A Question about Theory/Criticism

[jakebarnes]

I hate to be blunt, but you WILL need to choose some sort of period focus for your dissertation. Your assertion that you "love all areas of literature equally, and cannot see [your]self specializing in a period, as opposed to a topic or theme", is a pretty naive flight of fancy. For a thesis or dissertation it is necessary to have (roughly speaking) both a "topic or theme" AND a rough period (or perhaps two related periods). You can't just dance around expecting to become an expert in ALL OF AESTHETICS and ALL AREAS OF LITERATURE, because doing so will prevent you from developing any sort of expertise of depth of knowledge. Yes, you should be familiar with the field (from Plato to Kant to the Frankfurt School, etc) but a dissertation on aesthetics will, in a nutshell, "focus upon a small historical range of literature". A dissertation is not about broad topics, it is a pointed, in depth study of a certain subject/figure(s)/text/etc.

Honestly I think you're jumping the gun. You have two years left of your degree — potentially including an independent study and/or an honours thesis. My advice to you, which may seem somewhat paradoxical, is to be both more open, and to try to narrow down your interests. Like others have said, don't rule out theoretical approaches you haven't really used yet. If you decide you hate psychoanalysis before you've given it a chance, not only are you missing out on Freud and Lacan, but you're also missing Irigaray, Kristeva and Zizek + you will be very puzzled should you decide to read Derrida, Badiou, Althusser, Deleuze & Guattari, etc. Nothing says you have to agree with everything said by ANY theorist — it's your prerogative as an academic to sift through and decide what you feel is worthwhile — but to ignore psychoanalysis is to ignore a VERY significant portion of modern theory. If you don't understand it, you aren't going to understand a theorist arguing against it, and in many cases that will be exactly what you want. However, you really do need to pick some sort of chronological area/theme if you want to apply to a graduate program, be it english, philosophy or an interdisciplinary program. It's necessary for all sorts of reasons (choosing a relevant writing sample, finding an appropriate advisor, choosing a dissertation topic, finding work afterwards, etc). I'd advise you to find programs you're interested in, and to look at past dissertation topics to get an idea of what a PhD entails, because really, your dissertation is your degree, coursework really means very little in comparison.

Some programs you might find interesting:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/MTL/cgi-bin/drupal/

http://socialthought.uchicago.edu/

http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/subpage.aspx?id=9836

[truckbasket]

Also, I'm not averse to considering historical contexts to an issue/theme: I just don't want to focus upon a historical period specificially. At this point, I'm most interested in aesthetics (the history of, issues in canonization/canonicity, definition of beauty, etc) and what I'd most easily sum up as the philosophy of language (a subfield within philosophy which considers the usage, meaning, etc of language; think of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations).

What you're proposing would take about six dissertations.

Maybe I'm simply ill-informed, but seeing as aesthetics is a relatively narrow topic,

Aesthetics is the exact opposite of a "relatively narrow topic." You could not possibly be more ill-informed. "The Liminal Space of Restrooms in American Realist Literature" is an example of a relatively narrow topic. Find whichever professor told you aesthetics is a narrow topic and beat them senseless with a copy of Blackwell's Anthology of Aesthetics -- a brick of a text that documents 2500 years of aesthetics study.

The notion of me specializing in, say, strictly Victorian-era literature written about aesthetics disgusts me (a strong word, but honest).

Not to sound condescending, but it appears that you might be equally mis-informed about what graduate study in the humanities entails. But considering where you are in your undergraduate career, this is pretty much okay right now and sort of where you're supposed to be. I had absolutely no clue how specific I needed to be when I was in your shoes. And when somebody told me I need to have a (relatively) clear and defined "project" to pitch to admissions offices (meaning specialization), I just about bricked myself. As Greg Semenza states, "the first aim of every graduate student should be to know something extraordinary or at least something ordinary deeply." But once more, the good news is that by getting feedback from sites like this, you're way ahead of the game. I hope what you're figuring out is that you're off target by a mile right now, and there are a lot of people here who are very gently trying to help you sharpen your aim.

lengthy responses.

Yep. But good ones.

Like others have said, don't rule out theoretical approaches you haven't really used yet. If you decide you hate psychoanalysis before you've given it a chance, not only are you missing out on Freud and Lacan, but you're also missing Irigaray, Kristeva and Zizek + you will be very puzzled should you decide to read Derrida, Badiou, Althusser, Deleuze & Guattari, etc.

I think that's what's causing some of the confusion here, Jake. The OP has said s/he simply doesn't like a lot of things, and therefore that has sort of been the end of it. Although certain school may have been seriously pooh-poohed in various ways, they're still essential foundations for the ideas of others. The New Critics have been pretty much laughed out of contemporary study, but we still do close readings and "compare and contrast" style work, don't we? (I'd should point out here that, Cultural Studies aside, I actually love what the NC's proposed.)

Bottom line, Two Espressos: you're in very good shape because you're figuring this stuff out in advance. Once in a grad program, you'll be able to cast your net relatively wide for at least a couple of years, but then you're going to have to choose one solitary catch to really focus on, otherwise a dissertation will be out of the question. And you know what? we all may be wrong -- you might very well find a way to focus on a wide array of topics and find a succinct way to unite them. Here's my concern for you: as it stands, you'll find it very difficult to even get into a grad program with your current opinions the way they are. If nothing else, you need to pretend you're interested in focused study -- at least temporarily.

[Two Espressos]

ZeeMore21, jakebarnes, truckbasket: thank you for your responses! I've decided to merge my replies into one post to save time.

I still dislike the prospect of historical specialization, but you've all reiterated that it's something that I'll have to do in graduate school. I'm going to spend a lot of time rethinking my interests and considering other options outside of graduate school. I realize I still have two years of undergrad left, but I want to keep my options open.

I was under the impression that one shouldn't have *too* narrow of a focus upon applying to graduate programs--based in part upon Dr. West's (University of Pittsburgh) graduate school advice (www.pitt.edu/~mikewest/adviceintro.html). You've since corrected this impression, so thanks for that.

I suppose my best bet is to read a lot of literature on aesthetics: perhaps picking up a copy of the Blackwell anthology that was previously mentioned.

Thanks again!

Edited June 13, 2011 by Two Espressos

[JoeySsance]

Great post JoeySsance : ) I appreciate your stance on the canon being someone who specializes in African American Lit. I think people must understand that minority/ethnic/queer lit shouldn't be seen as tangential or marginal.

Thanks ZeeMore21. I'm glad you appreciated my post and I couldn't agree more with your sentiment!

Firstly, I certainly do not think that the pertinency of certain subfields is contingent upon one's racial/cultural/sexual identity (ie, WASPs should not discredit African-American literature as being tangential or otherwise insignificant to them). I apologize if I gave that impression!

Apology accepted. By the way, what do you think of the programs I and others have suggested? Your thoughts might help us in guiding you better. I have one last lengthy response that I'll be posting subsequent to this post and again, I apologize in advance for imposing on your time, but I really would like to help you as best as I can!

[jakebarnes]

Most of the advice on that page is alarmingly off-mark. He places far too much emphasis on GRE/GPA, for example. Top programs do not reject people on GRE alone. Your writing sample, statement of purpose and letters of recommendation are aeons more important than your GRE score, and to an extent, your GPA (provided it reaches general benchmark). Not only that, but his assertion that "it's probably better to submit your strongest paper regardless of topic rather than a weaker one more closely related to an area you hope to specialize in" is really just blatantly wrong. An Admissions Committee will probably laugh in your face if you say you want to focus on 19th century lit, and then submit a writing sample with a medieval or postmodern focus.

I'd also say that this guy also seems bizarrely biased against top programs/Ivies. It's really just pure speculation for him to say that "many Ivies are probably not placing their weakest students given the widespread suspicion that the scholarly training in English that they offer is irrelevant to the needs of many humbler institutions looking to hire." Frankly, whether he likes it or not, the top programs — many of them Ivies — are the programs that are most likely to place their students in tenure-track positions.

Edited June 14, 2011 by jakebarnes

[JoeySsance]

I'm a bit late following up but I think ZeeMore21, jakebarnes and truckbasket have really covered a lot of important ground! And in a far less circuitous manner than myself. At the risk of sounding perhaps a bit officious, I do have some more advice, mostly building off of the splendid suggestions you have received so far from others. I echo what's been said about how great it is that you're seeking advice now, while you're still in undergrad. I wish I had been as diligent and prepared my junior year as you seem to be! It's perfectly alright that you're still not 100% sure about your plans. You probably won't be until well into your graduate education, so be ready for a few years of relative uncertainty and continually evolving plans and interests. At least you admit that your theoretical interests are still developing. Good for you because you do have a very, very long road ahead of you. Trust me, it's better that we're telling you all of this now as opposed to just before you approach writing your dissertation in grad school. To re-cap some of the most (in my opinion) helpful advice I and others have offered you: you should, on the one hand, read more widely and give certain schools of thought a chance, and on the other hand, you should work on narrowing down your focus somewhat. Both will be indispensable for putting together a strong and successful grad school application and then for succeeding in grad school once you start.

While I'm unequivocally and emphatically in the anti-Harold Bloom camp, I can't possibly expect you to ditch him if you find that you're truly passionate about his ideas. After all, grad school is all the more rewarding if you're passionate about your work. (If you're not, it can really be hell, and you'll find many an anecdote - dare I say, horror story - on The Grad Cafe about this) And academia is definitely about constructive dialogue between scholars that may not (and indeed don't always) agree. However, as I and others have stressed repeatedly, if you want to have a shot at succeeding in academia (i.e. getting into grad school in the first place, doing well there and then eventually finding a job) please, please, please - even if it's just for your own edification - challenge yourself to entertain some non-canonical perspectives on aesthetics! While Yale's English department is, surely, very difficult to get into (and I know you haven't expressed interest in this particular department; it's just an example), to put it bluntly, the fact alone that Harold Bloom is a faculty member there probably wouldn't be anywhere near enough to guarantee you any semblance of a decent shot at admission to that particular program (that is, assuming your interests remain close-minded and unfocused when it comes time to apply). The same goes for all the Harold Blooms in academia (and there are certainly a few out there)! The truth is, whether you like it or not, "traditionalist" scholars (to use your own term) are far outnumbered in the professoriate by those who care a great deal for more progressive and inclusive discourses and scholarship. This isn't to discourage you from being an empowered voice of dissent... If you feel that this is your calling, by all means go for it! But then that's all the more reason not to ignore cultural studies because, as someone astutely pointed out earlier, you'd be shutting out your main interlocutors! How could you ever produce substantive and nuanced scholarship - indeed how could you ever bloom as a scholar at all - if you limit yourself to good old Harry's (antediluvian) worldview?

I have some more advice regarding your issue with period specialization. While the field I know the most about is French literature, I'm relatively sure that there is considerable enough structural overlap with English literature and even with Comp Lit that it wouldn't be completely irrelevant for me to offer it as an example. Take a look at Berkeley's expectations for specialization (http://french.berkeley.edu/grad/guide/grad_guide.php). I'm pointing out their approach because it's a pretty common one in literature departments. Here's a concise excerpt to sum it up, but do read further because it goes a bit more in depth:

"To a large extent, students design their own programs of study, within guidelines set out by the Department and with the advice and assistance of faculty members. The guidelines are meant to ensure the necessary professional specialization in a field within French studies, to point toward the area of an eventual dissertation, and to prepare the student in a general way for research in that area. Each student is asked to define three areas of study within French literature. Each of the areas, while related to the others, obliges the student to view the discipline from a different perspective.

The areas of study for the Ph.D. in French literature are:

1. the work of a single major author;

2. a historical period in French literature;

3. the development of a genre, theme or carefully-delineated topic extending over a period of three centuries."

Approaches will definitely vary from one literature department to the next, but the expectation that one will strike a balance between breadth and specialization is essentially and inevitably a given in all literature departments. If you don't like this, I'll be as candid as others have been: you may not be cut out to pursue graduate studies in literature. Another recommendation I have for you is: check out a bunch of department websites in the fields of English and Comp Lit, since they may align most closely with your background and current training. Take a look at the following three things on each website: current grad students' interests, the faculty's interests and recently submitted dissertations. While grad students earlier in their programs (e.g. in their first, second and even sometimes in their third year) are typically still figuring out their interests, among the more advanced doctoral candidates and certainly among the faculty, you will notice almost exclusively specialists. (Remember, this doesn't mean that you have to radically limit yourself to one sole idea... Indeed, you'll see several grad students and professors who work on more than one time period, on several authors, and who approach their work through various theoretical lenses) You'll also notice that most grad students in literature are trained to grapple with theory. Unless you aspire to become the next Michel Foucault (which isn't even a feasible goal in the first place and I don't think anyone seriously aspires to do so; I mean, it either happens or it doesn't based on both the quality and innovation of your work as well as on factors you can't possibly control like your work's reception in academia and society at large), dubbing yourself the "theory specialist" will not help you succeed in academe. You will just be one theory nerd in a sea of many others and if you don't strive to be more open-minded, those other theory nerds will be way more competitive than you in the job market. You said:

The notion of me specializing in, say, strictly Victorian-era literature written about aesthetics disgusts me (a strong word, but honest). I don't want to go to graduate school and force myself into a field that I do not want to be forced in--with the job market as abysmal as it is, why would I? I'm open to specializing in a sub-subfield (as in, a specific sub-issue within aesthetics): would it be possible to do that instead of focusing on a historical period?

To be perfectly frank, precisely because the job market is so abysmal you must get over your aversion to specialize otherwise you'll never make it in academia. To answer your question succinctly: no, at least not in literature departments. Yet even interdisciplinary programs will expect you to care about and focus on the historical context of your interests, so the answer is unmistakably no for grad school programs in the humanities and social sciences in general. You won't find hiring committees say, "we're looking for a theorist to fill this position." If that were the case, in literature and certainly in interdisciplinary programs, the majority of applicants would be, to some extent, potential candidates. (Ok, an occasion in which they might say that is when they're looking for a specialist in, say, 19th and/or 20th century and contemporary literature and criticism, but again, that requires specializing in that entire historical period and not just a few isolated ideas about aesthetics)

Luckily you still have time! If you decide that specialization and literature aren't your cup of tea, then there are certainly more interdisciplinary paths to pursue! I would reiterate my suggestion that you look for departments in both traditional and interdisciplinary fields (e.g. English, Comp Lit and Philosophy as well as programs like the ones for which several of us have offered you links). Take your target number of grad programs (I applied to 6 but you might want to apply to more than that) and split it however you see fit between traditional and interdisciplinary options (e.g. 50/50; 33.3/66.6; 25/75... you get the idea). Or you may find that you want to apply solely to interdisciplinary programs and that would be alright, too!

Sorry once again for my long response. I know that you've been appreciative of our "tough love" so far but I think you'll be even more grateful for it later! I know I wish some nice grad students had guided me when I was in your shoes. Trust me, like you, I used to believe that I could specialize purely in theory and I also didn't care for being restricted to one particular period in literature. In my experience, while I definitely had a handful of undergraduate friends and peers who were, to varying degrees, also keen on studying theory, I found that, overall, it was decidedly not a popular route for undergrads. I did feel somewhat isolated at the beginning. However, I eventually found exciting company among my classmates in graduate-level seminars. Perhaps this might just be the dynamic at Princeton, but I have a feeling that in general, undergrads passionate enough about theory to continue pursuing it at the graduate level are a relatively small crowd. (There may be a lot of them on this site, but then again, this is a pretty self-selecting group of people... Emphasis on the word "pretty," of course ) In all seriousness, though, if you find that this is the case at your school, too, then see if you can enroll in a grad seminar or two and try to meet others with similar affinities! In a way, I feel like I'm offering advice to a slightly younger version of myself... Though a key difference between us may be that I discovered my passion for theory in a Queer studies class my sophomore year in college... but that's a whole other story.

Some final thoughts: give yourself time to explore and discover your interests. Also, set a short-term goal (e.g. the rest of undergrad) of finding a stimulating thesis topic about which you're really passionate which could eventually double as your writing sample for your grad school applications. And remember that you don't have to specialize in this exact area in grad school (though you may well find it to be a useful starting point). You might even end up going in a completely new direction later on, and that's alright and even expected! But you will have a hard time even getting into grad school if you don't make an effort to focus your interests now and to be more open-minded as you do so. Make use of the resources you have in college; work closely with your professors; keep nurturing your drive to be independent but realize that it's alright to feel lost and it's perfectly respectable to ask for help. Sorry for such a sappy ending to my post but I do believe that The Grad Cafe is an excellent place to look for grad school-related help when you need it. I certainly found this to be a tremendously useful community when I was applying and I owe my success, in part, to the wonderful advice I garnered here. I suppose this is my way of "paying it forward." Good luck, Two Espressos!

As a quick response to your latest post:

I'm going to spend a lot of time rethinking my interests and considering other options outside of graduate school. I realize I still have two years of undergrad left, but I want to keep my options open.

...

I suppose my best bet is to read a lot of literature on aesthetics: perhaps picking up a copy of the Blackwell anthology that was previously mentioned.

Those are all great ideas! I'm glad our advice has been helping you to put your interests into perspective. But don't give up on academia just yet. Yes, it's probably wise to have back-up plans, but it would be a shame to lose an individual as passionate about theory as you to, say, the corporate world! L L (You can always consider taking a gap year after undergrad - I did this - if you prefer to try other options before making the marriage proposal to academia, as a friend of mine once put it, semi-jokingly) You'll figure things out in due time and you're certainly on the right track!

[Two Espressos]

I'd also say that this guy also seems bizarrely biased against top programs/Ivies. It's really just pure speculation for him to say that "many Ivies are probably not placing their weakest students given the widespread suspicion that the scholarly training in English that they offer is irrelevant to the needs of many humbler institutions looking to hire." Frankly, whether he likes it or not, the top programs — many of them Ivies — are the programs that are most likely to place their students in tenure-track positions.

I noticed that too. It's interesting, considering that Dr. West received all three of his degrees from Harvard.

[Two Espressos]

If you don't like this, I'll be as candid as others have been: you may not be cut out to pursue graduate studies in literature.

Yeah, I'm starting to think that maybe that's the case! Obviously I'm not going to dismiss graduate studies in literature so readily: I'm going to put a lot of thought into my aspirations/intellectual goals. But I am far more skeptical about pursuing a graduate degree now.

Thanks for the response. I feel too lazy to comment upon everything you've mentioned, but it was all very good.

[sesquipedalian87]

Thanks for the response. I feel too lazy to comment upon everything you've mentioned, but it was all very good.

One word: laaaaaaaaaaaaaaame !

C'mon, these people have dedicated their time to helping you and that's all you can muster? Seriously?! Do you really want to add laziness to the reasons why you're not cut out to be an academic? I guess the fact that more than one person here has called you out on "ignoring your interlocutors" must be an indication of something... I, for one, would like to know what you have to say regarding some of the great points people have brought up in this discussion. You also never indicated what you thought of most of the programs that have been suggested to you on this thread. I realize that you said "thanks" a few times to everyone but it seems more like a cop-out than sincere gratitude. Demonstrate that you are indeed grateful by engaging more sincerely in the dialogue. You did initiate it after all!

[quote name=Two Espressos - Lighthearted Parody ' timestamp='1308083292' post='258396]

Good points, postcolonialists! I feel too lazy to comment upon them, but they really are quite good! Kthxbyeyall!

[Two Espressos]

One word: laaaaaaaaaaaaaaame !

C'mon, these people have dedicated their time to helping you and that's all you can muster? Seriously?! Do you really want to add laziness to the reasons why you're not cut out to be an academic?

Sorry, I was in my university's library and pressed for time. I realize now that "I feel too lazy" was perhaps NOT the best response, as it triggered some knee-jerk reactions.

Anyways, I'll respond with some depth to points heretofore made.

I guess the fact that more than one person here has called you out on "ignoring your interlocutors" must be an indication of something... I, for one, would like to know what you have to say regarding some of the great points people have brought up in this discussion.

Many of the latter points made were reiterations of previous points, with variations of course. I feel like I've previously addressed many of the points made (with the exception of programs, which I have not commented upon as of yet), but I will elucidate things if needed.

As far as canonicity/aesthetics is concerned, and what I have to say: nothing.

I'm simply a junior in undergrad--honestly, what do I know about aesthetics? I've read some texts on aesthetics but not nearly enough to definitively say, "this is my irrefutable point of view." My initial feeling is that *relative* canonicity is possible, and perhaps that not all canonization is merely political or biased. But am I certain that this viewpoint is correct? By no means. I admittedly know very little about aesthetics; I've made that point clear earlier in this discussion. At any rate, I'm going to follow earlier advice and read more widely, consider cultural studies texts (and other -studies texts that posit an antithetical viewpoint to my own), narrow my interests (which have been astutely pointed out as being far too broad), and try my hand at an independent study or two.

You also never indicated what you thought of most of the programs that have been suggested to you on this thread. I realize that you said "thanks" a few times to everyone but it seems more like a cop-out than sincere gratitude. Demonstrate that you are indeed grateful by engaging more sincerely in the dialogue. You did initiate it after all!

I am sincerely grateful for the advice given; I apologize if I did not appear to be grateful! I really appreciate all that has been said.

You are correct in pointing out that I have not yet commented upon the program suggestions. I will do so now.

I will consider attending only schools in the northeast or Canada. I realize that so doing massively restricts my options, but I hate warm weather (I live in PA. It's only like 75-80 degrees out now, and I still cannot stand it) and do not wish to live anywhere else (considering that a PhD in the humanities can take 7+ years, I believe that it is important to be comfortable in one's setting).

I also do not want to live in a huge metropolis (ie, not NYC, Philadelphia, etc). Smaller cities (Pittsburgh, etc) are fine. I am from a VERY small town, and I would not be able to handle the major shift to a large city.

With those criteria being established:

Stanford's Modern Thought and Literature: fails criterion 1.

University of Chicago's Program in Social Thought: A very interesting program, but it requires a larger degree of independent drive than I will probably have upon graduating. It also fails criteria 1 and 2.

The New School for Social Research: fails criterion 2.

Cornell: at this point, one of the programs in which I have the greatest interest.

I feel like other programs have been mentioned, but I cannot check them out without losing this entire response in the editor. I'll reread this topic and comment upon the other programs mentioned.

Is that the best you'll come up with when you're challenged in your field of canon studies? (And believe me, with your views, whether or not you even bother to read postcolonial/feminist/race/queer/minority studies texts, you can count on a lifetime of being very vigorously challenged)

Canon studies is hardly my field--I'm an undergraduate, not an ABD. I do have a genuine interest in canonicity/aesthetics and philosophy of language, but that is suspect to change. I mean, I've changed my focus in college several times up until this point (I began as a pre-pharmacy major, switched to English literature in the spring semester of my freshman year, and have since added/dropped double majors, other minors, etc since then. I'm sticking strictly to an English major with a minor in philosophy now. ).

Anyways, thanks for your input. I do appreciate your (mildly hostile) response.

I realize that my posts have been quite short compared to other posters'. I've been reading a lot of Samuel Beckett--hence the avatar--lately, so that probably influenced my brevity to some extent.

Also, I like your username, Sesquipedalian87.

[Two Espressos]

As promised, I'll comment upon other programs that were previously mentioned:

UC Davis: fails criterion 1.

Johns Hopkins: Baltimore is a relatively large city (like 700,000 people or so, I believe), but I'll still consider it.

Duke: fails criterion 1.

SUNY Buffalo: does not fail either of my criteria. I'll have to look into it.

UC Irvine: fails criterion 1.

UC Santa Cruz: fails criterion 1.

If anyone can suggest programs in the Northeast that may be a fit for my previously mentioned interests (which need narrowed majorly, but nonetheless...), I'd greatly appreciate it.

I apologize for not mentioning my aversion to large cities and my preference for the Northeast. I actually didn't put much thought into geographical concerns as regards graduate school until several days ago, so that's why it hadn't been mentioned earlier.

[sesquipedalian87]

Anyways, thanks for your input. I do appreciate your (mildly hostile) response.

You're very welcome. And I'm sorry for any hostility you perceived. I know I only recently discovered this thread and haven't offered you as much as advice as others but even I felt slighted when I noticed some of your curt responses. No hard feelings?

Also, I like your username, Sesquipedalian87.

Thanks!

Canon studies is hardly my field--I'm an undergraduate, not an ABD.

Fair enough. I concede that I indeed jumped the gun there.

If anyone can suggest programs in the Northeast that may be a fit for my previously mentioned interests (which need narrowed majorly, but nonetheless...), I'd greatly appreciate it.

I'll drop you a line if I can think of any. Good luck to you!

One last question that lingers in my mind from some of the previous posts in this discussion concerns your interest in Harold Bloom's work. When did that start and why do you suppose you're sympathetic to his opinions? (Sorry, that was two questions in one) Oh, and one more multi-part question: do you think you'll get to read some cultural studies texts in your next and last two years of undergrad? Or in grad school? Or perhaps in your own free time (e.g. over the summer)? I'm sure people on this thread would be willing to suggest specific authors and texts for you to check out if you were interested!

[Two Espressos]

One last question that lingers in my mind from some of the previous posts in this discussion concerns your interest in Harold Bloom's work. When did that start and why do you suppose you're sympathetic to his opinions? (Sorry, that was two questions in one) Oh, and one more multi-part question: do you think you'll get to read some cultural studies texts in your next and last two years of undergrad? Or in grad school? Or perhaps in your own free time (e.g. over the summer)? I'm sure people on this thread would be willing to suggest specific authors and texts for you to check out if you were interested!

I can't say I'm really interested in Dr. Bloom's work (I haven't read much of his stuff beyond The Anxiety of Influence, which I happen to mostly disagree with), but I do sympathize with some of his traditionalism. Then again, perhaps in reading more of his work, I'd find myself in the anti-Harold Bloom camp.

Anyways, my university is quite small (I believe there are 9 members of the English faculty) and does not offer graduate degrees (beyond perhaps a Master's in nursing), so taking a graduate course or two at my university, as someone had previously suggested, is not an option. My university does not offer classes in cultural studies, postcolonialism, queer theory, etc (at least, in the two years that I've attended, I've yet to see one offered--with the exception of perhaps one seminar in postcolonialism that I vaguely remember being offered last year), so any exposure to those subfields would have to come either in graduate school or on my own time.

With that being said, I'm completely open to suggestions for summer reading (some works have already been suggested earlier in this topic). I'm (regrettably) unemployed, and I have plenty of free time. My only summer plans are to improve my French skills, teach myself symbolic logic (in preparation for a course in logic that I'm taking next semester), and read. So I'd love to devour any cultural studies texts that you or other posters can suggest!

But yeah, no hard feelings.

[truckbasket]

Not to belabor belaborable things, but your criteria for where you want to be located might also be problematic w/r/t to academia as a career. Hopefully by the time you're done, things will have changed a bit and there will be some hope for work. But as it stands right now, your geographic fussiness won't fly on the job market either; you really have to go where the work is. And that might mean working in godforsaken and satanically hot places (like LA). I know several professors who commute BY AIRPLANE to their jobs, simply because of family logistics or because their university is located in some total armpit or something. (And BTW, some of the places you ruled out -- like Stanford, Berkeley -- have very moderate temperatures compared to some summers in the North East. The Pacific NW is deliciously gloomy and dank. I also despise sunlight, so I know about such things.)

[JoeySsance]

Not to belabor belaborable things, but your criteria for where you want to be located might also be problematic w/r/t to academia as a career. Hopefully by the time you're done, things will have changed a bit and there will be some hope for work. But as it stands right now, your geographic fussiness won't fly on the job market either; you really have to go where the work is. And that might mean working in godforsaken and satanically hot places (like LA). I know several professors who commute BY AIRPLANE to their jobs, simply because of family logistics or because their university is located in some total armpit or something. (And BTW, some of the places you ruled out -- like Stanford, Berkeley -- have very moderate temperatures compared to some summers in the North East. The Pacific NW is deliciously gloomy and dank. I also despise sunlight, so I know about such things.)

Good point. I was going to bring this up, too, actually! But in Two Espresso's defense, I get the feeling that the geographic limitation would be just for grad school... (Right?) At least I hope, for your sake, that you won't be this finicky with the job market. (Alas, no one can really afford to be...) But that is a relatively long way off for you, Two Espressos. While you are shutting out some amazing programs with relatively attractive funding if you restrict yourself solely to the Northeast, you are still left with a great concentration of superb institutions of all kinds, from small LACs to all the Ivies to big state and private research universities. Whether you think your ultimate goal will be primarily to teach, to research, or to strike a balance between the two, even just focusing on the Northeast, you'll be set (in terms of the training you'll get in grad school, that is). Truckbasket is right about the weather in Berkeley and Palo Alto, though. If I were you, I would still apply to maybe two or three schools outside of the Northeast just to vary things up (or as many as a quarter or even a third of your overall schools, depending on your target number). It was repeatedly hammered into my mind that being "bi-coastal" could be an advantage in the job market (e.g. in my case, having gone to both Princeton and Berkeley) and for a while it was a suggestion that I took pretty seriously. Ok, this time I swore to myself that I would write a shorter response and while it's already longer than I anticipated, I hope it's not as tedious as my last few responses. For now, give these suggestions some thought, and in the meantime, I'll see if I can come up with some accessible cultural studies suggestions for your summer reading. If anyone can think of any apposite texts and authors given Two Espressos's interests, by all means, feel free to suggest them before me!

P.S.

With that being said, I'm completely open to suggestions for summer reading (some works have already been suggested earlier in this topic). I'm (regrettably) unemployed, and I have plenty of free time. My only summer plans are to improve my French skills, teach myself symbolic logic (in preparation for a course in logic that I'm taking next semester), and read. So I'd love to devour any cultural studies texts that you or other posters can suggest!

I'm sorry about the rough job situation but on the bright side, these are all fantastic summer goals! Great language choice, by the way! Not that I'm biased or anything!

[Two Espressos]

Not to belabor belaborable things, but your criteria for where you want to be located might also be problematic w/r/t to academia as a career. Hopefully by the time you're done, things will have changed a bit and there will be some hope for work. But as it stands right now, your geographic fussiness won't fly on the job market either; you really have to go where the work is. And that might mean working in godforsaken and satanically hot places (like LA). I know several professors who commute BY AIRPLANE to their jobs, simply because of family logistics or because their university is located in some total armpit or something.

I realize my criteria for location will be problematic for an academic career. As it stands now, I'm indifferent to getting an academic job after a graduate program (assuming that I actually go). I really am only interested in a PhD as an ends to itself. There are other positions I could take (secondary education, teaching English overseas, etc) if I am unsuccessful in acquiring a job in the professoriat. Granted, a tenure-track job would be nice, but I'm assuming I'll never acquire such a thing (I'm really a glass-half-empty kind of guy). So I'll probably be just as selective after my PhD (assuming I get in somewhere and finish the program successfully).

(And BTW, some of the places you ruled out -- like Stanford, Berkeley -- have very moderate temperatures compared to some summers in the North East. The Pacific NW is deliciously gloomy and dank. I also despise sunlight, so I know about such things.)

Hm, well I did know that California weather could be temperate. But if it is really as deliciously gloomy and dark as you say, I may have to rescind some of my earlier rulings.

[Two Espressos]

Good point. I was going to bring this up, too, actually! But in Two Espresso's defense, I get the feeling that the geographic limitation would be just for grad school... (Right?) At least I hope, for your sake, that you won't be this finicky with the job market. (Alas, no one can really afford to be...) But that is a relatively long way off for you, Two Espressos. While you are shutting out some amazing programs with relatively attractive funding if you restrict yourself solely to the Northeast, you are still left with a great concentration of superb institutions of all kinds, from small LACs to all the Ivies to big state and private research universities. Whether you think your ultimate goal will be primarily to teach, to research, or to strike a balance between the two, even just focusing on the Northeast, you'll be set (in terms of the training you'll get in grad school, that is). Truckbasket is right about the weather in Berkeley and Palo Alto, though. If I were you, I would still apply to maybe two or three schools outside of the Northeast just to vary things up (or as many as a quarter or even a third of your overall schools, depending on your target number). It was repeatedly hammered into my mind that being "bi-coastal" could be an advantage in the job market (e.g. in my case, having gone to both Princeton and Berkeley) and for a while it was a suggestion that I took pretty seriously. Ok, this time I swore to myself that I would write a shorter response and while it's already longer than I anticipated, I hope it's not as tedious as my last few responses. For now, give these suggestions some thought, and in the meantime, I'll see if I can come up with some accessible cultural studies suggestions for your summer reading. If anyone can think of any apposite texts and authors given Two Espressos's interests, by all means, feel free to suggest them before me!

Yeah, I should probably apply to at least a few relevant programs outside of the Northeast. I'll still weigh my applications most heavily in the Northeast, but it wouldn't hurt to broaden my scope at least a little.

I'm sorry about the rough job situation but on the bright side, these are all fantastic summer goals! Great language choice, by the way! Not that I'm biased or anything!

Haha, thanks. My university only offers courses in French, Spanish, German, and Russian, so my choices were quite limited. But I think I made the best choice in choosing French.

[Vertigo23]

(I began as a pre-pharmacy major, switched to English literature in the spring semester of my freshman year, and have since added/dropped double majors, other minors, etc since then. I'm sticking strictly to an English major with a minor in philosophy now. ).

I hope you don't regret turning away from pharmacy. Pharmacists make six figures and (to put it politely) do not have a very demanding job. If you can tolerate the drudgery, it's richly rewarded.

[Two Espressos]

I hope you don't regret turning away from pharmacy. Pharmacists make six figures and (to put it politely) do not have a very demanding job. If you can tolerate the drudgery, it's richly rewarded.

I don't regret it one bit: I'd say, without exaggeration, that switching focus from pre-pharmacy to the humanities was one of the best decisions I've made in the past four years.

Yeah, pharmacists make double to triple what most English professors make. And you're right in pointing out that their job is piss easy (I job shadowed a pharmacist. The pharmacy technicians did essentially everything; he merely checked over their work. To be honest, he spent most of the day in his office.).

Although the drudgery of pharmacy would have bothered me, I think that I could have tolerated it. Originally, I convinced myself that the boring work would be worth the benefits (a great salary, opportunities to pursue outside interests such as travelling, etc).

But then I had a revelation: I'm vehemently opposed to the ethos of the field itself.

I myself take no pharmaceuticals of any kind (it's been over a year since I've had any form of medication, including mild painkillers). I do not support pharmaceutical companies whatsoever.

While a pre-pharmacy major, I rationalized my decision, saying that "someone has to do it." I no longer agree with that position. Why would I live a lie, dispensing drugs that I would never take myself?

Also, pharmacy wouldn't have provided the rigorous critical thinking that a future in the humanities will provide me. Not that pharmacy, the sciences, etc aren't challenging--they are, though in a different way--but being a pharmacist would not provide the mental vigor I fervently desire.

[Two Espressos]

I have another question to ask...

So, after rereading this forum, it's quite obvious that I'll need to demarcate a historical period when I proceed to apply to PhD programs. I've been thinking: how specific does one need to be about this in a statement of purpose? For example, would declaring that I'd like to study aesthetics/aesthetic theory from the 20th century to present be specific enough? Or would I have to narrow this interest further? Is it possible to be too specific, thereby making one appear too narrowly focused?

Thanks again, grad cafe.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Two Espressos

[Historiogaffe]

I have another question to ask...

So, after rereading this forum, it's quite obvious that I'll need to demarcate a historical period when I proceed to apply to PhD programs. I've been thinking: how specific does one need to be about this in a statement of purpose? For example, would declaring that I'd like to study aesthetics/aesthetic theory from the 20th century to present be specific enough? Or would I have to narrow this interest further? Is it possible to be too specific, thereby making one appear too narrowly focused?

Thanks again, grad cafe.

You'd have to be a little more specific than that, since the 20th century to the present could be 1990-2011 or 1909-2011. The 20th century is typically separated into pre-1945 and post-1945 (i.e. pre- and post-war).

When are your favourite theorists? You might choose their era as your speciality, for simplicity's sake rather than necessity's, as a friend of mine studying the Frankfurt school and pre-1945 American lit has done.

[Two Espressos]

You'd have to be a little more specific than that, since the 20th century to the present could be 1990-2011 or 1909-2011. The 20th century is typically separated into pre-1945 and post-1945 (i.e. pre- and post-war).

When are your favourite theorists? You might choose their era as your speciality, for simplicity's sake rather than necessity's, as a friend of mine studying the Frankfurt school and pre-1945 American lit has done.

Ah, I see. Well, I haven't read enough aesthetic theory to list favorite theorists, but I'm most interested in canonicity, aesthetics and politics, and the ways that language plays into aesthetics...so I'd say that post-1945 to present would fit those interests best.

Thanks!

Edited July 4, 2011 by Two Espressos

[runonsentence]

Just remember this mantra: research interests/project ideas are seldom too specific. When in doubt, try to pare down.

[Two Espressos]

Just remember this mantra: research interests/project ideas are seldom too specific. When in doubt, try to pare down.

I'll keep that in mind!

[JoeySsance]

When are your favourite theorists? You might choose their era as your speciality...

I second this advice. This is precisely the approach I took. I realized that the theorists I like the most are concentrated in the late-20th century onward (including contemporary theorists) and represent various schools of thought so I just made that clear in my SOP. As for the generalist/specialist question, it's probably better to be more specific than general. Your best bet is to develop (if it's possible at this point) a rather specific interest in a certain author, theorist or work (or multiple of the above) with a specific and interesting approach, framework and/or set of questions coupled with some general theoretical and literary interests (i.e. the best of both worlds). That way they won't write you off as too lopsided or too general. Remember that your interests can and most likely will change in graduate school, so none of this will be set in stone. They may not expect you to end up working on the same author(s) or work(s) you mentioned in your SOP but they probably will peg you as a prospective 20th century/contemporary student. Literary departments make admissions decisions largely based on students' and professor's period interests, so again, this isn't something you can escape. Of course you could always unexpectedly fall in love with medieval literature (this was a friendly joke amongst fellow students at my departmental visits). Whatever your interests are, make sure you convey a real passion for them in your application, and you should have a fair shot! Best of luck!