A Question about Theory/Criticism

[Two Espressos]

Hello all, I hope I can phrase my question/dilemma/quest coherently...

This fall, I'll be a junior English literature major, one who is seriously considering graduate study. I plan to seriously begin my application process (and all the hell that that entails!) by this time next year. For a while, I was very unsure of what I specifically wanted to pursue, but now I have settled my mind on a specific subfield/aspect of literature: literary theory.

By theory, I mean explicitly theory, not theory situated in any specific historical period. I don't want to exclusively study theory in medieval literature, for example.

My question(s) proper: I am looking for programs that place a strong emphasis on theory in itself, like programs that specify literary criticism/theory as a potential concentration for students in their program. Do English programs like this exist, or do I need to seek out more interdisciplinary programs? I'm interested specifically in the history of literary criticism, interconnections between literary theory and philosophy, and ways that literary theory/criticism could--or should, in my (relatively uninformed) opinion--become more like philosophy.

I'll state again, I don't want to concentrate specifically on a historical period.

What programs should I be looking into? One that comes to my mind is Berkeley's Rhetoric program (maybe that's not exactly a good fit, though?).

If any of you could provide me with other programs to look into, or advice in general about this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks a lot!

Edited May 29, 2011 by Two Espressos

[fredngeorge]

Hello all, I hope I can phrase my question/dilemma/quest coherently...

This fall, I'll be a junior English literature major, one who is seriously considering graduate study. I plan to seriously begin my application process (and all the hell that that entails!) by this time next year. For a while, I was very unsure of what I specifically wanted to pursue, but now I have settled my mind on a specific subfield/aspect of literature: literary theory.

By theory, I mean explicitly theory, not theory situated in any specific historical period. I don't want to exclusively study theory in medieval literature, for example.

My question(s) proper: I am looking for programs that place a strong emphasis on theory in itself, like programs that specify literary criticism/theory as a potential concentration for students in their program. Do English programs like this exist, or do I need to seek out more interdisciplinary programs? I'm interested specifically in the history of literary criticism, interconnections between literary theory and philosophy, and ways that literary theory/criticism could--or should, in my (relatively uninformed) opinion--become more like philosophy.

I'll state again, I don't want to concentrate specifically on a historical period.

What programs should I be looking into? One that comes to my mind is Berkeley's Rhetoric program (maybe that's not exactly a good fit, though?).

If any of you could provide me with other programs to look into, or advice in general about this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks a lot!

I only have a small amount of information to offer, but I hope that it will be helpful. From my understanding, what you're looking to do is definitely possible, but you would likely still need to take some courses in literature -- not necessarily in a particular period, but rather more for breadth of study. I'm sure you can find a number of programs that offer something like what you're looking for. For instance, UC Davis offers a Ph.D. in English Literature with a "Designated Emphasis" in Critical Theory, which sounds like it'd be right up your alley. Again, this isn't my area, so my specific knowledge is fairly limited, but I'm fairly positive that what you want is out there.

[ZeeMore21]

I would definitely look at Cornell. I know that every summer Cornell's English department holds what I would call "Theory Bootcamp," so theory is definitely taken seriously there. I would also look at University of Chicago, Duke, and Johns Hopkins.

[Two Espressos]

I only have a small amount of information to offer, but I hope that it will be helpful. From my understanding, what you're looking to do is definitely possible, but you would likely still need to take some courses in literature -- not necessarily in a particular period, but rather more for breadth of study. I'm sure you can find a number of programs that offer something like what you're looking for. For instance, UC Davis offers a Ph.D. in English Literature with a "Designated Emphasis" in Critical Theory, which sounds like it'd be right up your alley. Again, this isn't my area, so my specific knowledge is fairly limited, but I'm fairly positive that what you want is out there.

Thanks for the school suggestion!

I know that I'll need to take courses in a variety of periods/genres for most university programs, and I'm perfectly fine with so doing: I just want my main focus to be literary theory--I want to be the "Literary Theory/Criticism Guy," not the "Renaissance Guy" or anything like that.

[Two Espressos]

I would definitely look at Cornell. I know that every summer Cornell's English department holds what I would call "Theory Bootcamp," so theory is definitely taken seriously there. I would also look at University of Chicago, Duke, and John Hopkins.

Thanks for the advice! I'll have to look into those programs, but just from the scant information I have about them, they all sound like good (possible) choices. I think my chances of being admitted into those schools is highly suspect though! haha

[ZeeMore21]

Thanks for the advice! I'll have to look into those programs, but just from the scant information I have about them, they all sound like good (possible) choices. I think my chances of being admitted into those schools is highly suspect though! haha

Have more confidence in your abilities! Since you are starting your application process very early, you have more than enough time to come up with impressive documents!

[Two Espressos]

Have more confidence in your abilities! Since you are starting your application process very early, you have more than enough time to come up with impressive documents!

That's true! I'm just worried that my undergraduate university's lack of prestige will negatively affect my chances for admission to an excellent program. I'm not sure how much one's undergraduate institution factors into admissions decisions, but I suspect it plays some part at least.

[greenlee]

All the schools mentioned have stellar programs, especially Cornell. I'm good friends with one of the profs who teaches in the grad program (he's my former landlord), and he's beyond brilliant and a great guy, so I'd recommend looking into the program. For the record, his name is Rick Bogel, and from what he's told me about his work, he focuses quite a bit on critical theory, more specifically neo-formalism, intersections between philosophy and lit, deictics, etc.

And while all the previously mentioned programs are definitely amazing, I'd also suggest that you check out schools not in the top 15-20 range, because there's some great scholarship happening in places you might not expect. For example (and yeah, maybe I'm a bit biased since I'm starting this fall), SUNY Buffalo has a great reputation for critical theory, including queer, postcolonial, and psychoanalytic theory (the poetics program is also pretty rad). The structure of the program is also really innovative; there are no course requirements, and you're strongly encouraged to take courses in comp lit, philosophy, women's/gender studies, American studies-- anything you want, basically. There's also the option of concentrating specifically in a sub-field, and that could be a particular critical lens, or interdisciplinary in nature. I'm a theory nerd myself (queer theory/anti-realist philosophy in particular), and I cannot wait to get started at UB. Do some research on specific scholars that you love, find out where they are, and go from there. Look for great people to work with, because they're all over the place, not just in big-name schools/departments.

And as for your insecurities about your undergrad's reputation, I want to tell you not to worry about it. I went to one of the tiniest colleges in the country, with FOUR faculty members making up my whole English department, and I was lucky enough to get into four out of the six schools I applied to this year. It's much more about the work you're capable of. I think it's smart of you to start early, and give yourself plenty of time to work on your statement of purpose and your writing sample, which will showcase your ability and matter so much more than the name of your college when all is said and done.

Good luck!

[rainy_day]

Lit Theory person here, too! Lots of programs have a theory concentration; it is pretty clear from program website's where people are doing theory and where they are doing formalism, etc. (In addition to what people have mentioned, UC Irvine, for example.) What kind of theory are you interested in? If you are interested in theory, I would really stress research, research programs because the truth is there are definitely some profs/departments out there less friendly to certain strands of theory. (Derrida: still a pretty controversial guy; learned that the hard way in my first semester of my MA program.)

I will say this: Even in the most liberal, theory friendly places, you're probably going to need to pick a time period eventually, and it mght help you in terms of fit/who you want to work with to think about that now.

[Two Espressos]

All the schools mentioned have stellar programs, especially Cornell. I'm good friends with one of the profs who teaches in the grad program (he's my former landlord), and he's beyond brilliant and a great guy, so I'd recommend looking into the program. For the record, his name is Rick Bogel, and from what he's told me about his work, he focuses quite a bit on critical theory, more specifically neo-formalism, intersections between philosophy and lit, deictics, etc.

And while all the previously mentioned programs are definitely amazing, I'd also suggest that you check out schools not in the top 15-20 range, because there's some great scholarship happening in places you might not expect. For example (and yeah, maybe I'm a bit biased since I'm starting this fall), SUNY Buffalo has a great reputation for critical theory, including queer, postcolonial, and psychoanalytic theory (the poetics program is also pretty rad). The structure of the program is also really innovative; there are no course requirements, and you're strongly encouraged to take courses in comp lit, philosophy, women's/gender studies, American studies-- anything you want, basically. There's also the option of concentrating specifically in a sub-field, and that could be a particular critical lens, or interdisciplinary in nature. I'm a theory nerd myself (queer theory/anti-realist philosophy in particular), and I cannot wait to get started at UB. Do some research on specific scholars that you love, find out where they are, and go from there. Look for great people to work with, because they're all over the place, not just in big-name schools/departments.

And as for your insecurities about your undergrad's reputation, I want to tell you not to worry about it. I went to one of the tiniest colleges in the country, with FOUR faculty members making up my whole English department, and I was lucky enough to get into four out of the six schools I applied to this year. It's much more about the work you're capable of. I think it's smart of you to start early, and give yourself plenty of time to work on your statement of purpose and your writing sample, which will showcase your ability and matter so much more than the name of your college when all is said and done.

Good luck!

Yes, Cornell seems like a top choice at this point; it's good to have more firsthand knowledge, thanks for your input! I'll have to look into Dr. Bogel's work.

I agree, I need to research a plethora of programs across the "rankings": I want to apply widely across the spectrum, but only to schools that explicitly match my interests and preferences.

Also, it's good to know that one can achieve their graduate admissions goals, even from a tiny college! Your undergraduate school is even smaller than mine--I believe we have eight or nine English faculty--and you were quite successful, so that raises my spirits a little bit.

[Two Espressos]

Lit Theory person here, too! Lots of programs have a theory concentration; it is pretty clear from program website's where people are doing theory and where they are doing formalism, etc. (In addition to what people have mentioned, UC Irvine, for example.) What kind of theory are you interested in? If you are interested in theory, I would really stress research, research programs because the truth is there are definitely some profs/departments out there less friendly to certain strands of theory. (Derrida: still a pretty controversial guy; learned that the hard way in my first semester of my MA program.)

I will say this: Even in the most liberal, theory friendly places, you're probably going to need to pick a time period eventually, and it mght help you in terms of fit/who you want to work with to think about that now.

Yeah, I'm going to need to heavily research programs. As for what kind of theory I'm interested in: I'm most interested in the history of theory, intersections between philosophy and literary theory, and (perhaps) ways in which literary theory could change in the future, perhaps by drawing even more from philosophy. Really, all of literary theory fascinates me, so further demarcating my interests is going to be challenging!

Also, I hope that I won't have to "pick a time period eventually": I realize that many programs require one to pick major and minor concentrations, so in that case I'd probably pick literary/cultural theory as my major concentration and then choose a period as a minor concentration. I'm averse to strictly adhering to a time period though, so hopefully I won't have to do so!

Thanks for your help, by the way!

[truckbasket]

. . . intersections between philosophy and literary theory, and (perhaps) ways in which literary theory could change in the future, perhaps by drawing even more from philosophy."

Keep in mind that the intersections between philosophy and theory are not that far removed, and in most cases, are pretty much the same thing. Many of the big names who you might hear referenced in literary theory aren't writing with literature in mind at all; literary scholars have simply used philosophical frameworks as a method to 'read' a certain text. One example would be Marx whose ideas are often employed as a lens for reading fiction, but were not specifically designed for literature at all. Another would be Foucault, whose name comes up all the time in literary theory, but rarely discussed literature in any of his projects.

In response to the question "What is theory?" Jonathan Culler writes: "This simple explanation is an unsatisfactory definition but it does seem to capture what has happened since the 1960s: writings from outside the field of literary studies have been taken up by people in literary studies because their analyses of language, or mind, or history, or culture, offer new and persuasive accounts of textual and cultural matters. Theory in this sense is not a set of methods for literary study but an unbounded group of writings about everything under the sun, from the most technical problems of academic philosophy to the changing ways in which people have talked about and thought about the body. The genre of ‘theory’ includes works of anthropology, art history, film studies, gender studies, linguistics, philosophy, political theory, psychoanalysis, science studies, social and intellectual history, and sociology. The works in question are tied to arguments in these fields, but they become ‘theory’ because their visions or arguments have been suggestive or productive for people who are not studying those disciplines. Works that become ‘theory’ offer accounts others can use about meaning, nature and culture, the functioning of the psyche, the relations of public to private experience and of larger historical forces to individual experience."

In other words, attempting to draw connections between philosophy and literary theory would be problematic as they're not discrete.

Also, I hope that I won't have to "pick a time period eventually": I realize that many programs require one to pick major and minor concentrations, so in that case I'd probably pick literary/cultural theory as my major concentration and then choose a period as a minor concentration. I'm averse to strictly adhering to a time period though, so hopefully I won't have to do so!

Actual bona-fide capital LT, Literary Theory (ie. that references literature specifically) really is grounded more in history than anything. And, as I'm sure you know, when you study the history of literary theory, you're delving back to the Ancient Greeks, then spending a great deal of time with the Elizabethans and the Romantics. So to bypass a time period would be advantageous for perhaps teaching a survey of literary theory, but futile for graduate study in which you're expected to really learn all there is to know about a fairly specific topic. Consequently, saying "I want to study all literary theory" will most likely raise some eyebrows in your applications. If you're really bent on studying this intersection of philosophy and theory that you refer to, the ideal way to go about it would be to nail a certain theorist/philosopher and specialize in what she is doing, and why it's so different. That doesn't mean that can't study the history of theory -- you certainly can (and I, myself, have taken several courses on the history of pre-19th c. theory) -- but without a focus, you'd never be able to master your chosen area. It'd be akin to writing a seminar paper with an overly expansive thesis, drawing very little in the way of productive results. But, for example, if you're going to take on a subject such as 'the sublime,' obviously you'd be working just as much with Longinus as with Kant or Burke.

This is all very good to be thinking about this stuff so far in advance! Kudos!

TB

Edited May 30, 2011 by truckbasket

[Two Espressos]

Keep in mind that the intersections between philosophy and theory are not that far removed, and in most cases, are pretty much the same thing. Many of the big names who you might hear referenced in literary theory aren't writing with literature in mind at all; literary scholars have simply used philosophical frameworks as a method to 'read' a certain text. One example would be Marx whose ideas are often employed as a lens for reading fiction, but were not specifically designed for literature at all. Another would be Foucault, whose name comes up all the time in literary theory, but rarely discussed literature in any of his projects.

In other words, attempting to draw connections between philosophy and literary theory would be problematic as they're not discrete.

Actual bona-fide capital LT, Literary Theory (ie. that references literature specifically) really is grounded more in history than anything. And, as I'm sure you know, when you study the history of literary theory, you're delving back to the Ancient Greeks, then spending a great deal of time with the Elizabethans and the Romantics. So to bypass a time period would be advantageous for perhaps teaching a survey of literary theory, but futile for graduate study in which you're expected to really learn all there is to know about a fairly specific topic. Consequently, saying "I want to study all literary theory" will most likely raise some eyebrows in your applications. If you're really bent on studying this intersection of philosophy and theory that you refer to, the ideal way to go about it would be to nail a certain theorist/philosopher and specialize in what she is doing, and why it's so different. That doesn't mean that can't study the history of theory -- you certainly can (and I, myself, have taken several courses on the history of pre-19th c. theory) -- but without a focus, you'd never be able to master your chosen area. It'd be akin to writing a seminar paper with an overly expansive thesis, drawing very little in the way of productive results. But, for example, if you're going to take on a subject such as 'the sublime,' obviously you'd be working just as much with Longinus as with Kant or Burke.

This is all very good to be thinking about this stuff so far in advance! Kudos!

TB

Firstly, thanks for your input! I appreciate it.

I didn't realize that Literary Theory was too broad of a spectrum! If it is, and if admissions committees would find it to be, then I guess I'll have to think intently about the specific area(s) of literary theory in which I'm most interested. The aversion to historical periods mentioned in my previous post referred to adhering to a period strictly, something I cannot see myself doing whatsoever: I love all areas of literature equally, and I cannot see myself specializing in a period, as opposed to a topic or theme.

I realize that one cannot study all of literature in grad school (I don't want to sound like the intentionally naive girl on the "So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities?" YouTube video, lol), and if one really must choose a historical period, then perhaps I should reevaluate a PhD in Literature, and instead look into much more interdisciplinary programs, or perhaps philosophy.

Thanks again; I'll take all the advice I can get!

[truckbasket]

and if admissions committees would find it to be, then I guess I'll have to think intently about the specific area(s) of literary theory in which I'm most interested.

I don't know for certain that this would be the case, but I'd suspect it to be so. Maybe others could chime in with some more rational feedback?

It seems that with graduate study in the humanities, the knowledge of theory is somewhat expected. But one particular issue (as rainy_day mentioned above) is that some schools of theory can be contentious -- especially as they tend to subscribe to certain timely trends. As a result, theory isn't always looked at favorably, and its importance can be somewhat questionable depending on who you're discussing it with. For example, some contemporary writing grows out of specific cultural moments ("eco" seems to be the current hip choice), resulting in some academic instability. But in many cases, historical theory is still alive and well (Plato / Aristotle), whereas newer schools have either morphed into something else or simply lost traction (New Criticism / Psychoanalysis). But perhaps more troublesome is that while the history of theory is fascinating (like philosophy, it's often based on a lot generational infighting and intellectual one-upmanship), ask yourself if it is enough to build an academic career on. With the current state of the humanities, it's wise to think about what training and specialization will be marketable by the time your degree is complete. Many programs look to hire professors who can wear multiple hats, but I can't imagine too many who would be looking out for somebody who simply specializes in theory when every current professor in their English, Art, Philosophy, History, Film, Theater etc. departments will certainly have a solid working knowledge of a variety of theory -- many of whom would be able to teach the amount required by the program in addition to their main field. There are, of course, exceptions as many scholars are primarily known for their contributions to theory, yet I'd imagine that very few set out with this in mind.

With that said, if literary theory is your true passion, go for it! After all, we're in this because we love it, not because it's a wise career move. Your posts don't come across as naive, you're simply testing the water -- which is an incredibly smart thing to do. And the big news is that you have plenty of time left to experiment with theory to see if you can perhaps narrow down the focus, get some additional insight into its uses, or approach it from an transdisciplinary angle (remember, marketable!). The other thing to keep in mind is that for many of us (especially those who go from the BA straight to PhD -- of which I'm one), our initial ideas for projects are hypothetical and will most likely change throughout our time in grad school. What's important is getting a foot in the door. And that requires at least some kind of intellectual funneling in order to articulate a viable and productive approach.

You're certainly on the right track. And were I you, I'd develop some close relationships with professors in your current program who might gently guide your interests to help you develop a theory-based plan of attack so that you don't feel like you're unwillingly submitting to somebody else's requirements in order to do what you want to do. It's important that you're excited about the direction you want to head, as admissions committees will sniff disingenuous applicants out right away.That's what they do best.

Edited May 31, 2011 by truckbasket

[Two Espressos]

I don't know for certain that this would be the case, but I'd suspect it to be so. Maybe others could chime in with some more rational feedback?

It seems that with graduate study in the humanities, the knowledge of theory is somewhat expected. But one particular issue (as rainy_day mentioned above) is that some schools of theory can be contentious -- especially as they tend to subscribe to certain timely trends. As a result, theory isn't always looked at favorably, and its importance can be somewhat questionable depending on who you're discussing it with. For example, some contemporary writing grows out of specific cultural moments ("eco" seems to be the current hip choice), resulting in some academic instability. But in many cases, historical theory is still alive and well (Plato / Aristotle), whereas newer schools have either morphed into something else or simply lost traction (New Criticism / Psychoanalysis). But perhaps more troublesome is that while the history of theory is fascinating (like philosophy, it's often based on a lot generational infighting and intellectual one-upmanship), ask yourself if it is enough to build an academic career on. With the current state of the humanities, it's wise to think about what training and specialization will be marketable by the time your degree is complete. Many programs look to hire professors who can wear multiple hats, but I can't imagine too many who would be looking out for somebody who simply specializes in theory when every current professor in their English, Art, Philosophy, History, Film, Theater etc. departments will certainly have a solid working knowledge of a variety of theory -- many of whom would be able to teach the amount required by the program in addition to their main field. There are, of course, exceptions as many scholars are primarily known for their contributions to theory, yet I'd imagine that very few set out with this in mind.

With that said, if literary theory is your true passion, go for it! After all, we're in this because we love it, not because it's a wise career move. Your posts don't come across as naive, you're simply testing the water -- which is an incredibly smart thing to do. And the big news is that you have plenty of time left to experiment with theory to see if you can perhaps narrow down the focus, get some additional insight into its uses, or approach it from an transdisciplinary angle (remember, marketable!). The other thing to keep in mind is that for many of us (especially those who go from the BA straight to PhD -- of which I'm one), our initial ideas for projects are hypothetical and will most likely change throughout our time in grad school. What's important is getting a foot in the door. And that requires at least some kind of intellectual funneling in order to articulate a viable and productive approach.

You're certainly on the right track. And were I you, I'd develop some close relationships with professors in your current program who might gently guide your interests to help you develop a theory-based plan of attack so that you don't feel like you're unwillingly submitting to somebody else's requirements in order to do what you want to do. It's important that you're excited about the direction you want to head, as admissions committees will sniff disingenuous applicants out right away.That's what they do best.

There is a lot of very solid advice here!

I'm aware of the contentious nature of theory--it scares me, to be honest. I haven't had nearly enough exposure to theory/criticism to pick a specific mode of thought (psychoanalysis, Marxist, cultural studies, etc), and I worry that if I try to do so, I'll end up finding that I'm really not as adamant about the mode that I chose. If that happens, I feel that ultimate burn-out is more likely to occur.

To further complicate matters, I read accounts of various academics outside of literary studies--Dr. Leiter, a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago, instantly comes to mind--who vehemently discredit literary theory as being total BS, merely a case of academics one-upping each other and writing extremely dense prose that doesn't say much of anything. Many academics outside of literary study feel that literary theory, which by definition (at least Jonathan Culler's, above) takes modes of thought outside of literary study, actually is completely anti-intellectual and applies modes of thought that are (in their view) unapplicable to literature. Frankly, many philosophers discredit literary study and English departments altogether. This worries me, as I value their work highly (including Dr. Leiter) and feel that perhaps they've come to some grand realization that I have not?

I second your notion that one must think about job prospects and must keep everything in perspective. I think my problem might be that I cannot stick to a perspective? lol

It seems like I know only what I DON'T want to study at the graduate level, not what I DO want to study (I know, for example, that I do not want to study medieval, renaissance, 18th-19th British literature, or modern/postmodern literature exclusively). I'm starting to think that perhaps I should look more into interdisciplinary programs, as perhaps they would better accomodate my interests.

Thanks again for your input truckbasket: you've been incredibly helpful!

[runonsentence]

If you're really interested in what theory does, and not necessarily in its application to literature alone, you might think about going into rhetoric.

Classical rhetoric (which largely takes persuasive communication as its referent) has a lot of cross-pollination with philosophy. Modern more contentious strands of rhetorical theory get pretty exciting; I've been reading a lot of work in affect theory and embodiment this quarter. There's a lot of application to cultural analysis, lived relationships, systems of discourse....something else for you to consider, as well, as you feel out these waters.

[truckbasket]

I've been reading a lot of work in affect theory and embodiment this quarter.

Deleuze?

[Two Espressos]

Another question:

Do any of you know anything about Aesthetics? I know that Philosophy has a subfield in the Philosophy of Art; do literature departments have something similar? For instance, a student would study aesthetic properties of literature (and perhaps theory associated with said aesthetic properties), as opposed to a standard program in literary theory, where one would apply the critical lens of Marx, Lacan, Derrida, etc.?

Thanks again for all the input! I greatly appreciate your advice.

[truckbasket]

Do any of you know anything about Aesthetics? I know that Philosophy has a subfield in the Philosophy of Art; do literature departments have something similar? For instance, a student would study aesthetic properties of literature (and perhaps theory associated with said aesthetic properties), as opposed to a standard program in literary theory, where one would apply the critical lens of Marx, Lacan, Derrida, etc.?

I study aesthetics; and no, there really is no specifically demarcated sub-field for aesthetics in literature (you'd be hard pressed to argue that one exists in visual art, too). Just as the writers you listed as part of a "standard literary theory program" -- Marx (Politics), Lacan (Psychoanalysis), and Derrida (Linguistics) -- are not really not literary theorists, their ideas can be used by literary scholars as a lens to derive meaning from texts. Looking at visual aesthetics in literature might span from the historic trajectory of the field (Plato --> Hegel, or whatever), but might also include ideas put forth by Walter Benjamin, Rousseau, Matthew Arnold, to Clement Greenberg or Warhol. It might include feminist theory, post-colonial, queer -- pretty much whatever the work requires. The point I'm trying to make is the same as what Cullen was getting at: theory really exists outside of such rigid categories (especially of late) and you're not resigned to a certain canonical grouping whatsoever. If you want to read actual literary theory designed specifically for and aimed at literature, pick up one of those Norton Anthologies and read up through the progression. Having a working knowledge of writers such as Horace, Aquinas, Sidney, Dryden, Pope, Coleridge, Peacock, Frye, Shelley, Bakhtin, Brooks, Eliot, Barthes, Bloom, Eagleton etc. will be key for your study of theory, and they're more clearly aligned with literary works than Lacan or Derrida. That's not to say one is better than the other, the nature of your proposed project will determine who you need to be reading closely.

For example, I recently wrote about a work in which I argued that its compositional balance exists not in the visual, but in the abstract. I used Breton and the surrealist manifesto alongside Hal Foster's work on the Death Drive and Kristeva's notion of abjection. Those writers aren't talking that much about aesthetics or literature per se, but what they are addressing allowed me to 'read' a work, and hopefully shed new light onto its aesthetic value. You see what I mean?

A straight-up survey of aesthetics will certainly feature some big name hitters and demonstrate a defined historic trajectory (and you will certainly need a working knowledge of the main texts), but depending on what specific area you plan to write about (see, there's that specificity again) you might be dealing with anything from art manifestos, to studies of metaphor, to gender construction, to French symbolism, to portraiture and self-representation etc. So again, you probably won't find a shelf at the bookstore specifically for aesthetics in literature -- and nor should you. Hopefully this is all hinting at the necessity of funneling your research into something more focused.

Edited June 1, 2011 by truckbasket

[runonsentence]

Deleuze?

Actually, no—a lot by Sarah Ahmed, and some excerpts from a recent reader on Affect Theory by Melissa Gregg and Gregory Siegworth (Lauren Berlant, Elspeth Probyn and Kathleen Stewart, specifically). Also some work reconceptualizing emotion in Aristotle by William Covino and Krista Ratcliffe's book on Rhetorical Listening.

[natsteel]

That's true! I'm just worried that my undergraduate university's lack of prestige will negatively affect my chances for admission to an excellent program. I'm not sure how much one's undergraduate institution factors into admissions decisions, but I suspect it plays some part at least.

I'm in History not Lit, but I had this concern as well early on in the process. All my mentors told me it wouldn't hinder me in anyway. And that statement proved to be true. I come from a public college that's part of a large urban public university system. The History Department at my college within the system had four students accepted to top-10 PhD programs (all top-3 in their field) with full-funding. The work you've done matters far more than where you did it.

[Two Espressos]

I'm in History not Lit, but I had this concern as well early on in the process. All my mentors told me it wouldn't hinder me in anyway. And that statement proved to be true. I come from a public college that's part of a large urban public university system. The History Department at my college within the system had four students accepted to top-10 PhD programs (all top-3 in their field) with full-funding. The work you've done matters far more than where you did it.

It's comforting to know this. Thanks for your feedback!

[Vertigo23]

These days, everyone is expected to have a strong familiarity with "theory," regardless of period specialization. Because of that, and because the job market is geared toward period specialists, you'll probably want to gravitate toward some historical period eventually. That being said, the degree to which "theory" is read and applied in departments varies a great deal. You can discover a department's theoretical leanings relatively quickly by perusing their website. Take a look at course descriptions if you can find them. I've heard positive and negative things about Berkeley's rhetoric program: it's theory heavy, but one instructor I corresponded with said it didn't focus enough on professionalization. It'll take time to research programs that are right for you, but it's time well spent.

[Two Espressos]

These days, everyone is expected to have a strong familiarity with "theory," regardless of period specialization. Because of that, and because the job market is geared toward period specialists, you'll probably want to gravitate toward some historical period eventually.

Yeah, your advice corroborates with what others have stated: programs essentially require their students to specialize in a historical period.

I'm still very opposed to this, however. Maybe I'm just being overly recalcitrant; maybe I'll come around eventually.

I'd much rather specialize in a thematic subfield (or sub-subfield) rather than a historical period, so I'm going to research more interdisciplinary degrees as well as philosophy programs.

[ZeeMore21]

Yeah, your advice corroborates with what others have stated: programs essentially require their students to specialize in a historical period.

I'm still very opposed to this, however. Maybe I'm just being overly recalcitrant; maybe I'll come around eventually.

I'd much rather specialize in a thematic subfield (or sub-subfield) rather than a historical period, so I'm going to research more interdisciplinary degrees as well as philosophy programs.

I agree, you don't have to assign yourself a historical period if your interests can't be categorized that way. Going by subject matter is fine. But to reiterate what most posters have said, in a time where competition for teaching jobs are very high, I wouldn't count on just studying theory, as many students do end up studying theory on top of specializing in a historical field or subject area.