Writing Sample Topics?

[hermia11]

Hi all-

Forgive if this is a repeat post, but I'm wondering the subjects for everyone's writing samples, if anyone doesn't mind sharing!

My subject area is a combo historical period (20th century British) and theory. So I'm trying to narrow my writing sample to something that best suits this area. I have an essay on Woolf's novelsand Helene Cixous's ecriture feminine, and another on Joyce's Ulysses and Lacanian thought. What I'm realizing is that these are dated - my theory component is smack in the middle of the 1960s/70s. Should I choose something else entirely? And what are you all writing about? Are you in modern territory, or do you find you're delving into criticism that's already happened? Am I just neurotically wondering if I'm 50 years behind the field??

[Sparky]

Submit your best essay, period. (After heavy revision).

(What follows is totally my-opinion-based-on-my-experience, and I am confident that people will be along to disagree.)

I wouldn't be too worried about using old theory. I *would* be worried about your thesis/argument not being original. (I can't quite tell if you're suggesting that, sorry.)

As I understand it, the point of the writing sample is not "This is the quality of work I am going to produce in your PhD program." It's more of a "I am capable of integrating close reading/source analysis with a methodological framework (whether Theory or not), using or modifying said methodology in a way that is both logical and allows new insight into the sources, and putting this together in an intriguing, coherent, and well-written argument. This is how I think. Now let me into your program so you can show me the most current ways people are doing this and I can apply my awesome unique analytical perspective to the strategies I will learn."

Anecdatum: my writing sample involved interpretation of a particular theological point that I got flat-out wrong. Not outdated, not controversial; just plain wrong. (I had no idea at the time, needless to say, and I am retrospectively mortified. Although it's probably worse that the professors with whom I wrote this paper also had no idea I was so far off.) The faculty here apparently figured this meant I needed to be in a program where such things could be pointed out to me. (And FWIW, the literature people who read my app were apparently the happiest with it, which is why I think my experience is relevant here.)

...You might want to make sure your SOP positions you better with current scholarship, though. Combining psychoanalytic criticism with [currently trendy theory] to analyze [books], or some such.

[bdon19]

I have a potentially ignorant question for you, Sparky, or anyone else who cares to answer this lowly undergrad. While I feel like I can recognize "trendy theory" when I see it, I don't know if I could concretely define what type of stuff currently fulfills that definition. I, like hermia, am using some potentially outdated theory in my writing sample, though I *hope* that I'm using it in a fairly interesting and original sort of way. I don't necessarily think my argument needs anything radically new or trendy to make it *better*. What I don't know, though, is if I'll be expected to really be up to speed on the more recent trendy stuff. Because the closest thing I can think of to trendy that makes sense in terms of my work is stuff by Franco Moretti. Sparky, you mentioned that people on the committees are more concerned about looking at making sure you're capable of integrating analysis/close reading with some sort of methodological approach. But to what extent do you (and others) believe that it might be helpful to be brought up to speed on the current trends, and where might I go about familiarizing myself with them? In any cases do you think the more recent trendy stuff might cause any issues?

[Sparky]

As for trendy, I got nothing. I can tell you that medieval literature scholarship right now seems rather obsessed with postcolonial theory, but I don't know how broadly that applies.

I actually think that, rather than peg yourself as fitting into or partially into a particular School Of Theory, it can be more useful to think in terms of "which recent scholars have influenced me." That avoids the appearance of what I guess they call 'doctrinal rigidness' (rigidity? is that a word? it should be.) or some such. So something like "I draw inspiration from Scholar's work in expanding disability theory to cover discussions of sin and redemption in Text." I'm pretty sure my SOP dealt with this just by saying something like The work of Z on Q1 has been influential/inspirational to me as I investigate Q8. Plus, as long as you can name a currently-working Big Shot in your field, you can feel confident that you are not behind the proverbial times. Bah, I wish I'd said this in my earlier post.

(The "which scholars have influenced you" question also came up at the interview, so I suspect this is an Important Thing, perhaps more important than being able to rattle off names of theory schools. Just wait until you realize that one of the people you name as an influential scholar in your SOP is (1) on the adcom (2) your advisor. It's...mortifying.)

Edited November 1, 2011 by Sparky

[truckbasket]

Hermia, both of those topics sound strong -- perhaps just determine which one presents the best argument or demonstrates your ability to articulate well.

bdon19, I wouldn't stress too much about the trendiness of your method (unless tomorrow's theory is your intended area -- digital humanities for example), but perhaps try to outline existing discussions about your topic in the lit review (that is, if a discussion exists) by hitting up JSTOR. If you're carving out a place for your ideas to sit, then it's always wise to comment on what a couple of writers have already said -- either to build upon their ideas or to politely de-pants them. The committee will be looking to gauge your ability and potential more than how up to speed you are.

[Two Espressos]

Firstly,

(rigidity? is that a word? it should be.).

It most certainly is a word, one that I happen to like quite a bit.

I have a potentially ignorant question for you, Sparky, or anyone else who cares to answer this lowly undergrad. While I feel like I can recognize "trendy theory" when I see it, I don't know if I could concretely define what type of stuff currently fulfills that definition. I, like hermia, am using some potentially outdated theory in my writing sample, though I *hope* that I'm using it in a fairly interesting and original sort of way. I don't necessarily think my argument needs anything radically new or trendy to make it *better*. What I don't know, though, is if I'll be expected to really be up to speed on the more recent trendy stuff. Because the closest thing I can think of to trendy that makes sense in terms of my work is stuff by Franco Moretti. Sparky, you mentioned that people on the committees are more concerned about looking at making sure you're capable of integrating analysis/close reading with some sort of methodological approach. But to what extent do you (and others) believe that it might be helpful to be brought up to speed on the current trends, and where might I go about familiarizing myself with them? In any cases do you think the more recent trendy stuff might cause any issues?

I'll offer my humble perspective, from lowly undergrad to lowly undergrad:

As I see it, "trendiness" in academia is cancerous. I'm not naive enough to ignore its existence, but to the extent that I can, I intend to avoid it. I do not think that admission committees, overall, will be concerned with the "trendiness" of your theoretical approach. A PhD student--not to mention a professional academic--will be expected to have a strong grasp of the current theoretical trends in their subdiscipline, but I cannot see this grasp as a vital prerequisite for an applicant. The purpose of a PhD program is not only to facilitate one's research/dissertation; it's also to nurture and develop one's knowledge in the field. Perhaps the most elite institutions are more demanding as regards theoretical knowledge, but I'm not certain.

I concede with truckbasket's point, however: if your primary area of interest is a relatively new one (digital humanities, disability studies, etc) then I think having a greater familiarity with current theoretical work is more necessary, if only because these texts essentially constitute the subdiscipline at this point (the field is a new one, so these relatively current texts may very well end up being "canonical" to the subfield as it progresses).

Also, older theoretical work--at least the most important texts--will remain a part of critical conversation. Think about philosophy. Kant's work is hundreds of years old, yet scholars continue to engage with his ideas in a major way. Granted, philosophy is not literature, but as many have noted here and elsewhere, philosophy and literary theory intersect, blurring the lines between the disciplines.

I think the most important aspect of the writing sample, as evidence of the applicant's potential overall, is one's ability to think on a highly sophisticated, critical, and creative level. . . I hope admissions committees share this belief when they evaluate my application, as I'm not very conversant with the most current theoretical trends either.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Two Espressos