories (or militant any theories), both in my politics and in my analysis of literature. Obviously, some feminist theories may be right in my bailiwick - and may end up being used in my analysis, but only as part of a matrix of theories.

Obviously, a prof can be a great mentor even if she's a feminist critic in her approach. However, after working closely with one of those, I did feel that an agenda was being shoved down my throat. Obviously, my main interest is someone who knows the texts I'm interested in inside and out - but if a department is particularly gender-slanted in their theory, I may have a bit of a rougher time avoiding that in my dissertation - just because I'll be surrounded by it left and right. So I'm definitely not discounting - but I AM looking at schools that are strong in literary theories that I'm more interested in.

bigdgp - I think deconstruction signifies the end of the world LOL (ok, not REALLY, but it's SO obscure and cyclical).

speakwrite - I actually enjoy psychoanalytic theory - especially the Jungian variety, since I enjoy analyzing character and archetype - but not of the Lacan variety, which is what influenced feminist theories so much. However, I often wonder if the very invention of psychoanalysis by Freud and it's influx into society didn't actually CREATE all those neurosis and disturbias that modern societies suffer from, and if it's at all applicable to Medieval texts :lol:.

It's actually somewhat amusing that my ideas on the human condition sound feminist - in a literary theory sense or in general? I just look at literature as a product of culture and try to analyze it as such - through character and archetype analysis, historical and social contexts, etc. What fascinates me about the Arthurian cycle is the clash between the Celtic culture the stories emerged from, and the Anglo-Norman culture they were developed in, and how that affected tensions and contradictions in the texts themselves (i.e. such as the shifting of female and male archetypes, and the difficulties in resolving the contradictions between Chivalry and Liege-Lord loyalties).

And just to remind you - U2, Depeche Mode, New Order, and Elvis Costello were also a product of the 80's (I'm a 70's baby! My formative years were in the 80's!!)

[Historiogaffe]

speakwrite - I actually enjoy psychoanalytic theory - especially the Jungian variety, since I enjoy analyzing character and archetype - but not of the Lacan variety, which is what influenced feminist theories so much. However, I often wonder if the very invention of psychoanalysis by Freud and it's influx into society didn't actually CREATE all those neurosis and disturbias that modern societies suffer from, and if it's at all applicable to Medieval texts :lol:.

It's actually somewhat amusing that my ideas on the human condition sound feminist - in a literary theory sense or in general? I just look at literature as a product of culture and try to analyze it as such - through character and archetype analysis, historical and social contexts, etc. What fascinates me about the Arthurian cycle is the clash between the Celtic culture the stories emerged from, and the Anglo-Norman culture they were developed in, and how that affected tensions and contradictions in the texts themselves (i.e. such as the shifting of female and male archetypes, and the difficulties in resolving the contradictions between Chivalry and Liege-Lord loyalties).

And just to remind you - U2, Depeche Mode, New Order, and Elvis Costello were also a product of the 80's (I'm a 70's baby! My formative years were in the 80's!!)

Haha, just in general, I reckon. "I'm interested in the human condition and its reflection in literature, social ideologies and agendas (and why they occur)" sounds like it could be directed toward a program in women's studies as much as in English! Depends entirely on approach, of course – my friend's editor-in-chiefing an undergraduate women's studies journal and has me on as a token English-major editor (lulz grammar), and a lot of the submissions fit under that umbrella. There was a really interesting one about Broadway musical culture...

...anyway!

Psychoanalytic theory has always seemed a little too deus ex machina for me. I'm not as familiar with the Jungian theory as I am the Freudian (or the "this is what Freud meant to say but I'm saying it" Lacanian) – the latter has always seemed like using astrology to explain literature; "this person is doing this because he has an Oedipus complex/is an Aquarius", you know? I sense that ideally one draws that out of the text to point to some general Truth About Humanity (and said Humanity's desire to shag its parents), but in too many instances it's seemed more like a too-easy code-breaking device for reading texts. Psychoanalytic readings of Hamlet, for instance, are just so heavy-handed!

I definitely think the conditions Freud "discovered" were invented by Freud – think of hysteria, for instance. And, considering how he manipulated his results/brainwashed his patients, I feel like one can say that in a more definite way than the more benign* "every discovery is also an invention" approach. The same thing's happening with the system that's usurped the Freudians from psychiatry, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual – there's a really interesting article in the New York Times about the globalization by the west of human consciousness. (And how schizophrenics in non-Western-psychiatry-influenced societies, interestingly, fare much better than they do in ones like ours).

*I doubt post-colonialists would agree with the "benign" there, so I'm gonna say I only mean it in the context of that sentence! Pax!

Medical and scientific rhetoric being the one the got away, in terms of my long-term focus ! That said, Jung I have not yet discounted. (Whoa, audacity alert.) Besides, the story of his and Freuds homosocial "break-up" is just too good to ignore.

I'm really interested in those aspects of Arthurian lit, too; especially the "WTH is this guy doing here" Merlin cameo in Geoffrey of Monmouth...! Makes me wish my current uni offered a class in Welsh. I'm reading Malory for the first time and just digging him like crazy, absurdly long tournament scenes and all. (I was a tomboy as a kid, y'know?) The whole book is like, BROZONE.

U2 gets too anthemic too fast! I'm sorry! Costello, though, radasaurus.

I think deconstruction signifies the end of the world LOL (ok, not REALLY, but it's SO obscure and cyclical).

Nah, only the end of the text. Though, il n'y a pas d'hors-texte, so – er – yum, nihilism!

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Psychoanalytic theory has always seemed a little too deus ex machina for me. I'm not as familiar with the Jungian theory as I am the Freudian (or the "this is what Freud meant to say but I'm saying it" Lacanian) – the latter has always seemed like using astrology to explain literature; "this person is doing this because he has an Oedipus complex/is an Aquarius", you know? I sense that ideally one draws that out of the text to point to some general Truth About Humanity (and said Humanity's desire to shag its parents), but in too many instances it's seemed more like a too-easy code-breaking device for reading texts. Psychoanalytic readings of Hamlet, for instance, are just so heavy-handed!

I definitely think the conditions Freud "discovered" were invented by Freud – think of hysteria, for instance. And, considering how he manipulated his results/brainwashed his patients, I feel like one can say that in a more definite way than the more benign* "every discovery is also an invention" approach. The same thing's happening with the system that's usurped the Freudians from psychiatry, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual – there's a really interesting article in the New York Times about the globalization by the west of human consciousness. (And how schizophrenics in non-Western-psychiatry-influenced societies, interestingly, fare much better than they do in ones like ours).

*I doubt post-colonialists would agree with the "benign" there, so I'm gonna say I only mean it in the context of that sentence! Pax!

Medical and scientific rhetoric being the one the got away, in terms of my long-term focus ! That said, Jung I have not yet discounted. (Whoa, audacity alert.) Besides, the story of his and Freuds homosocial "break-up" is just too good to ignore.

I'm really interested in those aspects of Arthurian lit, too; especially the "WTH is this guy doing here" Merlin cameo in Geoffrey of Monmouth...! Makes me wish my current uni offered a class in Welsh. I'm reading Malory for the first time and just digging him like crazy, absurdly long tournament scenes and all. (I was a tomboy as a kid, y'know?) The whole book is like, BROZONE.

U2 gets too anthemic too fast! I'm sorry! Costello, though, radasaurus.

Nah, only the end of the text. Though, il n'y a pas d'hors-texte, so – er – yum, nihilism!

Ugh, Lacan. I totally get you on the deus ex machina thing. However, examining a character's "psychology" can be really interesting, if not done in a heavy-handed manner. What I love about Jungian analysis is the emphasis on archetype rather than complex. And yes, Hamlet's Oedipal complex has definitely been overdone .

Merlin is a totally interesting inertation of character - his origin is most likely from the Welsh Myrddin (pronounced Murthin), a "wild-man of the woods" archetype from Welsh and druid legends. His prominence in Arthurian lore is a really interesting example of how the Celtic sensibilities clash with the Anglo-Norman ones - Merlin is somewhat the "conscience" of Arthur and of Uther in many of the legends (despite doing some very naughty stuff because of Uther and Arthur's whims LOL) - so does that represent the "celtic" as the conscience of the anglo-norman culture?

Re Welsh - yes. One of the reasons I'm so gung-ho on Harvard and UCLA is the option to take Welsh and study the Welsh texts in the original (I love Welsh. I have no idea why).

I LOVE Malory (despite his mistreatment of the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur issue), and yes, his tournament descriptions are utterly wonderful. I still think that many of the tournament depictions in "A Knight's Tale" (the Heath Ledger movie) were taken straight from Malory LOL.

And deconstruction - the end of the text (for me at least, as a bookworm galore) IS the end of the world :lol:. I'm currently reading some Derrida, and despite being fascinated by it (like being fascinated by a snake), it sends horrible shivers down my spine, and I can't see myself working with it in literary analysis. Oh well. Luckily there are plenty of other theories out there that I do enjoy more!

[Historiogaffe]

Ugh, Lacan. I totally get you on the deus ex machina thing. However, examining a character's "psychology" can be really interesting, if not done in a heavy-handed manner. What I love about Jungian analysis is the emphasis on archetype rather than complex. And yes, Hamlet's Oedipal complex has definitely been overdone .

Merlin is a totally interesting inertation of character - his origin is most likely from the Welsh Myrddin (pronounced Murthin), a "wild-man of the woods" archetype from Welsh and druid legends. His prominence in Arthurian lore is a really interesting example of how the Celtic sensibilities clash with the Anglo-Norman ones - Merlin is somewhat the "conscience" of Arthur and of Uther in many of the legends (despite doing some very naughty stuff because of Uther and Arthur's whims LOL) - so does that represent the "celtic" as the conscience of the anglo-norman culture?

Re Welsh - yes. One of the reasons I'm so gung-ho on Harvard and UCLA is the option to take Welsh and study the Welsh texts in the original (I love Welsh. I have no idea why).

I LOVE Malory (despite his mistreatment of the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur issue), and yes, his tournament descriptions are utterly wonderful. I still think that many of the tournament depictions in "A Knight's Tale" (the Heath Ledger movie) were taken straight from Malory LOL.

And deconstruction - the end of the text (for me at least, as a bookworm galore) IS the end of the world :lol:. I'm currently reading some Derrida, and despite being fascinated by it (like being fascinated by a snake), it sends horrible shivers down my spine, and I can't see myself working with it in literary analysis. Oh well. Luckily there are plenty of other theories out there that I do enjoy more!

I love that description of reading Derrida. Especially as I totally get it, except re: snake I'm more like Eve ("ooh an apple! – oh, whoops") than that guy in the Morte ("UGH A SNAKE CHOP CHOP DIE– oh, whoops"). I do feel like academia is turning me into a cheerful nihilist.

I heard one theory behind Geoffrey's change from Myrddin to Merlin was because "Myrddin" sounded/read like a contemporary word for poop. Like "merde," maybe? I would kind of love it if that were the reasoning.

"A Knight's Tale" was wonderful, and not only for the sexy Chaucer, who looked quite a bit trimmer than his surviving poetry would lead us to believe...

That's interesting about Merlin being the extra-cultural conscience. In a way his occasional, unabashed naughtiness seems like another well-he's-Celtic thing – not subject to Christian moralism, but rather his own moral force (so he can do his, yeah I'll let you shag this lady, but you'll owe me one, schtick) – maybe related to the Wheel-of-Fortune/predestination conflicts in Arthurian lit, also dating back to Geoffrey? Or, I don't know if "conflict" is the right word – strangely (at least to us) unproblematized coexistence, in some cases. I'm writing* on Tennyson at the moment** and how he idealizes the Arthurian past in terms of orality vs./pre- literacy; noblesse and morality are kind of spontaneous things (he would think, though Geoffrey and Malory and the French Cycle's deep intertextuality begs to differ) characteristic of the goodness of the medieval past, as opposed to the heavily literate, pedagogically pre- and proscriptive Victorian present. And in that light, Merlin as this knowledgable guy who introduces a book to Vivien is interesting – still this outside but effective force.

*Planning an essay, to be written last-minute. Lovin' ya, April.

**to put it rather strongly...

P.S. I have a literary crush on Merlin?

Haha, I know, I have this urge to learn Welsh even though I doubt it's going to be long-term relevant to my interests – that's more Latin's realm. And French, because I love Chrétien de Troyes (being totally predictable as I am).

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I love that description of reading Derrida. Especially as I totally get it, except re: snake I'm more like Eve ("ooh an apple! – oh, whoops") than that guy in the Morte ("UGH A SNAKE CHOP CHOP DIE– oh, whoops"). I do feel like academia is turning me into a cheerful nihilist.

I heard one theory behind Geoffrey's change from Myrddin to Merlin was because "Myrddin" sounded/read like a contemporary word for poop. Like "merde," maybe? I would kind of love it if that were the reasoning.

"A Knight's Tale" was wonderful, and not only for the sexy Chaucer, who looked quite a bit trimmer than his surviving poetry would lead us to believe...

That's interesting about Merlin being the extra-cultural conscience. In a way his occasional, unabashed naughtiness seems like another well-he's-Celtic thing – not subject to Christian moralism, but rather his own moral force (so he can do his, yeah I'll let you shag this lady, but you'll owe me one, schtick) – maybe related to the Wheel-of-Fortune/predestination conflicts in Arthurian lit, also dating back to Geoffrey? Or, I don't know if "conflict" is the right word – strangely (at least to us) unproblematized coexistence, in some cases. I'm writing* on Tennyson at the moment** and how he idealizes the Arthurian past in terms of orality vs./pre- literacy; noblesse and morality are kind of spontaneous things (he would think, though Geoffrey and Malory and the French Cycle's deep intertextuality begs to differ) characteristic of the goodness of the medieval past, as opposed to the heavily literate, pedagogically pre- and proscriptive Victorian present. And in that light, Merlin as this knowledgable guy who introduces a book to Vivien is interesting – still this outside but effective force.

*Planning an essay, to be written last-minute. Lovin' ya, April.

**to put it rather strongly...

P.S. I have a literary crush on Merlin?

Haha, I know, I have this urge to learn Welsh even though I doubt it's going to be long-term relevant to my interests – that's more Latin's realm. And French, because I love Chrétien de Troyes (being totally predictable as I am).

I'm starting to take online Latin classes this fall to prep - and I'm planning of French as well during the PhD. So I'm hoping to end up with three languages - French, Latin and Welsh by the end of the PhD. Post PhD, I'll probably start on Italian due to my crush on commedia del'arte and Dante

It's interesting looking at Merlin in the Welsh texts and comparing him to the Merlin in the Anglo-Norman stuff. Some interesting tension happening there . And yes - the name changes are pretty fascinating - but remember that the Welsh "th" sound is very similar to the English "L" sound (also their double liquid L can easily be confused with "th") - so that may have been the corruption as well.

Ahhhh Tennyson... 19th century medievalism is FUN. Also, how each period in history has a tendency to romanticize the past (when I was a kid, prices were reasonable and people behaved better type of thing) which is very prevalent in the Victorian era - but also the Renaissance - idealizing Classical philosophy and art, etc.

Cheerful nihilist !! (smiling enthusiastically, although I'm not a nihilist at all). I just like the way that sounds

[Venetia]

Hallo again, Branwen! I had to respond to the 'hailing all Medievalists' call, lol. It's hard to read the tiny tiny letters in your signature, but I didn't notice Indiana Bloomington. They've got a professor there, Patricia Clare Ingham, who wrote a book called 'Sovereign Fantasies: Arthurian Romance and the Making of Britain' which I used during my Masters and found to be very good. Her publications also list some other Arthurian stuff, and she lists it as one of her interests. Indiana also produces a Medieval journal (I think it's Exemplaria) and seems to really emphasize the Medieval in their course. So I'd definitely give that a glance, if you haven't already. Also, I saw you were interested in Welsh so did a quick search on their site- turns out they have taught it in the past, and it's still listed as a possibility for 'independent study' on their West European Studies page.

As to the ongoing Fordham debate, I'll be going there next year so I'm all for it! They're getting a new prof who specializes in 'the French of England', and I'm pretty sure, from her reputation, that she'll be a full prof. They also offer a Certificate in Medieval Studies that you can take alongside your PhD, which would mean getting the benefits of a Med Studies degree while still staying under the aegis of the English department. And I don't know about stipends, but people I've talked to say that they haven't had to take out loans so it must be okayish at least. And the campus is meant to be beautiful (I haven't visited yet...). Plus there is the possibility that you could be colleagues with ME, which of course must be a major draw !

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Hallo again, Branwen! I had to respond to the 'hailing all Medievalists' call, lol. It's hard to read the tiny tiny letters in your signature, but I didn't notice Indiana Bloomington. They've got a professor there, Patricia Clare Ingham, who wrote a book called 'Sovereign Fantasies: Arthurian Romance and the Making of Britain' which I used during my Masters and found to be very good. Her publications also list some other Arthurian stuff, and she lists it as one of her interests. Indiana also produces a Medieval journal (I think it's Exemplaria) and seems to really emphasize the Medieval in their course. So I'd definitely give that a glance, if you haven't already. Also, I saw you were interested in Welsh so did a quick search on their site- turns out they have taught it in the past, and it's still listed as a possibility for 'independent study' on their West European Studies page.

As to the ongoing Fordham debate, I'll be going there next year so I'm all for it! They're getting a new prof who specializes in 'the French of England', and I'm pretty sure, from her reputation, that she'll be a full prof. They also offer a Certificate in Medieval Studies that you can take alongside your PhD, which would mean getting the benefits of a Med Studies degree while still staying under the aegis of the English department. And I don't know about stipends, but people I've talked to say that they haven't had to take out loans so it must be okayish at least. And the campus is meant to be beautiful (I haven't visited yet...). Plus there is the possibility that you could be colleagues with ME, which of course must be a major draw !

I actually looked at Indiana a couple of months ago, but I didn't find them as strong in medieval as some of the other programs. Many many Victorians, not many medieval classes and profs. But I will look again, especially since you saw the Welsh option, and dig a bit deeper than the first round I looked at.

Fordham may definitely be an option, even if only for the MA, and they do have 4 associate profs in medieval, so I'm going to dig a bit deeper and see where I place them on my list. Obviously, I'm kind of gunning for Harvard - but since I'll be applying to about 10 schools overall, I want to make sure I have a wide selection of programs that can meet my scholarship desires .

[Medievalmaniac]

I used to feel the same way you do about the feminist approach to history/literature, but a class I'm currently taking is causing me to change my mind. Like you, I don't always agree with what's being written and it kind of annoys me how some feminist historians put too much emphasis on certain details, or constantly feel the need to talk about women as victims who could never hold their own power or express their own opinions - there's just not much nuance or room for complicated human motivations in such interpretations. However, that's one reason I find it interesting to learn about - it's an area that needs quite a bit of additional research as well as theoretical tweaking. Also, approaching medieval studies from a gender-oriented viewpoint can open up other areas of interest and provide an interesting way of looking at the period. For example, learning about the roles and depictions of queens can open up new ways of thinking about kings. I'm not suggesting that you commit yourself to feminist theory and write a dissertation about medieval women, but I'd discourage removing programs and people from your list because of their involvement in gender studies. Many of the people whose academic biographies describe them as experts in gender studies, feminist theory, whatever, will be entirely capable of supervising a dissertation that has little or nothing to do with gender. Although I'm not in the same field as you and know little about late medieval literature, my guess is that your most important concern is to find a supervisor who is deeply familiar with the specific texts or group of texts you are most interested in, whatever their own personal interpretations of those texts may be.

This is very true and very well said. One of my favorite papers as a grad student was one in which I argue that instead of the either/or binary of Eve/Mary that is most often associated with medieval writings, the female figures are often more of an if/then scenario, which renders them much less gender-bound than most scholars tend to give them credit for - which has led to some great thinking about victims and victimization, and a possible book chapter, Yay.

[diehtc0ke]

Sparky - no - I'm definitely not confusing "about women" and "feminist criticism". There are certain feminist theories that just don't agree with me. Especially those who look at things from the "horrible patriarchy" angle. It's just too black and white for me - even in the middle ages (a period of general horrible patriarchy and repression of women) there are subtleties that just don't fit in to those theories, at least in my mind. So although I am a feminist (i.e. equal-rights etc.), I tend to avoid militant feminist theories (or militant any theories), both in my politics and in my analysis of literature. Obviously, some feminist theories may be right in my bailiwick - and may end up being used in my analysis, but only as part of a matrix of theories.

Obviously, a prof can be a great mentor even if she's a feminist critic in her approach. However, after working closely with one of those, I did feel that an agenda was being shoved down my throat. Obviously, my main interest is someone who knows the texts I'm interested in inside and out - but if a department is particularly gender-slanted in their theory, I may have a bit of a rougher time avoiding that in my dissertation - just because I'll be surrounded by it left and right. So I'm definitely not discounting - but I AM looking at schools that are strong in literary theories that I'm more interested in.

Please don't take this as antagonistic and I'm sure you weren't creating this thread in hopes of defending your stance on feminist criticism but can I ask you what kinds of feminist theory you've read? I think that reductive black/white binary you speak of is indicative of the work that was being done around the time de Beauvoir writes The Second Sex in the middle of the 20th century. This was crucial foundational work because that transition from "Other" to "equal" (which was being prompted alongside changes in thought on things like reproductive rights) was completely necessary if we wanted to talk about "woman" as a gender/sex that is worth speaking about critically. And yet it did not take into account how "woman" as a binding cultural category slipped certain kinds of women (i.e. non-white women, lesbians, etc.) under the rug for the articulation of a specific social project. Out of scholarship like that we get much more nuanced feminist theoretical texts like Haraway's Simians, Cyborgs and Women or de Lauretis's Technologies of Gender (I use these as examples only because they're the last two feminist theoretical texts that I've read), which, though they may use that model of the big bad patriarchy, are almost forced to engage with the social model that has been overwhelmingly prevalent for centuries. I really hope this hasn't sounded soapbox-y but I felt it worth noting that there's plenty from feminist theory that you can take to help tease things out of what you were saying about Guinevere, even if you are more interested in her as an archetypal example.

I also don't think that the professor example you speak of is unique to those who are feminists or do work on gender (not that that's what you were saying). I find that scholars are all about inserting their own work into just about everything that everyone around them is doing. Look at conference culture. Anytime I go see someone speak on their work there's the man in the tweed jacket towards the back that raises his hand during the Q&A and starts off with "Well, I work on X and Y and have found this esoteric part of my research that speaks to what you have just presented." Sometimes this sparks a productive discussion and sometimes it doesn't.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Please don't take this as antagonistic and I'm sure you weren't creating this thread in hopes of defending your stance on feminist criticism but can I ask you what kinds of feminist theory you've read? I think that reductive black/white binary you speak of is indicative of the work that was being done around the time de Beauvoir writes The Second Sex in the middle of the 20th century. This was crucial foundational work because that transition from "Other" to "equal" (which was being prompted alongside changes in thought on things like reproductive rights) was completely necessary if we wanted to talk about "woman" as a gender/sex that is worth speaking about critically. And yet it did not take into account how "woman" as a binding cultural category slipped certain kinds of women (i.e. non-white women, lesbians, etc.) under the rug for the articulation of a specific social project. Out of scholarship like that we get much more nuanced feminist theoretical texts like Haraway's Simians, Cyborgs and Women or de Lauretis's Technologies of Gender (I use these as examples only because they're the last two feminist theoretical texts that I've read), which, though they may use that model of the big bad patriarchy, are almost forced to engage with the social model that has been overwhelmingly prevalent for centuries. I really hope this hasn't sounded soapbox-y but I felt it worth noting that there's plenty from feminist theory that you can take to help tease things out of what you were saying about Guinevere, even if you are more interested in her as an archetypal example.

I also don't think that the professor example you speak of is unique to those who are feminists or do work on gender (not that that's what you were saying). I find that scholars are all about inserting their own work into just about everything that everyone around them is doing. Look at conference culture. Anytime I go see someone speak on their work there's the man in the tweed jacket towards the back that raises his hand during the Q&A and starts off with "Well, I work on X and Y and have found this esoteric part of my research that speaks to what you have just presented." Sometimes this sparks a productive discussion and sometimes it doesn't.

Not soap-boxy at all. I'm the first to admit that I'm woefully ignorant in theory - and as I've stated before I'm very likely to end up using some form of feminist critical lens in the eventual mish-mash. Celtic culture, being much more "feminine-oriented" (at least strong women were highly possible and respected) creates some interesting tension and conflicts with the much more patriarchal Anglo-Norman culture (this is very very generalistic, of course), so I'm pretty sure some feminist discourse will eventually be in my dissertation. Even when discussing Merlin's magical abilities etc. However, it's not my main interest, overall, at least not now (just like everything else, this may change).

And I agree that scholars tend to umm... insert their own interests into your work. This is why it's important to me to find profs and a dissertation committee that parallel my interests both in text and theory - I have a bit of a tendency to get influenced and hmm... shall we say... "bowled over" by strong personalities that I admire (such as profs LOL, since I usually assume that they're much smarter than I am hahaha). I can often find myself working on research questions that I wasn't really intending to work on if I'm not careful. Obviously, sometimes this can be of benefit - if not for my UG thesis adviser, I would have never discovered Bakhtin's carnivalesque theory which I applied to Anglo-Welsh children's lit - but on the other hand, this CAN be detrimental on occasion - I don't really want to suddenly shift to full-blown feminist critique when what I'm really interested in is the idea of Welsh magic, historicist and archetypal analysis of aspects of the arthurian legend in the middle ages, and how celtic and anglo-norman cultures clash and co-exist in the arthurian cycle . Again, this is not to say that no feminist perspective and lens will be applied, and I may end up loving feminist criticism after a literary theory course, but I'm usually pretty good at recognizing what I love (which is usually something that my internal radar recognizes as some personal truth).

Luckily, there are three years between beginning the PhD and beginning the dissertation. Obviously, the first two years will have a great deal of impact on my ideas and interests, so we'll see where I end up!

[Pamphilia]

First of all, I'll say that it's worth noting that it might be more accurate to discuss "feminist theories" in the plural, just as when discussing the wider movements for gender parity "feminisms" might be more helpful than the singular; like feminists in general, feminist scholars are a heterogeneous bunch.

As far as "old school" feminist theory goes, I think that it is problematic in many ways. I find the "old school" variety troublesome for many reasons, not least because when applied to the early modern texts I work on (as well as medieval texts), it can be a anachronistic. Also, like Branwen, I've sometimes felt boxed in (by feminist orthodoxy, if I can say that?) when working in certain women's studies departments--which is not to say that I don't LOVE women's studies departments and find them very valuable in general. Old school feminist theory has been terribly useful, has resulted in some great scholarship, and has helped to evolve the canon, but could nonetheless use a good update--and it is being updated all the time! Scholars are certainly adapting and evolving feminist theory so that it is ever less the rigid critical lens we often consider it. Personally, I'm interested in working on gender and sexuality in literature from a specifically feminist perspective, but in a way that challenges and updates current and former feminist assumptions about gender, about text, etc. While I respect and appreciate what "old school" feminist theory has done for the scholarly landscape, I'm still interested in moving past it, moving through it. And, fortunately, there are a lot of mentors out there for me to engage in this task!

I'ts also worth noting that just because a scholar "works on gender" it doesn't mean that she (for lack of a more inclusive pronoun) engages strictly with "traditional" or "old school" feminist theory. I contacted a professor at UCLA back last fall and quote part of her response here: "There is, I think real, if diffuse, interest in historical/cultural work on gender/sexuality here, but not much old-school feminism." Working on gender doesn't necessarily mean that one works on feminist theory. There are many different ways to look at gender, and the feminist theoretical lens is only one.

This is really incoherent. Sorry! What I am really trying to say is that 1) one oughtn't assume that all feminist theory is the same, or that it hasn't evolved; and 2) one oughtn't assume that just because a scholar works on gender, she engages with any kind of feminist theory at all ("old school" or otherwise).

Again, apologies for the lack of coherence.

[diehtc0ke]

First of all, I'll say that it's worth noting that it might be more accurate to discuss "feminist theories" in the plural, just as when discussing the wider movements for gender parity "feminisms" might be more helpful than the singular; like feminists in general, feminist scholars are a heterogeneous bunch.

As far as "old school" feminist theory goes, I think that it is problematic in many ways. I find the "old school" variety troublesome for many reasons, not least because when applied to the early modern texts I work on (as well as medieval texts), it can be a anachronistic. Also, like Branwen, I've sometimes felt boxed in (by feminist orthodoxy, if I can say that?) when working in certain women's studies departments--which is not to say that I don't LOVE women's studies departments and find them very valuable in general. Old school feminist theory has been terribly useful, has resulted in some great scholarship, and has helped to evolve the canon, but could nonetheless use a good update--and it is being updated all the time! Scholars are certainly adapting and evolving feminist theory so that it is ever less the rigid critical lens we often consider it. Personally, I'm interested in working on gender and sexuality in literature from a specifically feminist perspective, but in a way that challenges and updates current and former feminist assumptions about gender, about text, etc. While I respect and appreciate what "old school" feminist theory has done for the scholarly landscape, I'm still interested in moving past it, moving through it. And, fortunately, there are a lot of mentors out there for me to engage in this task!

I'ts also worth noting that just because a scholar "works on gender" it doesn't mean that she (for lack of a more inclusive pronoun) engages strictly with "traditional" or "old school" feminist theory. I contacted a professor at UCLA back last fall and quote part of her response here: "There is, I think real, if diffuse, interest in historical/cultural work on gender/sexuality here, but not much old-school feminism." Working on gender doesn't necessarily mean that one works on feminist theory. There are many different ways to look at gender, and the feminist theoretical lens is only one.

This is really incoherent. Sorry! What I am really trying to say is that 1) one oughtn't assume that all feminist theory is the same, or that it hasn't evolved; and 2) one oughtn't assume that just because a scholar works on gender, she engages with any kind of feminist theory at all ("old school" or otherwise).

Again, apologies for the lack of coherence.

That wasn't incoherent at all. You're right in that "feminist theories" is easily a better term for what we're talking about but because I was so focused in my reply on defending what I think you're referring to as "old school" feminism (I hesitate to call it that because I guess that unintentionally lumps together works like The Second Sex with much earlier works like A Vindication on the Rights of Women. Both engage in a discussion of what I would call feminist philosophy but both are also responding to extremely different cultural moments), I used the singular. Your point that "working on gender" is not synonomous to "engaging with feminist theory" is also well taken--men's studies does exist (and is a field that I am particularly interested in) and not all approaches to speaking about women springs out of these feminist theories that we have discussed. I have professors who work exclusively with ideas from second-wave feminism and other professors who have balked at scholars "stuck" in that second-wave in favor of work that has fractured and problematized those positions and methods (something it looks like you want to continue doing). I think the best advice that I could give to you, Branwen, would be to look at departments that are strong in the theoretical approaches that you have embraced so far but make sure there are other strong faculty members who come from different theoretical fields. Perhaps those people could also work on Medieval texts but that isn't even necessary. Chances are that in those first few years you won't only be taking classes that deal with that time period and it would be great if you could come to terms with these other kinds of theory without letting them overwhelm your own way of producing scholarship (that is, of course, unless you want them to).

I'm realizing that this post has no point. I'm just in agreement haha.

Edited for coherence.

Edited April 15, 2010 by diehtc0ke

[Pamphilia]

That wasn't incoherent at all. You're right in that "feminist theories" is easily a better term for what we're talking about but because I was so focused in my reply on defending what I think you're referring to as "old school" feminism (I hesitate to call it that because I guess that unintentionally lumps together works like The Second Sex with much earlier works like A Vindication on the Rights of Women. Both engage in a discussion of what I would call feminist philosophy but both are also responding to extremely different cultural moments), I used the singular. Your point that "working on gender" is not synonomous to "engaging with feminist theory" is also well taken--men's studies does exist (and is a field that I am particularly interested in) and not all approaches to speaking about women springs out of these feminist theories that we have discussed. I have professors who work exclusively with ideas from second-wave feminism and other professors who have balked at scholars "stuck" in that second-wave in favor of work that has fractured and problematized those positions and methods (something it looks like you want to continue doing). I think the best advice that I could give to you, Branwen, would be to look at departments that are strong in the theoretical approaches that you have embraced so far but make sure there are other strong faculty members who come from different theoretical fields. Perhaps those people could also work on Medieval texts but that isn't even necessary. Chances are that in those first few years you won't only be taking classes that deal with that time period and it would be great if you could come to terms with these other kinds of theory without letting them overwhelm your own way of producing scholarship (that is, of course, unless you want them to).

I'm realizing that this post has no point. I'm just in agreement haha.

Edited for coherence.

No point to this post, either. Just agreeing with YOU!

Edited because typing is hard.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Pamphilia

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

First - thanks everyone for your input.

Second - I have to say, that this has been one of the more enjoyable discussions I've participated in - in a very long time (I can't wait for grad school LOL). I'm now looking forward to theory classes, as well as period classes!

Pamphilla and diehtc0ke - thanks so much for the discussion and the advice. I will definitely keep it in mind, especially when looking at programs and profs. I know I have a lot of catching up to do in theory, and it will be interesting to see what I "dig" once I'm back in school (and not just reading theory anthologies on my own hahaha).

Oh, and I found yet another plus for Harvard - Patrick K. Ford - my all time favorite Welsh scholar (he wrote what I think is the best translation of The Mabinogi out there). Although he's only a research prof now, still - he's AROUND.