Advice for current undergrad?

[dabeetrus]

Hi, I'm currently a junior attending a top flagship state university I'd rather not specify and I'm starting to seriously consider attending graduate school for English literature. The only problem is that although I'm fairly well-read in classic novels and some poetry I've only recently changed my major to English and I feel that I might be a bit behind in my readings as far as criticism and, I guess, the academic literary "canon" in general. I really want to prepare myself for the coming semesters and especially for my senior honors thesis which I will hopefully start in about a year and I was wondering if you guys had some advice on specific areas to study or texts I should study in particular.

As a recent graduate or current MA/PhD student what do you think was particularly helpful in preparing you for your graduate school applications or studies? What texts are must-haves for the English literature scholar? I'm especially interested in books concerned with criticism or to improve my knowledge and ability to write in an academic setting. I haven't really decided what area I would like to concentrate in but I know that I do have an interest in 20th century British lit. and the writings of transcendentalists like Emerson, Thoreau and others.

I truly appreciate any advice you guys can give me and I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, but I figured this would be the one most relevant to my question.

thanks!

[rinneron]

Pick up a Norton. Seriously. They become your best friend as an undergrad and will follow you all the way through (I'm a second semester MA lit student, and I pray to them every night). For the more canonical stuff, the English Lit anthology is awesome. And the Theory and Crit anthology is awesome for theory and crit. Once you get into less canonical, more "weird-area-specific" stuff, they're good as backup for textual lineage (thanks Jauss -- courtesy of Norton). And the intros they give are priceless -- really informative and (I think) interesting to read. Yeah, they may be expensive, but can you really put a price on education? (Laaaaaame I know... but true!!)

[lotf629]

Fowler's A History of English Literature was recommended to me by one of my professors as a great introduction to the canon, and I found it really helpful. I also agree with the previous poster's recommendations about the Norton.

[Minnesotan]

I guess the Lit. Theory edition of the "Very Short Introduction" series is pretty good. It's also cheap.

I wouldn't feel obligated to read theory, if I were you. Theory is a choice, not a requirement.

[dabeetrus]

Thanks for all the advice guys. I really do appreciate it.

I'm not sure what Minnesotan means by not studying theory though; isn't that sort of a requirement in order write good critical essays which is what a lot of scholars and grad students do? I'm a little confused.

[coho]

warning: You asked for advice from current grad students; I am not am not a current grad student (I'm in the application process).

However, I've been advised (and i think it's good advice) that it's a good idea to be able to read and talk about theory intellegently (cuz it's a whole nuther language . . . ) even if it's not really your thing. How much you emphasize it in your own work, however, is up to you.

As far as "being behind," however, I really doubt that you are. It's pretty unusual for sophomores to take hardcore theory classes, and I'd say pretty much unheard of for freshmen!

As for the "canon," in my undergrad experience, English classes are less about introducing you to all the works you'll need to be familiar with a grad student than they are about teaching you how to think about literature. You can only cover so many books in a semester. Like you, the vast majority of what I've read of the "classics," I did on my own time, outside of class. My guess is that that's normal, too.

I think you can find MA "reading lists" from various grad programs online. You might take a look at one of those sites and click on the subject area that you think you're particularly weak in, and bone up by picking some titles from the list to read. (just don't take the lists as a minimum knowledge threshold. it's more like a full compendium of highly specialized literary interests)

For example: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/grad_orals.htm

[Minnesotan]

Thanks for all the advice guys. I really do appreciate it.

I'm not sure what Minnesotan means by not studying theory though; isn't that sort of a requirement in order write good critical essays which is what a lot of scholars and grad students do? I'm a little confused.

No. If you have a screwdriver, a hammer, and a socket set you should be alright in life. What theory does is create highly specialized tools that only matter to people who try to craft certain objects that are representative of their political biases. If you don't feel the need to make such objects, then why would you need to learn the intricacies of every approach to theory?

Now, I am not suggesting that you should ignore theory entirely, since every professor has his or her political biases that may or may not affect your grade, should you disagree or be ignorant of the important arguments in his/her pet theoretical framework. All I am saying is that theory is not required -- it is a new construction, with some helpful and some harmful aspects -- but is an option. Familiarize yourself with what is out there, but don't feel pressured to become an expert in, say, post-colonialism, just because you think all English majors need to know it. We don't.

[Phedre]

Taking theory is one of the best things you can do for yourself early on. A book can only go so far; you learn by doing. I took intro to lit theory for the first time freshman year and I was really glad that I had the time to let the theory sit and ferment and develop-- and from there you can branch into subfields of theory that interest you or that are of use for your work (structuralism, Marxism, hermeneutics, whatever). I still feel like I've only really mastered ONE or TWO subfields, but it's still so useful because when I'm reading Heidegger I can translate his concepts into terms that I understand (Butler).

[lotf629]

OP, I'd say that there's theory, and then there's theory. In a certain sense, all secondary sources are theoretical. But it's an open question as to whether any graduate student should really be responsible for knowing, in detail, what people like Derrida, Jameson, Saussure, Althusser, Kristeva, etc., think about how texts operate. (I say that as somebody who personally likes to use theory: I don't mean that it's worthless, just that it's certainly not necessary). You certainly don't need to be intimately acquainted with such heady authors to do really good critical work: you can lean on historical sources, on biographical sources, on close reading, etc.

Previous poster: I *love* using Butler. I use Butler for *everything*.

Just a shout-out

[Minnesotan]

That's awesome! A shout out to my peeps in Brooklyn, and my homie Foucault!

[dabeetrus]

Thanks again for all the awesome advice guys, looks like I've got a lot of reading to do!

[commoner]

Don't let these guys' political biases shape your concepts of theory!!

Just like taking a survey course in 18th-century Brit Lit, you won't know that you hate it until you've read it. Or, if you are like me, the intro to theory course will completely alter your course of study. For some, the survey course on the Romantics made them all dizzy and swoony. And that's what leads them into grad school studying the Romantics. For me, Shakespeare was a requirement and nothing more. For others, they sat on the edge of their seats lapping up every word.

My recommendation? Be open and try a little of everything while you still can (good advice in many disciplines, I think). You have time to specialize in the next couple years. Get to know yourself, know what you like, know what bothers you. Then when you take that theory course, you'll finally know how to recognize the truth. :wink:

c.

[Minnesotan]

Theory nerd ^^

[rinneron]

(To Minnesotan: Yay Brooklyn! My & my boyfriend's current home, though, to be honest, we are keeping our fingers crossed that I get into a PhD program that's *not* in NYC so we can try somewhere new for awhile!)

Theory is... eh. It's one of my concentrations (specifically aesthetic theory, French poststructuralist, structuralist, & pomo theory), but it's definitely not a mandatory issue you need to obsess over. It is a good idea to have a sense of the theoretical direction literature has gone in (someone else said this earlier, I think); ie, have an idea of what Marxism is, what reader-response is (in other words, who Wayne Booth is), what Brooks & Richards said that was so important; what Kant & Wilde have in common & where they disagree, how Plato and Aristotle are the foundation for many major theoretical schools, etc etc. That being said, most people come to grad school (including myself, by far) with a vague sense of one or two theoretical schools and not that much more on others. Grad schools usually offer a few good lit theory courses, which they expect will be the way you become familiar with the major schools.

So don't stress. Put most of your energy into the canon and literature itself -- that shit doesn't change; theory goes in and out of style literally every five minutes. If you find a theoretical school you love -- great. Play with it. But don't stress too much about memorizing exactly what every theorist said ever.

(And a hint: there are theorists who are also writers who are very, very worth getting to know. Look around the late 19th-early 20th century for these guys, they're awfully interesting and tend to stay in style a little longer than most.)