Torn between two fields of interest

[silentskye]

I've looked through the threads but can't find one that has dealt with this question (am I the only crazy one?)

I'm working and working at my statement of purpose but I think its major issue is that its unclear which field I am interested in - Romanticism or the Victorian novel - probably because more specifically, I'm interested in the Romantic influence on the Victorian novel.

So I guess my question is, couldn't I be? Must I whittle down my interest to fit it into a specific period so that it can be handed to the right professor to review? I do feel that the two periods are intrinsically linked anyway (though I suppose that is quite arguable - perhaps something I should mention in the SoP?)

I'd be grateful for any insights any of you may have.

[xfgdfrmgpo332]

I'm kind of dealing the with same issue, though my two periods are Romanticism and Modernism. Your problem seems slightly easier than mine to reconcile, since the Victorian period chronologically comes right after Romanticism - it's not really much of a leap for you (it's not like you want to do both Medieval and modern Caribbean lit).

I think you'll be fine, especially if you make an argument for how you think the two periods are connected in your SOP, and what about this continuity (or self-conscious discontinuity, as it may be) interests you. That being said, it may help to emphasize one period more than the other; but I really don't know - I'm struggling with this myself!

[lyonessrampant]

I would recommend focusing on your specific subfield unless you can articulate a clear connection between the two. I think the Romantic influence on the Victorian novel seems connected enough to me to not sound scattered. I would probably, if I were you, identify myself as a Victorianist and then demonstrate in your SOP and writing sample that you know a lot about both areas in terms of where the intersection lies. In one round of apps, I addressed both my early modern and medieval interests. Though I only applied to a few top 10 schools and it was the middle of the recession crackdown on cohort sizes, that wasn't successful. Last year I got five admits and submitted a much more focused SOP. I was told in feedback from a few of the schools where I was close but not admitted that my SOP was strong, so I do think that demonstrating focus is important. That said, interesting intersections of periods is where a lot of current interdisciplinary work is being done, so if you can articulate the connection (which I didn't do before), I don't think that disadvantages you.

[silentskye]

Great advice, thanks!

[Loimographia]

I think lyoness' advice is sound, but if you're forced, on an app, to give your subfield in a single word (this happens for history, where you have to choose a subfield and if, say, you want to focus on the transitive nature of the late middle ages and early renaissance, well, tough luck, you just get to type out "renaissance") I would state the later era. Why? Because when studying the effect of one thing upon another, it sets up your interest in the earlier era as contingent upon its relevance to the later era. after all, you'll only talk about the importance of the first era in terms of its effects upon the later era rather than as an independent era, while you implicitly consider the second era as of independent value. So, go with the later era, if you *really* have to choose. my opinion only, of course

[silentskye]

I agree with you there Loimographia. I think I got confused because my interest in Romanticism came first, and from there I gradually formed my current interests. So when writing my SoP and showing my academic development I inevitably start with Romanticism, which might give the reader the wrong idea.

I sense the solution here would be to take a deep breath and dive back into writing my SoP