Subject Test

[wreckofthehope]

W. E. B. Du Bois and Phillis Wheatley? Two really important African-American writers (the former from the late 19th/early 20th c. and the latter from the 18th c.)? Du Bois wrote The Souls of Black Folk (of course, he wrote other things but that's probably all the Lit GRE will care about) and Wheatley was a poet (my favorite of hers is her elegy to a Mr. Whitfield...or Whitefield...one of them). This made me sad.

Ah, thanks. I'm British btw, and I went to an extremely traditional undergrad' school here in England- the only reason I studied ANY American literature is because I chose to write my thesis on Dickinson.

[augustquail]

Ah, thanks. I'm British btw, and I went to an extremely traditional undergrad' school here in England- the only reason I studied ANY American literature is because I chose to write my thesis on Dickinson.

Do you have access to the Norton anthology of american lit? (I think there are a billion volumes). Your library probably has some. I'm finding the first volume of the English lit one very helpful.

[wreckofthehope]

Do you have access to the Norton anthology of american lit? (I think there are a billion volumes). Your library probably has some. I'm finding the first volume of the English lit one very helpful.

Indeed I do, my sister did American Studies for undergrad so I've stolen hers - but, I haven't had a chance to really look through it yet, what with my job, my MA thesis and the normal GRE to study for, bleurgh. I got a pretty good score on the practice test, so I'm not overly worried. It really is the American Lit' I need to learn, even if all that entails is learning a bunch of names and dates and vague stylistic badges so that I can guess with slightly greater accuracy.

Part of the reason I want to come and do my PhD in the states is to get greater exposure to American Lit' - it's just not on the radar here (except in American Studies departments and a few progressively integrative English departments) but, frankly, why should it be? I've had a fantastic grounding in British Literature, and then continental theory (esp. psychoanalysis) through my MA, I'm hoping a PhD in the States will broaden my knowledge base and really round me out, making me more attractive come employment time.

[diehtc0ke]

Indeed I do, my sister did American Studies for undergrad so I've stolen hers - but, I haven't had a chance to really look through it yet, what with my job, my MA thesis and the normal GRE to study for, bleurgh. I got a pretty good score on the practice test, so I'm not overly worried. It really is the American Lit' I need to learn, even if all that entails is learning a bunch of names and dates and vague stylistic badges so that I can guess with slightly greater accuracy.

Part of the reason I want to come and do my PhD in the states is to get greater exposure to American Lit' - it's just not on the radar here (except in American Studies departments and a few progressively integrative English departments) but, frankly, why should it be? I've had a fantastic grounding in British Literature, and then continental theory (esp. psychoanalysis) through my MA, I'm hoping a PhD in the States will broaden my knowledge base and really round me out, making me more attractive come employment time.

Haha. My first reaction to the bolded part was, "Well, we study YOUR literature! (Grumble, grumble.)"

[wreckofthehope]

Haha. My first reaction to the bolded part was, "Well, we study YOUR literature! (Grumble, grumble.)"

Goodness, wouldn't that be an original response.

The discipline has certain foundational texts, it's hardly surprising that the vast majority are British. Could more be done to integrate knowledge of other literatures in English into the canon? - Certainly. But, there is only so much ground you can cover during the course of an undergraduate degree, and the focus of English departments everywhere is going to be coloured by their local history and academic climate. Dubois and Wheatley, whose importance to American Literature you kindly informed me of, are, I'm sure, very interesting writers but their particular importance is, it seems, especially a social one, and that social role is tied to a specifically American locale. We have plenty of people similarly important from a British point of view who, I'm fairly sure, are not taught, and probably never read, in the States. I really don't think that is either surprising or upsetting. It's exciting for me to think that there is a whole new continent of work out there that I haven't yet gotten my hands on.

[diehtc0ke]

Goodness, wouldn't that be an original response.

The discipline has certain foundational texts, it's hardly surprising that the vast majority are British. Could more be done to integrate knowledge of other literatures in English into the canon? - Certainly. But, there is only so much ground you can cover during the course of an undergraduate degree, and the focus of English departments everywhere is going to be coloured by their local history and academic climate. Dubois and Wheatley, whose importance to American Literature you kindly informed me of, are, I'm sure, very interesting writers but their particular importance is, it seems, especially a social one, and that social role is tied to a specifically American locale. We have plenty of people similarly important from a British point of view who, I'm fairly sure, are not taught, and probably never read, in the States. I really don't think that is either surprising or upsetting. It's exciting for me to think that there is a whole new continent of work out there that I haven't yet gotten my hands on.

So, given the tone of your response, I'm not quite sure we're on the same wavelength but I hope you know I was joking and being facetious. I probably should have added a to the end of it or something.

I am, however, going to have to argue that Wheatley's poetry, though it does mostly reflect her experience as an educated slave in Massachusetts, definitely has transnational implications. Her poetry was published and read in England and, more generally, I'd find it really difficult to talk about slavery in the 18th c. as a specifically (or solely) American concern, even if it is an American slave that is writing. If I remember correctly, she even went to London to prove that her poetry was indeed her own and her poetry was circulated by the British abolitionist movement to show that Africans weren't inherently incapable of being intelligent. I'm not trying to say that of course you should have read her but to say that her poetry had no bearing on British social thought would be incorrect.

[wreckofthehope]

So, given the tone of your response, I'm not quite sure we're on the same wavelength but I hope you know I was joking and being facetious. I probably should have added a to the end of it or something.

I am, however, going to have to argue that Wheatley's poetry, though it does mostly reflect her experience as an educated slave in Massachusetts, definitely has transnational implications. Her poetry was published and read in England and, more generally, I'd find it really difficult to talk about slavery in the 18th c. as a specifically (or solely) American concern, even if it is an American slave that is writing. If I remember correctly, she even went to London to prove that her poetry was indeed her own and her poetry was circulated by the British abolitionist movement to show that Africans weren't inherently incapable of being intelligent. I'm not trying to say that of course you should have read her but to say that her poetry had no bearing on British social thought would be incorrect.

Yeah - sorry, I wasn't sure if you were joking or not, but decided the lack of a smiley suggested you weren't, and if you weren't, well... it was just too silly a statement to pass by.

Very interesting stuff on Wheatley, thank you - and yes, I was a bit too sweeping with my dismissal of possible transnational concerns. WIth that in mind, I think there's a good probability that if you were to study Romanticism seriously at the grad' level here then you'd come across her (by grad' I mean a taught Master's), but definitely not at undergrad'. I can't think of where else she would fit, other than the social context of Romanticism, within a British department, and you probably wouldn't get that deep a picture at the undergrad' level.

Admittedly, (British) Romanticism is a period I loathe, so I've put myself at a double disadvantage when it comes to Wheatley it seems.

Edited September 26, 2010 by vallensvelvet

[Pamphilia]

frankly, why should it be?

Oy vey. Is this a serious question?

[wreckofthehope]

Oy vey. Is this a serious question?

Absolutely - do you have an answer?

Should a British English department be expected to include courses on American Literature, quite possibly at the expense of courses on the literature of their own country, within the syllabus of an undergraduate degree? Would it be a good idea to swap the study of DuBois in an American degree for a course on British Kitchen Sink realism?

[diehtc0ke]

Absolutely - do you have an answer?

Should a British English department be expected to include courses on American Literature, quite possibly at the expense of courses on the literature of their own country, within the syllabus of an undergraduate degree? Would it be a good idea to swap the study of DuBois in an American degree for a course on British Kitchen Sink realism?

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting this post and you're not saying that as a British student in English you don't need to know anything about canonical African-American work. Being ignorant of Du Bois? Fine. Saying he has no place in an English curriculum? Ridiculous. He's not just some random minuscule piece of American trivia.

edit: Rereading your post, I'm probably stretching your words too far. I think you're definitely undervaluing American literature as a corpus of work but the conclusion I made doesn't add up. Your analogy is still out of whack, however. I understand that British English curriculums (and I suppose British educational systems in general) are more focused and purpose-driven than American systems but for you to not understand the importance that American literature has had on literature as a whole so that a British course on American literature would not be akin to an American course "British Kitchen Sink realism" is frightening.

Edited September 26, 2010 by diehtc0ke

[wreckofthehope]

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting this post and you're not saying that as a British student in English you don't need to know anything about canonical African-American work. Being ignorant of Du Bois? Fine. Saying he has no place in an English curriculum? Ridiculous. He's not just some random minuscule piece of American trivia.

What I'm saying is that the breadth and depth of an undergraduate degree is not limitless. Universities are going to want to provide their students with a solid grounding in the literary culture of the country they are in; I am in no way saying that DuBois has no place in an English curriculum, but that it is entirely understandable that British departments would chose NOT to teach him given the fact that their curriculum is limited and there are a large number of equally worthy writers whose work has a specific bearing on the context of literature in Britain. In an ideal world, we'd have the time to do courses on every aspect of all literatures written in English; as it is, I think it neither odd nor ridiculous to want to ground your students in the literary culture of the country they live in. Once that is done, there is probably only space for survey courses in other literatures which necessarily leave out a great deal.

edit after reading the above edit: I think you're misunderstanding what I am equating with what - it should read as swapping a course on DuBois solely for a course on Kitchen Sink... not American Literature as a whole(!), ie a course on DuBois in a British degree and a course on Kitchen Sink Realism in an American degree.

I'd also like to point out, that I actually think it's extremely important that a graduate student of literature should study as widely and deeply as possible - as many literatures in English as possible, and as many foreign literatures as possible. I just don't think it's either do-able, or necessary, at the undergraduate level where the vast majority of students are not going to go on to further study or work in the area.

Edited September 26, 2010 by vallensvelvet

[diehtc0ke]

What I'm saying is that the breadth and depth of an undergraduate degree is not limitless. Universities are going to want to provide their students with a solid grounding in the literary culture of the country they are in; I am in no way saying that DuBois has no place in an English curriculum, but that it is entirely understandable that British departments would chose NOT to teach him given the fact that their curriculum is limited and there are a large number of equally worthy writers whose work has a specific bearing on the context of literature in Britain. In an ideal world, we'd have the time to do courses on every aspect of all literatures written in English; as it is, I think it neither odd nor ridiculous to want to ground your students in the literary culture of the country they live in. Once that is done, there is probably only space for survey courses in other literatures which necessarily leave out a great deal.

edit after reading the above edit: I think you're misunderstanding what I am equating with what - it should read as swapping a course on DuBois solely for a course on Kitchen Sink... not American Literature as a whole(!), ie a course on DuBois in a British degree and a course on Kitchen Sink Realism in an American degree.

I'd also like to point out, that I actually think it's extremely important that a graduate student of literature should study as widely and deeply as possible - as many literatures in English as possible, and as many foreign literatures as possible. I just don't think it's either do-able, or necessary, at the undergraduate level where the vast majority of students are not going to go on to further study or work in the area.

What I'm saying is that American literature is not just some throwaway part of "English" as a subject of study. I suppose my gripe would be more with the British educational system than you personally if it makes a student of English think that they're a degree-worthy candidate without knowing a thing about American literature. My post became more a response to your original inquiry about why British English departments should see American literature as something worthy of being "on the radar" as you put it.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I actually have to agree with diethc0ke here - despite my personal weakness in American lit - after all, most American undergrads are required to take at least one British lit course while at school.

During my undergrad, while I was exposed to some American lit (in an intensive 6 credit upper division survey class required of all English majors), most of my focus was on British - perhaps due to the time period I focused on - there aren't any American medieval and renaissance writers . I perfectly understand that there are time constraints and a limit to the courses that an undergraduate student can be exposed to, but I think that even in the British system, requiring one course in American lit as part of the undergraduate degree is warranted, just as US schools usually require at least some exposure to literature written across the pond (and no, it's not necessarily canonical literature). Considering that there was a lot of cross-influence between the literatures of the US and Britain it makes sense to have some exposure and study of American literature in some capacity. While I agree that perhaps that course shouldn't necessarily be a course specifically on DuBois (I am very weak at African-American lit myself), it could be useful to have a class on slave narratives in general - considering that early slave pamphlets and stories were published in the UK as early as post restoration 17th century, influencing and shaping the abolitionist movement - and within that include the American side as well.

[wreckofthehope]

What I'm saying is that American literature is not just some throwaway part of "English" as a subject of study. I suppose my gripe would be more with the British educational system than you personally if it makes a student of English think that they're a degree-worthy candidate without knowing a thing about American literature. My post became more a response to your original inquiry about why British English departments should see American literature as something worthy of being "on the radar" as you put it.

The implications of your statement are entirely uncalled for and incredibly solipsistic.

You've mis-construed my words throughout this conversation for reasons that I can't quite fathom...

At no point have I said that no American Literature should be taught in British English departments (I have admitted that very little was taught in mine). What I did say was that it is perfectly reasonable that some authors considered enormously important from within the cultural mileu of the U.S. are not taught in British schools due to the time limits of an undergrad' curriculum and the need to include British authors of similar import to the development of British Lit'. What on earth is controversial about that statement?

Branwen - we seem to be in agreement - my earlier description of a degree that specializes in British Literature and includes some surveys of American and other literatures chimes pretty well with what you are describing I think...

Edit: reading back through the thread, I think I assumed a level of continuity between my posts that may not have been apparent due to some quite loosely employed terms - so, sorry about that.

Edited September 27, 2010 by vallensvelvet

[diehtc0ke]

The implications of your statement are entirely uncalled for and incredibly solipsistic.

You've mis-construed my words throughout this conversation for reasons that I can't quite fathom...

At no point have I said that no American Literature should be taught in British English departments (I have admitted that very little was taught in mine). What I did say was that it is perfectly reasonable that some authors considered enormously important from within the cultural mileu of the U.S. are not taught in British schools due to the time limits of an undergrad' curriculum and the need to include British authors of similar import to the development of British Lit'. What on earth is controversial about that statement?

Branwen - we seem to be in agreement - my earlier description of a degree that specializes in British Literature and includes some surveys of American and other literatures chimes pretty well with what you are describing I think...

Edit: reading back through the thread, I think I assumed a level of continuity between my posts that may not have been apparent due to some quite loosely employed terms - so, sorry about that.

My last comment was unnecessarily snarky and I apologize for that. I didn't realize it came off that way until I reread it just now. I've been reading Derrida and de Man for the past few days and perhaps I brought my frustrations with those texts into this discussion.

The fact of the matter, however, is that I think I was trying to defend American literature as a body of work that, especially given its relationship to British lit, warrants more than just a couple of survey courses, which (at least in an American system) would gloss over a century and a half's worth of material in a semester, sometimes creating a thematic thread through the course and sometimes not. I never intended to argue for teaching a course on Du Bois (though a semester's worth of work could be made there; he's prolific enough) but an undergraduate curriculum wouldn't have enough space for any electives in topics of American literature? The whole underlying script of this conversation has been that American literature isn't voluminous enough or impactful enough or something else enough to warrant these kinds of courses in an English system. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by survey courses? If they're really just broad and sweeping courses that take on centuries of work in a short amount of time, then I find a problem with that. And perhaps there are these kinds of elective courses offered (which I couldn't grasp from your responses thus far) and you've only been saying that American literature courses aren't required for the degree. In rethinking this entire discussion, I'm painfully aware of the dilettante-ish nature of American colleges which have distribution requirements and aspire for well-rounded graduates. This is a model that I have adopted for what a college education is supposed to do and, of course, that model isn't shared by everyone.

edit: Oh, and to clarify what I meant to say in my last post, I was worried that my responses made it seem as if I had a problem with you, vallensvelvet, telling me that American literature only received a handful of survey courses in the British English curriculum when I was more concerned with these kinds of systematic value judgments that would say to a British student studying English that it's okay to only have a tenuous grasp of American literature (at best) when he or she receives a Bachelor's degree. But, maybe I overestimate what having a Bachelor's degree actually signifies.

Edited September 27, 2010 by diehtc0ke

[wreckofthehope]

And perhaps there are these kinds of elective courses offered (which I couldn't grasp from your responses thus far) and you've only been saying that American literature courses aren't required for the degree. In rethinking this entire discussion, I'm painfully aware of the dilettante-ish nature of American colleges which have distribution requirements and aspire for well-rounded graduates. This is a model that I have adopted for what a college education is supposed to do and, of course, that model isn't shared by everyone.

.

I think maybe it would help if I explained the system that I'm used to working within:

We specialize early, and we go into depth in one subject and one subject only (unless you're doing a dual degree). As a result an English degree is expected to cover pretty much the whole of English (British)Literature at a fairly deep level.

In some universities here which have a modular system and allow for something like electives - you would certainly be able to take in-depth courses in particular areas of American Literature, although this would be much more likely in a dual course that combines English with American Lit' or with American Studies. On no account would these be necessary for the completion of an English degree. However, many universities, my own included, do not have modules per-se - there is a designated course that you follow, with scope for indivdual choice allowed only within certain parameters i.e choice of which authors to study within a specified time-period. Our set course looked like this:

1st year:

Introduction to Literary Studies

Victorian Lit'

Modern Lit'

Old English

2nd year:

The English Language

English Literature from 1100 to 1509

English Literature from 1509 to 1642

English Literature from 1642 to 1740

English Literature from 1740 to 1832

Extended Essay (mini thesis) on a choice of authors, two groupings of which are American.

3rd Year:

Shakespeare

Extended Essay on a choice of topics - one of which is American Lit'

It was entirely possible, and very much done, to never study American Literature during your entire degree. I'm not saying I think that's a particularly wise choice, especially for someone who wants to go on to graduate work, but it is possible - and I don't think it's fair to suggest that someone who does choose that path is unqualified to study English.

I actually chose both American Lit' topics for my extended essays - since I did want as rounded a picture as I could get of English Lit' from within my degree system. But still - two isolated in-depth projects are not particularly useful for understanding American Lit' as a whole and I would, quite honestly, have preferred a general survey course which would have at least given me some knowledge of comparitively less well known authors and movements.

This post is merely meant to provide context to my earlier posts - I hope you can see that within the scope of my degree at least, there was very little room for manoeuvre, expecting someone coming from that system to have extensive knowledge of American Literature just seems a bit ridiculous to me.

[diehtc0ke]

It was entirely possible, and very much done, to never study American Literature during your entire degree. I'm not saying I think that's a particularly wise choice, especially for someone who wants to go on to graduate work, but it is possible - and I don't think it's fair to suggest that someone who does choose that path is unqualified to study English.

I actually chose both American Lit' topics for my extended essays - since I did want as rounded a picture as I could get of English Lit' from within my degree system. But still - two isolated in-depth projects are not particularly useful for understanding American Lit' as a whole and I would, quite honestly, have preferred a general survey course which would have at least given me some knowledge of comparitively less well known authors and movements.

This post is merely meant to provide context to my earlier posts - I hope you can see that within the scope of my degree at least, there was very little room for manoeuvre, expecting someone coming from that system to have extensive knowledge of American Literature just seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I'm in a bit of a rush right now but I do want to thank you for placing your views in that context. Like I said, I think I'm just used to the American way of doing things and was (possibly) unfairly critical of how American literature is treated in British coursework on literature. If the notion of electives and students choosing their coursework is lost in the British system, so be it. I didn't mean to make the claim that anyone would be "unqualified to study English" but now I'm understanding that a British degree in English is vastly different from an American degree in English and I think I'm ultimately going to leave it at that.

[wreckofthehope]

I'm in a bit of a rush right now but I do want to thank you for placing your views in that context. Like I said, I think I'm just used to the American way of doing things and was (possibly) unfairly critical of how American literature is treated in British coursework on literature. If the notion of electives and students choosing their coursework is lost in the British system, so be it. I didn't mean to make the claim that anyone would be "unqualified to study English" but now I'm understanding that a British degree in English is vastly different from an American degree in English and I think I'm ultimately going to leave it at that.

Thank you for that reply. I'm sorry this got so heated, I was just frustrated by what I perceived to be an assumption that the values of one education system should be universal.

[againstourfaces]

OH man, I just wanted to say. I wrote the GRE today and I got the JAMES BROWN (!!!) test. It made me chuckle. Over all, I felt like I lucked out with the version I got.

[BrandNewName]

I got the James Brown test as well and I found it incredibly difficult. Out of the four practice tests I had taken prior, my actual test struck me as much more difficult...and I don't think it was the testing situation (which was, on the whole, exceedingly relaxed...I took the test in Zurich with four other students in the room, none of whom were doing the Lit in English exam). There seemed to be an extraodinary number of questions dealing with Middle English (13 in total, I think...including a number of "translation" and "grammar-esque questions). Also, most of the American literature questions seemed to be the giveaways...Moby Dick (Who is the narrator?) and the opening lines of Absalom, Absalom. All in the all, the comprehension questions seemed overwhelmingly focused on British poetry. That whole identification section that was opening paragraphs to various essays, shoot me. And, what was up with the theory? A few random easy points to pick up and then a whole bit on New Criticism. Are you kidding me? it's just another opportunity for the testmakers to ask even more questions about metaphysical poetry.

Not feeling so great about what my scores are going to look like...

[noxrosa]

I got the James Brown test as well and I found it incredibly difficult. Out of the four practice tests I had taken prior, my actual test struck me as much more difficult...and I don't think it was the testing situation (which was, on the whole, exceedingly relaxed...I took the test in Zurich with four other students in the room, none of whom were doing the Lit in English exam). There seemed to be an extraodinary number of questions dealing with Middle English (13 in total, I think...including a number of "translation" and "grammar-esque questions). Also, most of the American literature questions seemed to be the giveaways...Moby Dick (Who is the narrator?) and the opening lines of Absalom, Absalom. All in the all, the comprehension questions seemed overwhelmingly focused on British poetry. That whole identification section that was opening paragraphs to various essays, shoot me. And, what was up with the theory? A few random easy points to pick up and then a whole bit on New Criticism. Are you kidding me? it's just another opportunity for the testmakers to ask even more questions about metaphysical poetry.

Not feeling so great about what my scores are going to look like...

I had the same test as you, and you've perfectly summarized my feelings on it (those essay identifications killed me).

But putting a question about who James Brown is as the last question on the test kind of made me love ETS for a moment (until I remembered they'd CHANGED THE TESTING CENTER LOCATION WITHOUT TELLING ME).