Please help- I'm counting on you guys..

[katanianQ]

Hidely ho, friends, neighbors and countrymen..

So after getting my 9th or so rejection, a bit of a pattern is starting to emerge. My last rejectors(?) were kind enough to write a very personalized letter that was enthusiastic about me, my proposal, etc, but said that I would do better in a department that focuses more on close readings rather than theoretical stuff. And they encouraged me to pursue study at a place like this, then skip through a field of lavender, etc.

So my question to you all out in the void is.... have any of you HEARD of a department like this? Old school? That actually has a ph.d program?

If any of you have any experience with a place like this or has heard of one, please tell me so I can start barking up the right tree.

[lyonessrampant]

That's awesome that you got some feedback! I've emailed all the schools I've been rejected from asking for something like that. . . Northwestern said it was against their policy to supply individualized feedback but the secretary said he would recommend test scores above 700 and lots of writing sample editing. Otherwise, I haven't heard back, but that's me whining

So, my undergrad department chair went to the University of Arizona and recommended that school as really into close reading as opposed to theory. That may have changed in recent years, but I think both UA and ASU both emphasize that. Another one of my undergrad profs came from Penn State and he also really emphasized close reading. I don't know a lot about Penn State's program, but you might want to check into it. Good luck!

[darthoutis]

I think Catholic U would fit your description of "old school," in so far that they emphasize the reading of literature as literature (as opposed to an historical document, rhetorical artifact, etc.). You may be interested in a recent interview with their department chair, Ernest Suarez, from Literary Matters. The link is: http://english.cua.edu/News/Ordinarily%20Professing.doc

Other than Catholic U, you might consider University of Dallas as a "traditional" program -- although theirs is more interdisciplinary, since they only offer a Ph.D. in Literature, Philosophy and Politics, not English Lit., I understand. The last school that comes to my mind is North Carolina State, where R.V. Young is. He's a "New" New Critic and authored At War with the Word (http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.asp ... 07311fcd17). I think they only offer a Masters, though.

I'm hoping that more schools continue to return to the traditional study of literature, especially with the recent trend in historical formalism (at least within my period). I'm not sure if this movement is practical anymore, however, since most English departments already seem to have set into motion the process of becoming "Cultural Studies" departments and we're constantly being asked to justify the value of our discipline in worldly terms.

Kyrie eleison.

[katanianQ]

thank you so much, efhadisto poli, etc etc.

please keep the reccomendations rolling in...

I'm also glad to see that I'm not (totally) alone in bucking against the lit theory fever. I think a lot of it comes from the need to make something as intangible as literature a concrete 'science.'

My boss, who has a fancy phd and is probably the smartest and most well read person I have ever met, thinks its all a load of bullshit and I am inclined to agree.

[hepkath]

As a total close-reading sympathizer whose advisor (admittedly a bit tipsy from drinks over seminar dinner) told her she would be miserable in grad school because it's so theory-heavy, but that she should definitely, definitely go because things will eventually skew in her favor (*someone* has to get on the opposite end of the see-saw), this is my advice:

Don't look for close-reading programs, so to speak. Look for professors. There are professors at every school (often a bit older, maybe grey of hair and wistful for the days of yore) who work primarily from the text. Compile a list of schools you like for various other important reasons (location, teaching and placement opportunities, overall educational outlook, interdisciplinary tendencies, et cetera), and then really dig into their faculty profiles. Look up articles on JSTOR or ProQuest. Pick up books from the library. Find people who write about literature the way *you* want to write about literature, and apply to whichever schools have more than one such person (ideally, three or four such people) on staff. The only way to tell if your approach to text will be welcome at a particular institution is to acquire an intimate understanding of how select members of said institution's faculty approach text. In this day and age, you're not going to find institutions broadcasting their emphases on close-reading. The young generation is overwhelmingly theory-obsessed at present, and even the most loyal close-reader needs a solid background in theory to stay afloat. This does not mean, however, that you need to change the way you look at literature or that you're out of luck finding somewhere to study. Broaden your capacity for approach, but don't lose your core (I need allies for this revolution, yo!).

It's a lot of research, but the results, I think, will surprise you. Professors who appear to do theory-based research (or advertise themselves as such) might end up appealing to your close-reader sensibilities through their writing. Some scholars can make theory appear inhuman and incomprehensible (and it's easy to generalize this as the norm), while others simply use theory to augment or amplify their close-reading work (and can be surprisingly artful at it!). These latter sorts of scholars can pop up anywhere, so I really encourage you *not* to limit your search needlessly.

Speaking to current grad students at institutions you might be interested in should also help; they'll know more specifically what a faculty member is like in lecture or in response to papers. And keep in mind, too, that schools with larger faculties will be less likely to have a single, unified approach to text. (Chances are, a school with widely varying approaches will provide you with a more enriching education overall; you never know what you might grow to love... Six years is a long time!)

[sundv004]

Yes, yes: find professors that are congruent with your research interests and apply to their institutions. I think this is the best way to go about graduate school--at least if you want to be happy. I think that far too many students, obviously competitive (especially if they're attempting to attend grad school), put far too much weight and emphasis on "prestige," "notoriety" and "ranking." This means little in the end, as each school's department is going to be unique in their approaches and interests. Even a cursory examination of a handful of schools will demonstrate this. I can't help you with regard to schools that are more traditional in their close-reading approach to literature (as I am, admittedly, more a cultural studies cat), and though many schools are tending to sway in the direction of cultural studies, fear not. It is certain that there are plenty of professors out there who are interested in what you're interested in; and once you find them, I am sure they would be so jazzed that you're bound to not only end up somewhere, but probably get a good pacakge and be able to work closely with an appropriate academic mentor.

[Spritely]

Some of the faculty at U Texas might be a good match, but I am thinking in the Ethnic/Third World area rather than other emphases with which I am less familiar.

I suspect that some of my trouble with applications is that my writing samples are more a close reading of the text than a theoretical investigation or dialogue with critics in the field. But, as with everything else, this is just a hunch that is not grounded in feedback from the Departments (since I never receive said feedback).

[greekdaph]

Yale is another one that springs to mind--a department heavily associated with the New Critics that, though now interested in attracting faculty who are more into theory, still has plenty of people left who trained in and practice that methodology. Though as someone who's more interested in close reading than in theory myself, I should add that people have been telling me, over and over again, how important it is to be well-versed in theory whether you rely heavily on it or not. Many of the professors I've talked to whose close readings I really admire are also people who can have a very high level conversation about this or that theorist or theoretical approach. That's something that we as grad students will have to do, too, whether we're interested in it from the get-go or dragged into it kicking and screaming.

[katanianQ]

thanks so much, dart, for posting that interview. I am LOVING this and it's making me feel a lot better:

"The profession has, of course, been dominated by literary theory since the late 70s, though things have been turning around. We want students to know that our department is a place that studies literature as literature. Creative literature addresses every topic theory stresses

[darthoutis]

My pleasure, katanianQ. I hope you find the best fit for you and wish you luck on the rest of your applications -- and everyone else's, too!

[spartaca]

There are a few professors at Buffalo - a program known more for its emphasis on theory - who are into close-reading. As a few other posters have suggested, though, they are all very well-read in theory, which makes for very interesting seminars. It's also nice to see that you don't have to pick one theoretical approach and be married to it forever... I'd be happy to give you the names of those profs (via pm) so you can check them out - I know of two in 19th C., one in 20th C. American.

[kfed2020]

Yale is another one that springs to mind--a department heavily associated with the New Critics that, though now interested in attracting faculty who are more into theory, still has plenty of people left who trained in and practice that methodology. Though as someone who's more interested in close reading than in theory myself, I should add that people have been telling me, over and over again, how important it is to be well-versed in theory whether you rely heavily on it or not. Many of the professors I've talked to whose close readings I really admire are also people who can have a very high level conversation about this or that theorist or theoretical approach. That's something that we as grad students will have to do, too, whether we're interested in it from the get-go or dragged into it kicking and screaming.

Harvard comes to mind, as well. Helen Vendler ain't a theorist.

[omgninjas]

As much as I'm resistant to an over-reliance on theory, I feel like it's often argued against in strawman form, and in a reactionary way. Like Greekdaph and Hepkath have pointed out, even if it's not up your alley, it's probably something you should be at least partially grounded in, just like even the best theorist needs to be able to conduct solid close readings. Trying to bracket off the two (or even trying to bracket off the two as stable categories) is impossible, imo.

That said, you can get the relative vibe of the program if you are willing to pursue the work of a bunch of their faculty. I ended up not applying to Harvard and Yale since, as a few posters have pointed out, they seemed fairly "traditional". I think Johns Hopkins is kind of in this vein as well, although I'm not that certain. Still though, I feel like all of those schools are going to be looking for some kind theoretical engagement with the field in your writing sample.

[Comfect]

I think Johns Hopkins is kind of in this vein as well, although I'm not that certain.

Not in the slightest, at least in my field (Renaissance) When I visited there last year, it was very clearly a place where they take theory very seriously and are much less interested (at least compared to Harvard, my undergrad school, and one of the schools you were comparing it to) in traditional, close-reading-oriented literary studies. Hopkins is, or at least can be, quite theory-oriented.

[omgninjas]

Thanks for correcting my misinformation, then. Generally, I feel like no matter where you go you can't really avoid it. It's all about who you are trying to work with, and I know that's kind of facile. I just hope that you don't take that letter to to speak for all of the other programs you applied to. This is a very interesting topic as far as thinking about the direction of the field at large, and I'm interested to hear what others think.

[a cup of coffee]

I can totally sympathize with you as my academic orientation runs toward the conservative. I am a total canon nerd and I've always palled around with older professors who would say things like "it's nice to recommend someone who wants to study literature." In reality, I just don't have the theoretical background yet to know what other kinds of approaches will be useful to me. Both skills -- theoretical thinking and close reading -- seem necessary to do good work. One of my professors did once say that he thought too many academics today can't do a good close reading. Anyway, I was accepted to Wisconsin-Madison with a writing sample that was nothing but a close reading. Can't say if that means anything, though. You probably will have to do some in-depth research, calling and emailing individual departments and professors, to find out what schools will fit you best. Good luck!

[draff]

I think that it might help to know what the original comment meant by "close-reading." Close-reading is a way of engaging with a text--that text can just as easily be a writing in gender theory or a Japanese film as it can a line in a novel. Much theory--at least when it's actually addressing some specific cultural artifact--comes about through close-reading.

But, often enough, when someone says, "well, that's a nice close-reading, but...," the problem is that the essay hasn't really moved through an inquiry that this someone sees as significant. The issue isn't close-reading, but the kinds of questions that have motivated the writing in the essay. Perhaps knowing that would help the members on the board point in more useful directions?

[katanianQ]

I think that it might help to know what the original comment meant by "close-reading." Close-reading is a way of engaging with a text--that text can just as easily be a writing in gender theory or a Japanese film as it can a line in a novel. Much theory--at least when it's actually addressing some specific cultural artifact--comes about through close-reading.

But, often enough, when someone says, "well, that's a nice close-reading, but...," the problem is that the essay hasn't really moved through an inquiry that this someone sees as significant. The issue isn't close-reading, but the kinds of questions that have motivated the writing in the essay. Perhaps knowing that would help the members on the board point in more useful directions?

I understand what you are saying..

I ground my work in a cultural and historical context and really don't think there is an issue with the questions that have motivated the writing of my essay(s). I got an M.Phil from a top program and have had some publications with reputable presses and know that I would not have gotten through the door there without an ability to conceive and follow through with original writing that contributes something to my field. I certainly deal with many of the issues addressed through various schools of literary theory, but much like the professor at Catholic University points out in that interview, you can delve deep into issues of gender, identity, politics, history, etc sometimes in a more honest, refreshing way by treating literature for what it is- literature. I just personally feel these theoretical approaches limiting and often times undreadable due to all of the jargon and self importance.

Just my opinion though. Check out the article (link is earlier in the thread). It explains what I mean by close reading much more eloquently than I'm doing here.

[JustAnotherModernGuy]

...I would do better in a department that focuses more on close readings rather than theoretical stuff.

Hello KatanianQ,

I thought I would weigh in here and mention a few items to keep in mind. While I'm not sure if we are all heading back to New Criticism, it does seem that there is significant movement to return to some sort of a new formalism. I do not think a new formalist movement would necessarily be "ani-theoretical" (in a way that we commonly, but perhaps wrongly, view New Criticism), but simply (and perhaps drastically) uses and focuses literary theory differently. It's also not entirely clear which formalist traditions a new formalist movement would build upon (perhaps the New Critics or the Russian Formalists), so do keep this in mind. I post my above thoughts because you might want to be looking for both "anti-theory/New Critical professors" (sterotypically grey-haired and educated in the 40's-50's) but also, perhaps, young professors who are publishing discontented articles lamenting New Historicism and attempting to formulate new formalist approaches. I don't want to start a big

[katanianQ]

Modern Guy,

Thank you so much for your very thoughtful ideas.. I will check out the articles you suggest.

My main focus is pretty contemporary- Irish, British (inc. Scottish) lit- from WWII on. It's been difficult to find enough members in a department engaging with this stuff alone- never mind with my particular approach to writing and researching. I have studied overseas though and am very open to doing a Ph.D in the UK as well. If anyone knows of any applicable UK names/places, please do shout em out!

[draff]

katanianQ said:

My main focus is pretty contemporary- Irish, British (inc. Scottish) lit- from WWII on.

Are you interested in poetry? fiction? I don't have much to offer on fiction, frankly. And the poetries that I know well are largely the sort that it's difficult to talk about without trading in theory to some extent...

But, if you look at poetries at all, you might get something out of working with Keith Tuma, at Miami University of Ohio. He's actively publishing, and quite engaged with contemporary poetries in Great Britain. The only other Americans I can think of whose writing I've found useful re: post-WW2 Irish or British or Scottish poets are...well, other poets. Or they aren't accessible, really (I'm thinking of people like Marjorie Perloff, here, but also scholars who are overseas/itinerant).

However--and this is something I'm sure you understand--there are an awful lot more people with an interest in those national literatures in Great Britain than there are here, per capita. And your research, in particular, would be hindered by having to fly overseas to gain access to any special collections that might reside in a library off that way. On that front, if you have any interest in contemporary poetries of the Commonwealth, as it were, then I notice an awful lot of smart people at the University of Sussex. I know nothing of the school's reputation, however.

[katanianQ]

Good point, Draff.

Yeah I'm into fiction so I realize that going back to the UK would probably be the best option. This is something I'd probably prefer- also due to the nature of their Ph.D programs being mostly by research..

[JustAnotherModernGuy]

On that front, if you have any interest in contemporary poetries of the Commonwealth, as it were, then I notice an awful lot of smart people at the University of Sussex. I know nothing of the school's reputation, however.

It's been a while since I did my MA at Sussex (so the school may well have changed), but if you are attempting to avoid theory-heavy schools I don't think this school fits with your current desires. My experiences were that Sussex is very theory based. There are a lot of people doing great things there, but most (if not all) is very heavily theory based (gender & sexuality, queer theory, deconstructionists, psychoanalytic, New Historicists, Marxists, etc.).

This certainly isn't a critique of Sussex (far from it--I learned more there than at any other school), just a "heads-up." Let me know if you might apply. Sussex has some great resources for the period just before WWII; they've rare unpublished work by Woolf (and Monk's House is close by), but expect to read a lot of theory and mainly fiction (don't recall many people doing poetry--but then again poetry isn't really my interest).

Best,

JAMG

[lotf629]

Did you apply to Harvard? If your numbers are reasonably strong, you shouldn't count it out. I have a good friend whose approach is very like yours (old-school close reading all the way). Harvard was the only school he got into: he was rejected at Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Chicago, Cornell, and Stanford. It just goes to show that fit is everything. Also, it's the opposite of a theory-heavy school IMO .