Potentially stupid writing sample and SoP questions

[bdon19]

Hello again! I feel like you must all be getting sick of me on here. I have some questions about the writing sample and SoP which may or may not be a bit silly but are the kind of things I won't figure out anywhere else.

1. What would be your opinion on canonical v. non-canonical texts in the writing sample? Do you think it makes a difference? That probably won't be much of a problem for me, as the main work I discuss in my primary writing sample is a (fairly) canonical text, and the other texts I use are contextualized in the paper. However, even with the main text, if it's not Chaucer or Shakespeare or Joyce or something I'm not sure if I should err on the side of adcomm ignorance and contextualize the plot or if I shouldn't bother wasting valuable space. I'm working on adapting the paper for a conference presentation, too, and I do think for that contextualization will be important.

2. What about potentially "controversial" topics? My main writing sample isn't controversial, but for those schools (like UVA) that require two, my secondary one might be. I think I'd like to send this paper to any schools that welcome a second piece of writing (like Cornell) because it's in my primary field. Ultimately, I call a beloved, canonical novel a work of pornography as I compare it to another pornographic work. It's not explicit in its analysis, but I'm starting to wonder if such a topic might potentially "offend" someone on an adcomm. I wouldn't anticipate that to be a problem, but do you think that might be a risky move? I'm not anticipating most adcomms to be super conservative or anything, but you never know. The late 18th-c. prof. from my school who I just missed taking classes with is probably rolling in his grave at the thought of this very paper.

3. I know a number of threads have discussed the relative merits/disadvantages of bringing up your academic past in the SoP. For instance, my English grades show a significant change about halfway through my sophomore year. I was terrified of speaking in class my first year (and into my second), and that impacted my grade on more than one occasion. Adjusting to college was somewhat difficult, and it took me a while to really gain confidence in my abilities. Of course, if I were to reference this in the SoP, I'd try to give the most condensed version possible, but I'm not sure if it's really necessary. At this point, my major GPA is around a 3.8 (overall 3.75), which probably doesn't really need explaining. I guess I just sometimes feel insecure about it, when I want the whole package to look as perfect as possible.

These are the things that keep me up at night. Le sigh.

I had more stupid questions the other day, but can't think of the rest right now. I'm sure I'll update as I see fit. Please let me know if you think I'm the obnoxious one blowing up the board! Posting my worries here tends to alleviate my stresses elsewhere (and keeps me from bothering the professors who are attempting to cherish their final week and a half before the term starts)!

Edited September 1, 2011 by bdon19

[truckbasket]

I responded to this quickly, so if I missed something key or made some grammatical boo-boo, that's why. Don't judge.

1. Honestly, I don't think anybody could say for sure but it'd be interesting to hear arguments from either side. The only danger that I can think of in employing obscure stuff would be potentially showing off, or trying to create an impression that you work on obscure stuff / go beyond canonical work.

I will say, however, that my writing sample focused on a lesser name in American modernism who was widely considered to be a poor writer, yet influenced many subsequent and important texts. The paper discussed the highs and lows of his technical skill, but focused primarily on the groundwork he set down for future writers. Additionally, the opening lines of my SOP referenced a contemporary avant-garde performance artist who is completely removed from my field, but who encompasses the aesthetic approach I'm interested in writing about. It was a bit of a risk, but in one of the first acceptances I received, the professor who contacted me said they'd never before heard a student drop that name -- and that it just so happened to be an artist that she herself had been writing about recently. So there's my experience with that!

2. It seems that it would depend on the controversy -- and without knowing more about your project, labeling a canonical text as pornographic (which I'm probably falsely assuming here to be low-brow titillation vs. say artistic / erotic aesthetics) might situate you as a close-minded prude; ("D.H. Lawrence is nothing more than a big old perv and we should ban all his books" or something). Of course I'm sure that it's not the case, but it wouldn't be explicit details that offend, it would be you willingness to write a text off (that perhaps many people view as high art) as trash that might cause problems. (I write about contemporary art, so I often find myself having to talk about body fluids and people pooping in boxes and things.) Again, without reading the paper, it's hard to tell. In general, it seems that controversial would be good unless you're like justifying contemporary racism or promoting Ayn Rand's batshit ideas or something.

3. I was told not to draw attention to any potential flaw unless it was especially egregious. Yours isn't, so I'd skip it. However, you can find ways to talk about such things in a more general manner that insinuates your increased focus and would then be reflected in your transcripts or whatnot. Using language, or even metaphorical / anecdotal images, that suggest an intellectual streamlining is far stronger than just saying "look, I got better, okay?"

[bdon19]

2. It seems that it would depend on the controversy -- and without knowing more about your project, labeling a canonical text as pornographic (which I'm probably falsely assuming here to be low-brow titillation vs. say artistic / erotic aesthetics) might situate you as a close-minded prude; ("D.H. Lawrence is nothing more than a big old perv and we should ban all his books" or something). Of course I'm sure that it's not the case, but it wouldn't be explicit details that offend, it would be you willingness to write a text off (that perhaps many people view as high art) as trash that might cause problems. (I write about contemporary art, so I often find myself having to talk about body fluids and people pooping in boxes and things.) Again, without reading the paper, it's hard to tell. In general, it seems that controversial would be good unless you're like justifying contemporary racism or promoting Ayn Rand's batshit ideas or something.

Maybe I should clarify what I meant by labeling a canonical text as pornographic. It's funny that you use Lawrence as an example, since both of my papers actually utilize him to some extent (my main writing sample's primary text is Sons and Lovers--and it makes virtually the opposite claim! I adore Lawrence and think he's the furthest thing in the world from a big perv!). In my "porn paper" (as I like to call it), basically I'm locating the "pornographic" element of the one text in various rhetorical techniques and comparing such techniques to those used in another explicitly pornographic text. I don't even know if I'd call it a "controversial" argument, but there are a lot of traditional/conservative-type people still in my field, who hate to see their beloved Swifts, Popes, Fieldings, etc. analyzed from a feminist perspective, let alone called pornographic! Haha

1. Honestly, I don't think anybody could say for sure but it'd be interesting to hear arguments from either side. The only danger that I can think of in employing obscure stuff would be potentially showing off, or trying to create an impression that you work on obscure stuff / go beyond canonical work.

You make a good point. I'm having a hard time with my more "obscure" text--a novella by Anais Nin--because its only function is really to back up one of my points, and it feels a bit like it's just in there to be there. In the first draft of my paper I kind of shortchanged it, which makes me think it might be better to just take it out altogether. Unless I can really make it pertinent to my argument, it's gone. And like I've mentioned above, my primary text is Sons and Lovers. I don't know if I should just assume my audience would be familiar with it or spend time contextualizing. Seeing as I don't remember a lot of major plot points, it may be necessary! (Time for me to re-read my primary text!!)

[Sparky]

1. Are there any journal articles from non-sub-sub-subfield, superspecialized journals that address the book? How much do those articles contextualize it/how much plot do they provide? That might be one useful guide. But as you say--if it's not 200% necessary, cut it. Be merciless. You don't want loose writing.

2. You know, I'm not sure how I feel about your porn paper being the secondary sample. It would almost feel to me like, "Oh, ze's just trying to be Controversial ™ and cool." But that's *totally* just my personal opinion, and likely an arrogant one at that. Assuming it's a brilliant paper, I would be impressed as hell by an applicant who had the audacity to send that as the only writing sample, I think. Also, for me, would be whether or not the paper addresses what is at stake in calling the novel porn or not. Show that you know what you're doing, that you know the fire you're playing with and aren't doing it to make people mad but b/c it reflects in some important way on P or Q. Or something. Given the English profs I know, I think most of them would likely give you a fair shake. And if they wouldn't--would you honestly be able to be happy in that program?

I know it's really easy to focus on "I must get in somewhere! I must!" Ohhh do I remember. But think about whether you'll be happy once you're there. Sometimes beggars need to be choosers.

My own SOP was risky. But I knew that any school who rejected me based on it (well, based on the first two lines, in fact) was not a program I wanted to attend...

Edited September 2, 2011 by Sparky

[truckbasket]

In my "porn paper" (as I like to call it), basically I'm locating the "pornographic" element of the one text in various rhetorical techniques and comparing such techniques to those used in another explicitly pornographic text. I don't even know if I'd call it a "controversial" argument, but there are a lot of traditional/conservative-type people still in my field, who hate to see their beloved Swifts, Popes, Fieldings, etc. analyzed from a feminist perspective, let alone called pornographic! Haha

If the underlying thesis is mindblowingly awesome and essentially diverts the focus beyond simply raising eyebrows, then the "controversial" stuff will be overlooked and secondary to the paper anyway. If it's simply a matter of this text is doing the same structural thing as this here porno text -- and not developing something beyond that comparison -- then it might come across as a edgy for the sake of being edgy. I mean it's hardly as if Paul Morel shows up at Miriam's doorstep and says "I'm here to fix the cable..." or is it?

If the paper pushes more conservative buttons than it pushes existing studies of the text, then it might be problematic.

You make a good point. I'm having a hard time with my more "obscure" text--a novella by Anais Nin--because its only function is really to back up one of my points, and it feels a bit like it's just in there to be there. In the first draft of my paper I kind of shortchanged it, which makes me think it might be better to just take it out altogether. Unless I can really make it pertinent to my argument, it's gone. And like I've mentioned above, my primary text is Sons and Lovers. I don't know if I should just assume my audience would be familiar with it or spend time contextualizing. Seeing as I don't remember a lot of major plot points, it may be necessary! (Time for me to re-read my primary text!!)

Anais Nin is really not that obscure, and Sons and Lovers should be known by pretty much anybody who has ever studied Literature in any capacity. You'd be fine with either.

My own SOP was risky. But I knew that any school who rejected me based on it (well, based on the first two lines, in fact) was not a program I wanted to attend...

I simply refused to open my writing with some cliched horseshit like "Grandma's dusty bookcase was filled with awe and wonder..." in fact, for a while, I was adverse to using any framing technique at all. It was in the final hour that it clicked and all fell into place. And I had the same take: that it's a risk, but it's one that I stand 100% behind.

Screw convention.

[Origin=Goal]

2. What about potentially "controversial" topics? My main writing sample isn't controversial, but for those schools (like UVA) that require two, my secondary one might be. I think I'd like to send this paper to any schools that welcome a second piece of writing (like Cornell) because it's in my primary field. Ultimately, I call a beloved, canonical novel a work of pornography as I compare it to another pornographic work. It's not explicit in its analysis, but I'm starting to wonder if such a topic might potentially "offend" someone on an adcomm. I wouldn't anticipate that to be a problem, but do you think that might be a risky move? I'm not anticipating most adcomms to be super conservative or anything, but you never know. The late 18th-c. prof. from my school who I just missed taking classes with is probably rolling in his grave at the thought of this very paper.

I honestly don't understand the problem here. If you are able to support the position you take on whatever your object of analysis is in a way that demonstrates adequate critical competence, writing abilities, and is in line with your stated research interest, then the purpose of the writing sample is fulfilled (at least in my understanding of the matter). I think that is much more important (in a practical sense) than speculatively tailoring your opinions to your preconceptions of what the committee will think (which, I imagine, will in any case rarely be encompassed by the "canonicity" problematic you seem so preoccupied with).

2. You know, I'm not sure how I feel about your porn paper being the secondary sample. It would almost feel to me like, "Oh, ze's just trying to be Controversial ™ and cool." But that's *totally* just my personal opinion, and likely an arrogant one at that. Assuming it's a brilliant paper, I would be impressed as hell by an applicant who had the audacity to send that as the only writing sample, I think. Also, for me, would be whether or not the paper addresses what is at stake in calling the novel porn or not. Show that you know what you're doing, that you know the fire you're playing with and aren't doing it to make people mad but b/c it reflects in some important way on P or Q. Or something. Given the English profs I know, I think most of them would likely give you a fair shake. And if they wouldn't--would you honestly be able to be happy in that program?

I know it's really easy to focus on "I must get in somewhere! I must!" Ohhh do I remember. But think about whether you'll be happy once you're there. Sometimes beggars need to be choosers.

My own SOP was risky. But I knew that any school who rejected me based on it (well, based on the first two lines, in fact) was not a program I wanted to attend...

"Trying to be controversial" and developing an innovative, if somewhat unconventional position (though I'm very skeptical that any opinion you take on, say, Daisy Miller would raise their eye brows such as to discount you from consideration!) are very different matters, in my opinion. But, like Sparky says, would you feel comfortable in a program that makes you have to hide your actual opinions on your work? My sample is essentially a trenchant defense on two VERY controversial figures in my field, but I don't feel compelled to pick a paper of lesser quality and less representative of my interests to skirt hypothetical controversy; actually, isn't that the very reason why such papers are written?

[bdon19]

Origin=goal, I think you're right. Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe the paper really isn't as "controversial" as I initially may have made it seem. I guess that I asked the initial question because I was worried about the (very slim) possibility of offending an adcomm member. However, in reality the paper really doesn't get as controversial as it may have appeared. It's about porn, sure, but the underlying thesis encompasses the rhetoric of modesty as well as pornography in the courtship novel. I do have concerns about it being perceived as somewhat "edgy for the sake of being edgy," especially (as Sparky brings up) because it is my secondary writing sample, though I think the perceived edginess comes more from my choice of text than the argument itself. Nevertheless, it's still a (however marginal) "canonical" text to an extent, so it's probably a lot less problematic than I'm making it out to be.

Regarding Sparky's point, I just don't think the "porn paper" is as strong as my other paper, which is why I chose that other one as the primary. It proves its point, it's a bit of an original take on a text, and it's in my primary field, but it feels a little more assignment-like than the other paper. The one on Sons and Lovers seems, to me and to the professors I've spoken with, a bit more sophisticated in that it moves beyond the standard interesting argument + close reading + secondary evidence format and into...well...different territory. I couldn't exactly describe what kind of territory that is. It was the most rewarding and yet most difficult paper I've ever written, primarily because I had to figure out a way of organizing it that was different from any paper I'd organized before. I'm pretty set on using that one as my main writing sample, even if it's not in my field, because it is so different from anything else I've written, because it shows my ability to work with my secondary area of interest (feminist theory), and because it contains a few of the most damn beautiful sentences I've ever written in my life.

It's interesting that Origin=Goal should point out that I seem "preoccupied" with "canonicity." I think I've been conditioned to worry about the texts I'm reading because my UG department has had a number of controversies specific to my field of 18th-c. lit regarding what constitutes a "canonical" text. Both of the 18th-c. professors I've taken courses with teach what might be considered a "fringe canon," by which I mean they'll include Eliza Haywood or Charlotte Lennox but shortchange Dryden or Swift. Their predecessor, who died early in my sophomore year, was the exact opposite. He wouldn't budge from the Fielding-Swift-Pope curriculum and wouldn't be caught dead near any type of feminist analysis. Even though I never took a class with him, many of my classmates did, and so I've spent the past three years in the endless debate of which approach is more valid, especially when I was on the student committee for the job search for a permanent (TT) replacement for him.