Writing Sample Advice

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Hello fellow literati (medievalists, please pay close attention):

I'm currently collecting articles and information for either a new or an expanded paper for my writing sample for the 2011 apps. You ALL know how important this is to me - making sure that I have a writing sample that is simply brilliant (as well as doing it on something that I enjoy and that I find relevant for my research interests). I've narrowed it down to two topics - either the "failure" of chivalry in Gawain and the Green Knight (which I have a close reading paper on, and can expand, with the appropriate secondary sources and an additional primary source to compare it to), or, analyzing the contradictions in the "Courtly" knight vs. "Knight of God" in Arthurian romance (i.e. how courtly love and service to a lady is the prime motivation in most Arthurian romance, while the inclusion of the search for the Grail suddenly places Christian values above the Courtly values - "a most perfect Christian Knight", and exploring the reasons for why the grail story was incorporated into the Arthurian cannon (social? cultural?). Methodically, I was hoping to analyze the works as "products of the time" - to me, obviously, there is SOME discourse between literature and the cultural, historical, and political events shaping the time when the literature was written. I suppose you could call it "light New Historicism" or similarly to Bakhtin - "Material Formalism." I know I'm strongest in close reading, but obviously, I need to use additional scholarship to engage in the discourse that is available.

This is all as a prelude.

As some of you may know, I'm taking an online class on medieval lit (which I am enjoying immensely overall, but as Eddie Murphy says - even crackers taste like gourmet food after a 10 year fast!), and I have been writing back and forth with the prof of the course regarding my writing sample. The paper that is required for the class is basically a "review" of the scholarship on Chaucer's Marriage Group in The Canterbury Tales, and is not something that I find sufficient for sending off with applications. I don't see how summarizing other people's research is a "critical piece of work" as required by so many schools. When I wrote him that I was hoping to write a more original piece of work, discoursing with scholarship, obviously, but coming up with an original thesis and point of view on the subject, I received the following:

"Well, I think the chances of a student (of anyone, really) coming upwith a viable original argument on these matters are slim to none, but you never know, do you?" He then went on to state quite boldly that he thinks that New Historicism is bullshit (which I found particularly annoying. I may not like Deconstruction, but I would NEVER call it bullshit), and that he doesn't see how any cultural or social changes affected the shift from Courtly Knight to Knight of God in the Arthurian cycle.

(this is from the same man who told me that adcomms don't really even read writing samples: "these writing samples are just meant to show general competence, not real expertise (I doubt that anyone ever reads them)")

Now, obviously, I was disappointed at such a dismissive reply to my ideas. I don't see this as "promoting scholarship" or as being particularly helpful to a student who has stated over and over that the goal for this class is preparation for PhD studies at a TOP UNIVERSITY in Medieval Literature. I find it even somewhat insulting, that despite the fact that I have a BA in English, have already written an honors thesis (in which I came up with several original applications of Bakhtin's Carnivalesque theory on Anglo-Welsh children's lit), I am being talked to like a child. I want to do the absolute best that I can on this paper - this and the SOP are the prime focus of the applications, after all.

Obviously, I am not going to ask this professor for any additional advice on the writing sample. I will be using the class for my own purposes - access to the library, returning to the literature that I love, and getting my feet wet back in the scholarship. But I would like your advice on the following, if you are willing:

1. Is a "scholarship review" paper - i.e. summarizing and commenting on the current scholarship on a particular subject truly enough for a writing sample? Are my panties in a bunch for absolutely no reason?
2. Any advice on the writing sample in general? Structure, methodology, etc? Did you apply a particular critical theory on a text? did you rely on close reading? Any advice will be welcome.
3. Is my prof being a bit of a jerk, or am I too over-sensitive? My favorite prof in undergrad was equally blunt, but she always encouraged me to find original angles.
4. Scholarship-wise, if anyone would like to point me in the direction of a good article/book on any of the above subjects, I would be grateful (I'm researching, obviously, but sometimes you just miss things).

I have decided to view this as a challenge! Naysayers beware!

Branwen, a confused pre-grad student.

[bigdgp]

Hello fellow literati (medievalists, please pay close attention):

I'm currently collecting articles and information for either a new or an expanded paper for my writing sample for the 2011 apps. You ALL know how important this is to me - making sure that I have a writing sample that is simply brilliant (as well as doing it on something that I enjoy and that I find relevant for my research interests). I've narrowed it down to two topics - either the "failure" of chivalry in Gawain and the Green Knight (which I have a close reading paper on, and can expand, with the appropriate secondary sources and an additional primary source to compare it to), or, analyzing the contradictions in the "Courtly" knight vs. "Knight of God" in Arthurian romance (i.e. how courtly love and service to a lady is the prime motivation in most Arthurian romance, while the inclusion of the search for the Grail suddenly places Christian values above the Courtly values - "a most perfect Christian Knight", and exploring the reasons for why the grail story was incorporated into the Arthurian cannon (social? cultural?). Methodically, I was hoping to analyze the works as "products of the time" - to me, obviously, there is SOME discourse between literature and the cultural, historical, and political events shaping the time when the literature was written. I suppose you could call it "light New Historicism" or similarly to Bakhtin - "Material Formalism." I know I'm strongest in close reading, but obviously, I need to use additional scholarship to engage in the discourse that is available.

This is all as a prelude.

As some of you may know, I'm taking an online class on medieval lit (which I am enjoying immensely overall, but as Eddie Murphy says - even crackers taste like gourmet food after a 10 year fast!), and I have been writing back and forth with the prof of the course regarding my writing sample. The paper that is required for the class is basically a "review" of the scholarship on Chaucer's Marriage Group in The Canterbury Tales, and is not something that I find sufficient for sending off with applications. I don't see how summarizing other people's research is a "critical piece of work" as required by so many schools. When I wrote him that I was hoping to write a more original piece of work, discoursing with scholarship, obviously, but coming up with an original thesis and point of view on the subject, I received the following:

"Well, I think the chances of a student (of anyone, really) coming upwith a viable original argument on these matters are slim to none, but you never know, do you?" He then went on to state quite boldly that he thinks that New Historicism is bullshit (which I found particularly annoying. I may not like Deconstruction, but I would NEVER call it bullshit), and that he doesn't see how any cultural or social changes affected the shift from Courtly Knight to Knight of God in the Arthurian cycle.

(this is from the same man who told me that adcomms don't really even read writing samples: "these writing samples are just meant to show general competence, not real expertise (I doubt that anyone ever reads them)")

Now, obviously, I was disappointed at such a dismissive reply to my ideas. I don't see this as "promoting scholarship" or as being particularly helpful to a student who has stated over and over that the goal for this class is preparation for PhD studies at a TOP UNIVERSITY in Medieval Literature. I find it even somewhat insulting, that despite the fact that I have a BA in English, have already written an honors thesis (in which I came up with several original applications of Bakhtin's Carnivalesque theory on Anglo-Welsh children's lit), I am being talked to like a child. I want to do the absolute best that I can on this paper - this and the SOP are the prime focus of the applications, after all.

Obviously, I am not going to ask this professor for any additional advice on the writing sample. I will be using the class for my own purposes - access to the library, returning to the literature that I love, and getting my feet wet back in the scholarship. But I would like your advice on the following, if you are willing:

1. Is a "scholarship review" paper - i.e. summarizing and commenting on the current scholarship on a particular subject truly enough for a writing sample? Are my panties in a bunch for absolutely no reason?
2. Any advice on the writing sample in general? Structure, methodology, etc? Did you apply a particular critical theory on a text? did you rely on close reading? Any advice will be welcome.
3. Is my prof being a bit of a jerk, or am I too over-sensitive? My favorite prof in undergrad was equally blunt, but she always encouraged me to find original angles.
4. Scholarship-wise, if anyone would like to point me in the direction of a good article/book on any of the above subjects, I would be grateful (I'm researching, obviously, but sometimes you just miss things).

I have decided to view this as a challenge! Naysayers beware!

Branwen, a confused pre-grad student.

I am not in a PhD program yet, but I do have experience applying to and being accepted at elite MA programs. It sounds like your prof. is a just an idiot. I wonder if he or she doesn't have a lot of experience teaching students who are interested in getting a PhD. You should definitely try to write an original piece. You probably won't know all of the critical conversation surrounding your topic until after you finish your PhD, which is possibly why he said it was unlikely that a grad student would do original work. Reviewing the critical conversation is a grad-school exercise designed to help you do just that. However, I don't think that means that you shouldn't try to be original. I think your topic is really interesting (failure of the chivalric knight) and you should pursue that further. Also, New Historicism is THE BOMB, and after about half a drink, I might be persuaded to call Deconstructionism bull$#!%.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I am not in a PhD program yet, but I do have experience applying to and being accepted at elite MA programs. It sounds like your prof. is a just an idiot. I wonder if he or she doesn't have a lot of experience teaching students who are interested in getting a PhD. You should definitely try to write an original piece. You probably won't know all of the critical conversation surrounding your topic until after you finish your PhD, which is possibly why he said it was unlikely that a grad student would do original work. Reviewing the critical conversation is a grad-school exercise designed to help you do just that. However, I don't think that means that you shouldn't try to be original. I think your topic is really interesting (failure of the chivalric knight) and you should pursue that further. Also, New Historicism is THE BOMB, and after about half a drink, I might be persuaded to call Deconstructionism bull$#!%.

Oh THANKS . I was getting all worried that I was fussing over nothing. This is the first I've EVER encountered a professor who wasn't absolutely encouraging in finding original ideas and angles!

And yes - the "scholarship review" paper is exactly what I thought - an EXERCISE - which is not suitable as a writing sample (basically, that would show that I'm able to read and summarize, not what I think the adcomms want to read).

And yes, New Historicism is THE BOMB (I have an academic crush on Stephen Greenblatt!!). For me, at least, it makes no sense to separate a text from the cultural and social context in which it was written. OBVIOUSLY, Shakespeare was commenting on current goings on in his historical plays. OBVIOUSLY, Malory was injecting some sort of social commentary in his Morte. Texts come to be and grow out of the time they are written in. Obviously, our reading of them may evolve and change over the years, and some things remain truly relevant - but to call the attempt to contextualize literature into the period Bullshit is... well... annoying (and also highly insulting to the extremely valued and successful New Historicists out there, such as Stephen Greenblatt. It's basically saying "I spit at you, Norton Anthology!!").

Even after a drink I wouldn't call deconstructionism bullshit (I may, however, curse it for being so difficult, obscure, and filled with buzz-words I can't keep straight).

I shall keep researching!

[foppery]

I'm a 17th- and 18th-century person, not a medievalist, but writing-sample problems and solutions are universal. So, for what my opinion is worth:

1. No, a review paper isn't enough. Frankly, it doesn't even sound like a worthwhile seminar paper. You need to discuss primary texts, and come up with original analyses of those texts, though you should of course engage with the scholarship on the issue.

2. I used a very obscure prose satire by a very obscure Restoration author. The text hadn't been in print for 150 years, and not even my adviser, who knows everything and might actually be God, had heard of the author. Obviously there are different philosophies on how obscure your text should be, but I suspect committees will happy to read something that isn't Chaucer/Gawain/whatever. Since I couldn't find any scholarship on the text or author, I used scholarship on Restoration philosophies of language and the genre of satire. The writing sample was a chapter of my thesis, and it was by far the most theoretical chapter: I discussed linguistic theory, deconstructionism, etc. (Hence my acceptance to Cornell, whose program turned out to be way too theory-based for me.) But a good portion of the sample, maybe half of it, was a close reading of the author's language and opinions.

3. Yeah, your prof sounds like he's trying to make less work for himself. That said, the professor of an online course may not be the best person to ask for advice: after all, you've never met the man, and he may think (correctly or not) that his job description doesn't include helping students with writing samples. Is there another professor, even from undergrad, who might be more helpful? One of your potential recommenders? (Also, where does this dude teach? I hope he realizes that most programs these days do some form of New Historicism. I have my issues with Greenblatt, but I agree that the historical angle is very important.)

4. Aahh, no idea! I've taken one medieval-studies course in my entire life. <br style="text-shadow: none;">

Edited July 4, 2010 by foppery

[stormydown]

Just curious because I've seen you around the board -- have you looked at the University of Toronto as a potential grad school? I'm only asking because I considered medieval lit for a hot second (I was really into Malory) and my English department chair/medieval lit prof/Arthuriana expert (this dude here: http://www.amazon.co...arty&x=17&y=18) was like TORONTO TORONTO TORONTO. At one point he was an editor for Arthuriana. Anyway, I totally changed my mind about what I wanted to do, and I think he wanted to cry, poor man. I realized that I would puke if I read Beowulf one more time. This is my attempt to extend his legacy. He rules and my medieval lit classes with him were THE BOMB, to echo bigdgp. I don't know anything about Toronto either so I feel like this whole paragraph was very unhelpful, but I like talking about Kevin Harty because I love him so.

And yeah, your professor sounds like an idiot. I'm really interested in New Historicism (my own research will connect Irish poetry to its historical/political influences), and my SoP noted this interest and pointed directly to my writing sample, in which I tied early American Gothic novels to their historical influences. I think my treatment of the subject was interesting, and the works I chose to discuss weren't overdone (I talked about Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly and Hawthorne's The Marble Faun), so my writing sample really gave me a leg up, especially since I drew a strong connection to my SoP. Obviously grad schools don't expect you to hand in The Next Big Thing In Literary Criticism, but they want you to show you can think for yourself and approach ideas in interesting ways.

Edited July 5, 2010 by stormydown

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I'm a 17th- and 18th-century person, not a medievalist, but writing-sample problems and solutions are universal. So, for what my opinion is worth:

1. No, a review paper isn't enough. Frankly, it doesn't even sound like a worthwhile seminar paper. You need to discuss primary texts, and come up with original analyses of those texts, though you should of course engage with the scholarship on the issue.

I thought so. It'll be good practice for Canterbury, but not more than that.

2. I used a very obscure prose satire by a very obscure Restoration author. The text hadn't been in print for 150 years, and not even my adviser, who knows everything and might actually be God, had heard of the author. Obviously there are different philosophies on how obscure your text should be, but I suspect committees will happy to read something that isn't Chaucer/Gawain/whatever. Since I couldn't find any scholarship on the text or author, I used scholarship on Restoration philosophies of language and the genre of satire. The writing sample was a chapter of my thesis, and it was by far the most theoretical chapter: I discussed linguistic theory, deconstructionism, etc. (Hence my acceptance to Cornell, whose program turned out to be way too theory-based for me.) But a good portion of the sample, maybe half of it, was a close reading of the author's language and opinions.

I love obscure texts that no one knows about. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of access - since I live overseas, by the time something is in a book - there is considerable scholarship on it. I think I have a very original angle on the Arthurian cycle for my dissertation ideas (at least I haven't heard of this angle in research before) - approaching it in a VERY interdisciplinary way, but obviously, I can't begin to work on it now - I don't have the resources (i.e. access to original texts), and my undergrad honors thesis was on children's lit - a bit unrelated (also, due to a saving snafu back in 2001, the second half of it is just in rough draft!!). I've found a lot of info on Gawain that may help me in finding an original angle that somewhat ties into my research ideas - I did find an article that connects Gawain to the failure of the Templar ideal, which can be an interesting starting point.

3. Yeah, your prof sounds like he's trying to make less work for himself. That said, the professor of an online course may not be the best person to ask for advice: after all, you've never met the man, and he may think (correctly or not) that his job description doesn't include helping students with writing samples. Is there another professor, even from undergrad, who might be more helpful? One of your potential recommenders? (Also, where does this dude teach? I hope he realizes that most programs these days do some form of New Historicism. I have my issues with Greenblatt, but I agree that the historical angle is very important.)

UMass Dartmouth. From the level of my classmates, I don't think the indented level of the class is very high... as I said, after a ten year fast, even crackers taste like the feast of the Holy Grail

Thanks!

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Just curious because I've seen you around the board -- have you looked at the University of Toronto as a potential grad school? I'm only asking because I considered medieval lit for a hot second (I was really into Malory) and my English department chair/medieval lit prof/Arthuriana expert (this dude here: http://www.amazon.co...arty&x=17&y=18) was like TORONTO TORONTO TORONTO. At one point he was an editor for Arthuriana. Anyway, I totally changed my mind about what I wanted to do, and I think he wanted to cry, poor man. I realized that I would puke if I read Beowulf one more time. This is my attempt to extend his legacy. He rules and my medieval lit classes with him were THE BOMB, to echo bigdgp. I don't know anything about Toronto either so I feel like this whole paragraph was very unhelpful, but I like talking about Kevin Harty because I love him so.

And yeah, your professor sounds like an idiot. I'm really interested in New Historicism (my own research will connect Irish poetry to its historical/political influences), and my SoP noted this interest and pointed directly to my writing sample, in which I tied early American Gothic novels to their historical influences. I think my treatment of the subject was interesting, and the works I chose to discuss weren't overdone (I talked about Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly and Hawthorne's The Marble Faun), so my writing sample really gave me a leg up, especially since I drew a strong connection to my SoP. Obviously grad schools don't expect you to hand in The Next Big Thing In Literary Criticism, but they want you to show you can think for yourself and approach ideas in interesting ways.

I'm not that eager to go to Toronto, overall - there are fellowship issues for non Canadians, and I have no intention of paying for grad school. In addition, I'm having enough trouble thinking about the cold in Wisconsin/Illinois/Boston/Upstate NY to think of even going further north!! I did look at the program, and wasn't impressed as I was by Northwestern, for example (also, the Arthuriana editor is now at Purdue!!). I'm having a hard time narrowing my list from 17 to 12 as it is, so adding yet another school to the mix is daunting, to say the least .

Since I'm pretty much writing this one on my own, obviously, I'm trying to get my writing sample to work into my SOP interests (the Arthurian Cycle and the Crusades), so hopefully I can find a fresh angle, despite not working on "fresh" texts.

Oh this is hard!

[wreckofthehope]

Branwen - you don't say what texts you are thinking about for the Courtly knight to knight of God concept - would I be right in presuming "Floris and Blancheflour" is one? The other text that came immediately to mind was "The Awntyrs off Arthur at the Terne Wathelyne" - I'm not sure if you had thought about it as it isn't Crusades-based, but it definitely fits with the idea of an uncomfortable co-mingling of motivations for the knightly quest. - I'm absolutely not a mediaevalist, but that sounds like an interesting topic.

I'll second, third and fourth everyone who says a scholarship review is not good enough - I know very little about this whole process, as I'm doing it from the U.K. for the first time, but I would certainly balk, as you have, at sending in something that isn't able, by virtue of its scope, to properly demonstrate your critical ability.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Branwen - you don't say what texts you are thinking about for the Courtly knight to knight of God concept - would I be right in presuming "Floris and Blancheflour" is one? The other text that came immediately to mind was "The Awntyrs off Arthur at the Terne Wathelyne" - I'm not sure if you had thought about it as it isn't Crusades-based, but it definitely fits with the idea of an uncomfortable co-mingling of motivations for the knightly quest. - I'm absolutely not a mediaevalist, but that sounds like an interesting topic.

I'll second, third and fourth everyone who says a scholarship review is not good enough - I know very little about this whole process, as I'm doing it from the U.K. for the first time, but I would certainly balk, as you have, at sending in something that isn't able, by virtue of its scope, to properly demonstrate your critical ability.

With the "Knight of Love/Knight of God" concept I'm still not sure about primary texts - possibly Malory (since he uses both romance and grail in his work), but obviously, earlier works would be appropriate as well - I want to work mostly in the Arthurian scope (obviously, Crusades are an external influence that may not appear de facto in the text, but influence the need to "up the stakes" for the knights with a "holy" quest, such as the holy grail). I'm more and more inclined to work on Gawain at this point, since I do have a very good core of close reading from undergrad which I can expand considerably with some research (and modify my argument somewhat), but a lot of the basics are there (and I got an A on the paper).

I will, however, look at the texts you recommended, I'm not as familiar with them - if they suit, they may work as additional primary sources

Thanks!

[mudlark]

Can I attempt to do some devil's advocating here, without sounding like I'm siding with JerkProf? I know that when I think back on the few times a prof had me spitting bullets, s/he usually had some good points that I can only see in retrospect once the rage dies down. You won't sic a dragon on me or anything?

"Well, I think the chances of a student (of anyone, really) coming upwith a viable original argument on these matters are slim to none, but you never know, do you?"

Here, I think you likely have different definitions of 'original'. As your post progresses, you talk a lot about fresh angles or applications of theorists as your definition of originality. It's quite possible that he heard 'original' in its stronger sense, meaning an argument that brings new information to light, rather than re-mixing existing material. I assume that finding something truly new in medieval studies would involve serious language knowledge and time digging through archives, in which case he's right to think that it's not possible for an undergraduate to achieve in the context of a distance learning course. Of course, re-mixing existing material and finding new angles and applications are exactly what you should be doing at this point in your academic career. It's possible that he interpreted you as wanting to do high level primary research, when you really want support to do highly sophisticated readings.

He then went on to state quite boldly that he thinks that New Historicism is bullshit (which I found particularly annoying. I may not like Deconstruction, but I would NEVER call it bullshit), and that he doesn't see how any cultural or social changes affected the shift from Courtly Knight to Knight of God in the Arthurian cycle.

Yes, annoying. But you may well end up with someone who is dismissive of your particular critical outlook on an adcom. You need to make sure that you have a solid rationale for why the project requires a specific critical frame. This could be a great challenge to really think through your critical allegiances and figure out logical justifications for why you work with the ideas that you do. My sense is that new historicist work is no longer written with the urgency that it once was. The basic principles have been accepted pretty broadly, and a lot of work incorporates some level of historicism. It was a necessary corrective to a-historical high theory, and it was a largely successful one, in my opinion. It has been folded into a lot of other approaches now. It's a useful, good frame, but it's no longer the cutting edge. You have to ask yourself whether the arguments that someone like Greenblatt uses to justify his work are still relevant and necessary to your specific project.

(this is from the same man who told me that adcomms don't really even read writing samples: "these writing samples are just meant to show general competence, not real expertise (I doubt that anyone ever reads them)")

I've heard the same thing from a handful of profs. Student writing will be utterly transformed by graduate coursework, so they just need to see that you have the foundation established. I think it's probably more important than JerkProf is saying (like, they probably get read, and a good one can probably help you), but I think there's a grain of truth in there.

Now, obviously, I was disappointed at such a dismissive reply to my ideas. I don't see this as "promoting scholarship" or as being particularly helpful to a student who has stated over and over that the goal for this class is preparation for PhD studies at a TOP UNIVERSITY in Medieval Literature. I find it even somewhat insulting, that despite the fact that I have a BA in English, have already written an honors thesis (in which I came up with several original applications of Bakhtin's Carnivalesque theory on Anglo-Welsh children's lit), I am being talked to like a child. I want to do the absolute best that I can on this paper - this and the SOP are the prime focus of the applications, after all.

He clearly hasn't bought into your goal. And frankly, I'm not sure he has to. You seem very driven, and sure of yourself. If this is what you belong doing, you'll get there regardless of his help (or lack thereof). But imagine that you're a prof (what's his rank? what else is going on with his career right now? where are his priorities?) dealing with hundreds of students that you don't know, and will not meet, as a distance learning instructor. Your intention to apply to top programs is very real to you, but it's just an intention to him. Similarly, a BA he wasn't involved in and an honors thesis that he has never read aren't going to be compelling evidence to someone who isn't invested in your path. Lots of people write an honours thesis and remain horrible candidates for grad school. You know that you're not one of those people, but he doesn't. He doesn't have evidence of your talent. All I'm trying to say here is that you can't expect someone with such a tangential relationship to you and so little opportunity to see you showcase your abilities to be as invested in your career as you are. You see an important opportunity and a chance to do serious work; he sees a nearly anonymous request that will result in extra work for him.

Obviously, I am not going to ask this professor for any additional advice on the writing sample. I will be using the class for my own purposes - access to the library, returning to the literature that I love, and getting my feet wet back in the scholarship.

Awesome, especially the library part.

Is a "scholarship review" paper - i.e. summarizing and commenting on the current scholarship on a particular subject truly enough for a writing sample? Are my panties in a bunch for absolutely no reason?

It's not, but it's an extremely useful tool that you can use as a section of another paper. Why not take a subject that you've already written on, and do a parallel scholarship review? It could go a long way to transforming a strong reading into a paper that participates in ongoing critical discussions. This is where you can start working out the rationale for your methodology. Instead of saying, "Here's a topic and I'm going to use Greenblatt to produce a reading", you'll be able to say, "Here's what other people have said about a topic, where they've succeeded, and where they've failed. It's clear that in order to fill the research gap left by other criticism, and to reach this incredibly important and vital element, an approach like Greenblatt's is needed, and here's why." That's one of the big differences between undergraduate and graduate writing. Apologies if I'm telling you something you already know. But I think you'll get more out of the class if you see the final assignment as a useful exercise that will help you in the long run, rather than a make-work project.

Any advice on the writing sample in general? Structure, methodology, etc? Did you apply a particular critical theory on a text? did you rely on close reading? Any advice will be welcome.

When I applied for my MA, I just used the only lengthy paper I had in the sub-field I wanted to study. Pretty random, frankly. When I applied for my PhD, I wanted to look like I had more scholarly focus, so I chose two papers that used the methodology I was proposing to continue working with in my PhD. This is a great way to link your writing sample to the SOP. If you're proposing to do archival stuff, have some print culture in your sample. If you're proposing postcolonial study, make sure your sample isn't totally Brit-centric. Etc. I'm a firm believer that methodology is secondary, and that the approach you choose should grow out of the requirements of the materials you're working with. Does the work you want to do require a certain frame? Then convince an adcom of that. Tell them in the SOP what approach you plan to take, and show them in the sample that you're already working with the required tools.

Is my prof being a bit of a jerk, or am I too over-sensitive? My favorite prof in undergrad was equally blunt, but she always encouraged me to find original angles.

Little of column A, little of column B. It's hard to run into someone who doesn't care about your goal, after getting used to profs who encourage you and support you and are strongly personally invested in you. But hey, it happens. Not everyone will like you, or think you deserve special attention. Sucks that you've run into this situation now, when you have so much riding on the course. But you'll push through it. Convincing indifferent people that your scholarship is worthwhile, even if they think the methodology is bullshit, is part of the game. You'll be convincing indifferent people to accept you to conferences, award you grants, and publish your work for the rest of your life, if you're lucky. Think of this as good practice.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

@Mudlark - thanks for the points (no dragons being sicced at you, I promise!).

Subsequent emails have clarified things up somewhat with the prof (although he still thinks that New Historicism is bullshit, LOL) - I don't know why he assumed that I was a theory buff - I simply asked if he knew of any New Historicist studies of the two subject matters I was interested to collect as many relevant secondary sources for my project as I could, and start reading, before I sit down and brainstorm. In the discussion that followed the above email, I made it clear that I was interested in historical and cultural context for literature - i.e. literature is a part and parcel of the current discourse between "real-life events" and cultural products - art, literature, music, ideology, propaganda, etc. (I think some people call it post-marxism, and so on. I'd rather not label, personally. My preference is to read as much as possible, mush it up together in a cake bowl, and come up with something new in the oven).

Re the originality issue - perhaps you are right - obviously I had no intention of coming up with new FACTS at this point in my academic career - I don't have the resources - I live in Israel with no access to libraries, can't read French or Latin, and am basically untrained for that at this point! I just want to come up with a fresh perspective about Gawain and the failure of chivalry in it. I think I found some interesting cultural discourse that may be relevant, as well as a contrary article that discusses how the failure is actually a bit of a "farce" - basically a ham actor tearing out his hair in over-reaction to a small thing. So I'm basically collecting loads of info.

Re investment - obviously, I don't think this guy is invested in me as my undergrad profs were (they remember me after nearly 10 years since I graduated, and wrote LORs). However, we're only 7 students in this class (far from hundreds), and I was very very clear from when I registered (and before, when I exchanged emails with him about the class) that this is a prep-for-grad-school class in my book. However, as I stated before, I will make the best of it. I don't think he's suited as an LOR writer, however (unless our discussion continues to evolve positively - grade wise, I'm riding the 95-100 range in pretty much all the class assignments).

However, your points are well taken. And yes, another thing I've learned from this is what not to do when I'm teaching .

[Riotbeard]

You should check out the journal PostMedieval that just started this year. One of my undergrad lit professors edits it, and it sounds like they are doing really interesting stuff there.

I would suggest maybe looking at various theoretical approaches alongside New Historicism (not that you can't settle with that), but if I had to guess, there are tons of essays working on situating Gawain in its historical period and within it's cultural milleu. Not that your paper doesn't sound incredibly interesting, but it's possible that bringing other lenses could shed more light on your topic. Have you every thought about issues of gender and sexuality, and masculinity in the creation of gawain and chivalry, etc. I did an ind. study on Donne and Queer theory and found a real vacuum of scholarship in the direction I wanted to go. Everything seemed to be situated in the Harold Bloom style of scholarship (bleh!). I think new historicism is valid and probably an essential basis for most good scholarship (maybe this is why I am getting my PhD in history and not Lit), but I think you may find other theoretical lenses will bring more complexity and shed new light on your own scholarship.

[Medievalmaniac]

Brannie-Poo, don't forget, I would be more than happy to read through your paper and make suggestions/corrections if you want other eyes on your writing sample. I LIVE for this stuff. Editing is my life (or, at least, it is for the next nine weeks, as I am teaching the dreaded Creative Writing course this term....! Ulp.)

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Brannie-Poo, don't forget, I would be more than happy to read through your paper and make suggestions/corrections if you want other eyes on your writing sample. I LIVE for this stuff. Editing is my life (or, at least, it is for the next nine weeks, as I am teaching the dreaded Creative Writing course this term....! Ulp.)

You rock.

And you will be receiving a 20 page draft towards the end of September! (I've started coming up with some excellent ideas that tie in SGGK, concepts of chivalry in literature (working from Geoffroi de Charney's A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry), and the internal textual tension created between the meeting of the chivalric world and the Celtic "otherworld" - all which contribute to the "failure" of chivalry (however, making Gawain a much more interesting character), and how the failure of this chivalry reflects the fall of the Templar ideal in the early 14th century - all against a background of what the listening audience would have been attuned to (i.e. indications of Morgan le Fay even before the deus ex machina at the end), indications of the Celtic otherworld, their knowledge of the traditional beheading games tales, their knowledge of the Gawain archetype and tales, etc.

I hope you'll enjoy!!

[lifealive]

What mudlark said is a brilliant piece of spot-on advice.

Your prof sounds like a total jerk--and I think that anyone who is so categorically negative should be avoided when going through this very stressful process--but I kind of wish that someone had given me that kind of hard-knock sobering feedback about my methodology and writing sample. Why? You're going to run into adcom members who are just as negative and hostile to your theoretical inclinations. In a way he's right--New Historicism (with a capital NH) has fallen out of favor somewhat (though so has Deconstruction with a capital D, so I don't know what that's about). Thing is, everybody "does" New Historicism (it's so quotidian and almost necessary) but everyone is eager to be seen as doing something else. So any statement of purpose that includes the phrase "New Historicism" or "Stephen Greenblatt" is probably (and somewhat unfairly) going to be met with a little boredom. Now, obviously you should do what you love. You shouldn't try to please people, and you shouldn't try to become an expert in some whacked-out, cutting edge theory just to impress an adcom. That would backfire, obviously. But just be aware that certain buzzwords aren't that buzzy anymore, and by presuming that they are--or by foregrounding out-of-date methodologies under the guise of originality--you may run into some problems.

At the application stage, I maintain that it's more important to produce a stellar close reading and weave in methodologies secondarily than it is to show a great aptitude for a certain kind of theory. Adcoms recognize and appreciate a good close reading and love originality--even if the applicant doesn't quite yet have the theoretical terms to describe what they're doing. And some adcoms are suspicious of undergrad theoryheads. My professor calls these applicants "one trick ponies"--in the sense that they just apply one set of theoretical skills to everything they read rather than actually looking at what the text might be doing.

Edited August 12, 2010 by lifealive

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

What mudlark said is a brilliant piece of spot-on advice.

Your prof sounds like a total jerk--and I think that anyone who is so categorically negative should be avoided when going through this very stressful process--but I kind of wish that someone had given me that kind of hard-knock sobering feedback about my methodology and writing sample. Why? You're going to run into adcom members who are just as negative and hostile to your theoretical inclinations. In a way he's right--New Historicism (with a capital NH) has fallen out of favor somewhat (though so has Deconstruction with a capital D, so I don't know what that's about). Thing is, everybody "does" New Historicism (it's so quotidian and almost necessary) but everyone is eager to be seen as doing something else. So any statement of purpose that includes the phrase "New Historicism" or "Stephen Greenblatt" is probably (and somewhat unfairly) going to be met with a little boredom. Now, obviously you should do what you love. You shouldn't try to please people, and you shouldn't try to become an expert in some whacked-out, cutting edge theory just to impress an adcom. That would backfire, obviously. But just be aware that certain buzzwords aren't that buzzy anymore, and by presuming that they are--or by foregrounding out-of-date methodologies under the guise of originality--you may run into some problems.

At the application stage, I maintain that it's more important to produce a stellar close reading and weave in methodologies secondarily than it is to show a great aptitude for a certain kind of theory. Adcoms recognize and appreciate a good close reading and love originality--even if the applicant doesn't quite yet have the theoretical terms to describe what they're doing. And some adcoms are suspicious of undergrad theoryheads. My professor calls these applicants "one trick ponies"--in the sense that they just apply one set of theoretical skills to everything they read rather than actually looking at what the text might be doing.

:lol:

Luckily I'm not a theory-head at all. I'm highly deficient in theory training. I'm expanding a close reading paper (expanding the thesis significantly) and using a mish-mash of ideas to support my angle on it. I doubt anyone would call my paper "new historicist" LOL. I was just looking for some additional sources for my research, and I'm really not set on that particular approach. I do read texts in a historical and cultural context (what was going on at the time, and an audience's familiarity with "archetypal" tales and stories lend a very different interpretation of the text - for example, the cues a medieval audience would pick up, very easily, when hearing the description of the road to Hautdesert, or the entrance to the Green Chapel, and how that would affect their understanding of the text), but I'm just as enamored of Geraldine Heng's postcolonial take on Arthurian literature in Empire of Magic as I am of Greenblatt .

[Strong Flat White]

I bet your writing sample is awesome, you've been throwing yourself into this topic for so long. I am confident for you. Keep in mind, there are dudes like me out here! Take heart! Your competition! And you should feel really really good about that, because I happen to be putting together a writing sample without ever once having taken a class in theory. Not once. Ever. Well, not yet. Flying totally blind. You guys should see it, it's hilarious. Imagine it. You can't, but try. It is too hilarious for words. I can't even seriously bring myself to solicit advice. At least you can do that seriously - solicit advice, that is - without people laughing at you. I am so jealous. You can actually seriously discuss a writing sample without making people laugh so hard that whatever they are drinking comes out their noseholes. In the all-of-you's vs. the all-of-me's this application cycle, the all-of-you's are going to seriously clean up. I am emphatically not worried for you. Do your medieval thing, do it boldly, and prepare to trounce your competition! It's going to be an epic Beowulf kind of slaughter.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I bet your writing sample is awesome, you've been throwing yourself into this topic for so long. I am confident for you. Keep in mind, there are dudes like me out here! Take heart! Your competition! And you should feel really really good about that, because I happen to be putting together a writing sample without ever once having taken a class in theory. Not once. Ever. Well, not yet. Flying totally blind. You guys should see it, it's hilarious. Imagine it. You can't, but try. It is too hilarious for words. I can't even seriously bring myself to solicit advice. At least you can do that seriously - solicit advice, that is - without people laughing at you. I am so jealous. You can actually seriously discuss a writing sample without making people laugh so hard that whatever they are drinking comes out their noseholes. In the all-of-you's vs. the all-of-me's this application cycle, the all-of-you's are going to seriously clean up. I am emphatically not worried for you. Do your medieval thing, do it boldly, and prepare to trounce your competition! It's going to be an epic Beowulf kind of slaughter.

I never took a theory class either - my only knowledge of theory is extensive independent reading (and Blackwell's Companion to Literary Theory and Criticism). My book orders in Amazon recently have been geeky to the extreme trying to bone up on ANY books/essays/theory for medieval lit . My English training in UG centered around close reading! (well, my honors thesis had SOME theory, but still - it was close reading based!)

[Venetia]

Well despite what some have said about Gawain being overdone, I think it's a great choice (I did my MA dissertation on Gawain, so I might be a little biased!). I did my writing sample on Malory, which is probably the most cliched Medieval text ever, lol !

I'm sorry if this is an obvious suggestion, but have you looked at Thomas Hahn's article on popular chivalric romance in Britain? It's in the Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. I thought it provided good context for Gawain's character in English romance, though of course most of the other English Gawain material is later. Other than that, I can't think of anything off the top of my head- unless you plan to look at older, French material on Gawain (as I did). I have a whole bunch of stuff to suggest for that...just PM me if you're interested! Good luck. I'd be happy to read your finished product- as I said, I love SGGK!

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Well despite what some have said about Gawain being overdone, I think it's a great choice (I did my MA dissertation on Gawain, so I might be a little biased!). I did my writing sample on Malory, which is probably the most cliched Medieval text ever, lol !

I'm sorry if this is an obvious suggestion, but have you looked at Thomas Hahn's article on popular chivalric romance in Britain? It's in the Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. I thought it provided good context for Gawain's character in English romance, though of course most of the other English Gawain material is later. Other than that, I can't think of anything off the top of my head- unless you plan to look at older, French material on Gawain (as I did). I have a whole bunch of stuff to suggest for that...just PM me if you're interested! Good luck. I'd be happy to read your finished product- as I said, I love SGGK!

You RULE

I have Thomas Hahn's collection of Gawain romances (yes, most are later, but still, many are based on long-standing oral traditions that many SGGK listeners would have been aware of), so I have his introduction and explanations of each romance. I'm hoping to base the analysis on a few things - but less on the French tradition, since the English Gawain was soooooo different than the French Gauvain... a completely different archetype. But I will look up Hahn's article - that's a good lead

I'm hoping to be done with the first draft by the end of September, I would LOVE it if you could read it and give comments, especially with your familiarity in the material! Many thanks! Also - I don't think Gawain is overdone. The scholarship is extremely controversial - there are so many disagreeing views out there. Anyhow, I don't think anyone expects an applicant with only a BA (even if it's with honors) to work on an obscure medieval text (I would go for one of the other Gawain romances if I thought so) - I think our ability to analyze and come up with a fresh angle on a canonical text is appreciated. At least that's what my profs told me in Undergrad.

[poco_puffs]

I think our ability to analyze and come up with a fresh angle on a canonical text is appreciated. At least that's what my profs told me in Undergrad.

I agree with this. The way my professors and a member of an adcomm that accepted me expressed the idea is that you could find an obscure source piece for your writing sample, but it won't translate as well to the potentially very wide variety of readers who will be going over it to assess your scholarship potential. A fresh take on a canonical work, on the other hand, means that they will probably be more familiar with both the work itself and previous scholarship, thus making them more comfortable in an assessment and highlighting your ability to elbow your way into an existing argument.

I reworked a close-reading paper on Bleak House for my writing sample, and it lacked practically any theoretical backbone at all, but I took a somewhat unusual approach to class and gender in the novel through the lens of medicine. My undergrad professor told me she had read the book well over a dozen times in the last 40 years, but never read some of my highlighted passages in the way that I... well, highlighted them.

Something as historically, metaphorically, linguistically and otherwise rich as Gawain is just ripe for you to bring a new eye and a new pen to the discussion! I'm excited for you, and I mean that wholeheartedly.

Also, re: Strong Flat White, that was one of the best pump-up speeches ever, and after a long day on the internets you helped renew my faith in technologically-expressed humanity.