Some questions for you guys

[Thorongil]

I applied to English and religious studies MA programs last fall and chose a religious studies program to attend this fall due to certain practical considerations like its location and the stipend they gave me. Because it's a terminal MA, I will have to reapply to PhD programs, and I've been thinking I might apply to English programs again because there just aren't that many (secular) religious studies programs out there.

 

First, should I have a particular idea in mind about what I want to do a dissertation on? I'm a kind of a generalist and like reading philosophy, religious texts, poetry, plays, novels, etc. What anchors all of my various interests, though, is the philosophy of Schopenhauer. (You might say that I should be applying to philosophy programs, but I have absolutely no ability, not to mention interest, in symbolic logic, which I would be required to take and in most cases teach as a TA, and I also have severe criticisms of the way contemporary academic philosophy conducts itself.) Thus, because an English PhD program will require me to pick a period to work on, I have narrowed it down to doing a Schopenhauerian exegesis of an author in one the following periods:

 

1) Medieval: English mystics like Julian of Norwich, the Cloud of Unknowing author, Walter Hilton, etc and English poets like Chaucer and the Piers Plowman author. 

 

2) Renaissance/Jacobean/Restoration: Playwrights like Shakespeare, Webster, and Dryden.

 

3) Romantic: Really just Byron. 

 

4) 19th century British and/or American: Melville, Chopin, Hardy, Conrad, and the Victorian pessimistic poets like Thomson, Arnold etc. 

 

5) 20th century American: Langston Hughes and Saul Bellow. 

 

Should I just go ahead and commit to one of these, or should I let admissions committees know in my personal statement of the possibilities above and just say I'm open to persuasion? 

 

Third, how would I go about finding professors who fit these interests? To be honest, I don't read secondary literature really at all. I read primary texts. Moreover, I have found finding professors who fit some of the tracks above sort of difficult, like English mysticism. In that case, for example, would I be fine just applying to departments that have several medievalists on hand? 

 

Lastly, would you have any tips on how to explain in the personal statement why I am applying to English PhD programs after having just completed a religious studies MA? I want to say there should be no problem with this, as most admissions pages will say that they want a prior MA in English "or in a related field," and religious studies is certainly a related field. I also don't want to be crass and say, "there are simply more English programs than religious studies programs as well as a much higher chance of getting a decent job with an English PhD than with a religious studies PhD." I don't give two cents about whether I'm tenured or not, I just want to work as a professor/lecturer/etc of the humanities in some capacity, and I know English professors will be in greater demand than religious studies professors, so this practical consideration weighs heavily on my mind. 

 

Basically, I would want to avoid the awkwardness of saying "Hey, I just finished studying the world's religions, and now I want to go balls deep into Herman Melville and his relation to Schopenhauer, yo!" I can see admissions committees being confused, even though the fact is that I enjoy reading all kinds of literature. Maybe I've already answered my question in a way here. At any rate, I would very much appreciate the opinions of the people who frequent this forum. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by Thorongil

[unræd]

Let me start by saying that I know a medievalist who went from a religious studies MA to an English PhD, so that's certainly a transition that can (and does) happen!

 

In American PhD programs, it is most definitely not required that you have a particular idea in mind about what you want to do your dissertation on. This is a bit weird, since one of the things you're supposed to do in your SOP is to describe, at least in very broad terms, a project: the type of texts you see yourself working on, and a critical approach. But that's a bit of shibboleth--committees want to see that you know what a project looks like and what kinds of questions are current and appropriate to the field, not to see a chapter-by-chapter prospectus signed in blood. No one expects that you actually work on what you describe in your SOP, and given the fact that coursework, exams, and growing relations with your professors and engagement with the field will all change your interests and approaches, very few people do. Likewise, even though this can change once you're in a program, the fact of the matter is that most English programs (and certainly PhD ones) aren't really equipped to handle generalist applications--it is necessary to apply to work in a specific period. Again, once in the program, you aren't locked in to that period--it's not at all unheard of for students to switch--but it is expected that the application (and usually the dissertation) has a strong period identity. That's just how programs (and the profession) are set up, unfortunately.

 

Aside from it being the business of scholarship in the humanities, reading secondary literature is vital--not only because it will help you find scholars whose approaches and topics are good fits with yours, but your eventual writing sample (which will, ideally, be on texts of the period you're applying to study) will need to engage with them heavily. What was your undergrad major? Does your MA allow you take seminars in the English department, or to do work in religious studies seminars on primarily literary texts or applying primarily literary methodologies? What about languages? Will the MA allow you to do any language work as part of your coursework? This will vary based on the period you end up in, of course--medievalists have vastly different language requirements from modernists. But no matter your period, if you end up writing a dissertation focusing extensively on Schopenhauer you will be expected to use him in German, not in someone else's translation.

 

GC user Cloudofunknowning can, obviously, speak to scholars who work on late medieval mysticism better than I; perhaps he'll chime in? And I think there are other people around the boards who do mystics, too. But you're also right: with medieval literature specifically, since departments tend to have only anywhere from two to six (at very most) professors studying an entire millennium of literature, it's much more important to be with a good medievalist who's qualified and comfortable supervising your dissertation on a topic even if it's not what they do than finding an exact match for your interests. Although obviously, if there are exact matches for your interests those are definitely people whom you should be applying to work with!

 

I hope that helps!

[Thorongil]

@unræd

 

Thanks for that very helpful response. Let me try to answer your questions. I did an interdisciplinary bachelors in the humanities, a sort of design your own major. I was first a classical civilization major, but then switched to philosophy, then English, and then discovered that the only way I could graduate on time was if I got approval to combine them into an interdisciplinary degree, so that's what I did. I think it's a testament to the fact that I consider myself a humanist, in the Renaissance sense of that term. My interests straddle all of the humanities and I find that they are impossible to neatly separate. 

 

About languages, a friend told me that you almost have to become a linguist to get a PhD in religious studies, so that's another reason why I have shifted my gaze to English programs, which do not appear to be so absurdly demanding in their language requirements. I'm not cut out to be a linguist. I did the equivalent of two years of German in college and got mostly Bs and a C in a grammar class and don't regard myself as a particularly good language learner in general. If I do the medieval track, I anticipate possibly having to learn Latin or an older form of English. Ideally, however, I would just want to focus on one foreign language if I can help it. So, you are right that going from a religious studies MA into an English PhD in which I focus on medieval mystics would appear to be a nice and logical transition, but languages are a big unknown with that track.

 

I have in fact thought about taking Latin during my MA, not just because it might fit with what I do for a PhD but because I'm simply fascinated by it. But my adviser has suggested I wait a year before doing it, if indeed I still want to then (it wouldn't count for my degree, by the way). In any event, I would have to take that language from scratch as well as try to get proficient in German, and I don't know if that's feasible for me. I notice a lot of programs require "reading proficiency" in a language, though usually more than one. To me, becoming proficient at reading, say, Schopenhauer in the original German, is to become damn near proficient in the whole language. Then to become proficient enough to read what Walter Hilton or whoever wrote in Latin on top of that?! Good grief. I was taught very basic German, just enough so that I can ask for directions and order a salad from a restaurant. Certainly nothing approaching reading a philosophical text! The ability to do that would take years as far as I can tell. Yet I know for a fact that I wouldn't be alone in applying to an English PhD program with just two years of an undergrad foreign language. Does this mean that one is expected to take a bunch of language classes for several years while getting one's PhD?

 

As for the other tracks, how would I find out, say, where all the Melville scholars are? My slipshod Googling so far hasn't gotten me very far. 

 

Lastly, are you saying that I should specify the time period (but not the specific author necessarily) I would like to work with, at least provisionally, in my personal statement, instead of just giving them my five point list above?

Edited July 25, 2015 by Thorongil

[echo449]

I can't speak at length right now, but I want to add a couple things on top of unraed's already good advice.

First, you will need to specify a time period. Because of the way the discipline and market is set up, you will not be accepted to a program with that range. It's fine to be interested in other time periods--that will undoubtably make you a more well-rounded scholar. But the reality is that you'll need to choose a delimited time period and stick with it.

Secondly, the Schopenhauer aspect of your project is going to be an obstacle for admissions committees. No one really does things like that. If you want to work on Schopenhauer, you'll have to do so in a historical sense, so your project may be confined to the 19th/early 20th centuries. In a PhD program, you will be expected to go along with certain ways of doing literary study, and, unfortunately, this will require more standard-sounding projects on your end. I'm not saying you can't work on Schopenhauer, just that you'll have to frame it differently.

Not trying to critique you--I'm just trying to help you understand the boundaries of this field and all that entails for your interests.

[Thorongil]

No, I appreciate what you're saying, echo, thanks. I do need someone to help me whittle my interests down. However, I am perhaps a bit more optimistic about the relevance of Schopenhauer for my research. Take the 19th/early 20th centuries, as you mentioned. Melville read Schopenhauer with considerable interest while composing Billy Budd and his later poems. There are definite Schopenhauerian themes that can be read into his earlier works like Moby Dick too. Chopin allegedly read widely among German philosophers, and I think Schopenhauerian themes are rife within The Awakening. Hardy most certainly read and was influenced by Schopenhauer, which is particularly evident in Jude, Tess, and his poetry (Schopenhauer is even mentioned by name in Tess). Conrad too read Schopenhauer seriously, which influenced Heart of Darkness and many of his other works. 

 

Now, I did say that I don't read much secondary literature, and that's true, but, for the most part, I've found out about the above connections through various articles and books in the secondary literature, which leads me to believe that it wouldn't be that unusual. The only problem with this period is explaining in a personal statement why I want to study it having just come from a religious studies MA. Any thoughts on that? Also, if I did this track, what do you think my language requirements would look like? 

Edited July 25, 2015 by Thorongil

[Thorongil]

I might also add that a dissertation is supposed to be unique and original, right? Well, I think mine would be, in addition to still fitting within established niches in English literature. I'm not interested in following fads, if I can help it. In English departments, it's my impression that postmodern philosophy, feminism, and queer studies dominate. I'm not trying to denigrate people who work within these topics, but I am saying that they really don't interest me at all, and that this should be okay. 

[ProfLorax]

echo449 is absolutely right: you will need to pick a period. Typically, folks frame themselves as a period + theoretical framework(s). Why? Admission committees split up applications by period, so the medievalist faculty will read through the medievalist candidate applications. I imagine it's set up that way because of the job market. You won't really see any calls for candidates interested in philosophy and literature (maybe one or two, but I can't imagine more). But you will see universities hiring medievalists, early modernists, rhetoricians, 20th century Americanists, etc. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

Just to add another "me too" to the choir, my experience bears out that picking a period and sticking with it is most prudent. There are some subfields that allow for transhistoricism, and you might be able to figure out a niche that requires specific study across a few eras, but it is, unfortunately, quite unlikely. I think that's one of the possible mistakes I made with my applications last year -- my focus itself was specific, but the era was too broad. I used the term "grounded in the early modern era," but the rest of the language suggested any number of periods. The merits of era-based structures is debatable, but since they exist, they can't be ignored.

 

Personally, one of the things I'm going to focus on in my M.A. program is becoming a pure early modernist, including throwing in a history course or two if possible. Honestly, I'm more like the OP in that I have a wide range of interests, but in the warped scenario in which I have a gun pointed at my head and a madman demanding that I pick a period for specialization, I would blurt out "early modern!" in a millisecond. So that's what I'm doing (and not just to thwart the madmen with guns).

 

It's worth pointing out that honing in on a particular era doesn't mean that you can't essentially scoop up and blend knowledge of other periods. You certainly can. Most of the literature I read for general enjoyment and erudition is from the last two centuries. But I've started to learn that keeping literary interests and literary research interests separate is helpful.

 

And completely for what it's worth, I think that bringing a religious studies perspective to literature is a good thing. In my last semester of undergrad, I wound up writing three different papers for three different (and completely disparate) courses on the role of convents in three different works of literature. They were all good papers, but I had the nagging feeling with all three of them that they would have been better served had I had more first-hand knowledge of Catholicism or Christianity more generally. In other words, you can probably get a LOT of mileage out of bringing an academic religious background to literary study...

Edited July 25, 2015 by Wyatt's Torch

[echo449]

I might also add that a dissertation is supposed to be unique and original, right? Well, I think mine would be, in addition to still fitting within established niches in English literature. I'm not interested in following fads, if I can help it. In English departments, it's my impression that postmodern philosophy, feminism, and queer studies dominate. I'm not trying to denigrate people who work within these topics, but I am saying that they really don't interest me at all, and that this should be okay. 

So bracketing my thoughts on "postmodern philosophy," I'm not saying you *can't* work on Schopenhauer, just that a Schopenhaurian study of a single author may not be a project that you could do at this moment. (For the record, I bet you'd have a hard time convincing a committee to do a pure Derridean thesis at a lot of places these day as well). On the other hand, it is definitely conceivable to do a historicist project that involves how Schopenhauer's thought pervades certain works of the period or what have you. 

For language prep in 19th century american? Well, if you wanted to do Schopenhauer, basically you'd need a reading knowledge of German, and that would probably be fine. Perhaps Spanish as well if your program requires a second language. 

[Thorongil]

Alright, so I think it's now clear that I will have to pick one of the five options I sketched above and stick to it. I had suspected as much, but wanted to make sure. I especially like Wyatt's point about how personal literary interests and research interests can overlap but still stay separate. I've slowly come to that conclusion too. I definitely know what the former is, just not quite the latter yet. 

 

Also, if anyone has any other comments about language requirements related to my five possible tracks, as well as any opinions on how I might explain the transition from religious studies to English in a personal statement, that would be much appreciated. 

[ExponentialDecay]

About the Schopenhauer thing. It sounds like a fascinating thesis for a journal article, maybe a couple. But it cannot form the basis of your scholarship.

English scholarship is a profession, and like any profession, it has standards. An English scholar isn't simply a well-read person - they are a specialist who understands their particular area in a systematic way. The value of an English scholar is not that they know who Melville or Poe are, but that they can connect Melville to Poe and then to others in a systemic narrative that is focused, but which does its due to a number of interpretive possibilities. English scholars form a community, and these conversations happen within the intellectual bounds of this community. That is why you are required to be an expert in a time period, that is why you need to know languages, that is why you are required to read other people's scholarship, and that is why you are required to understand and appreciate "fads" (honestly, when will we stop calling feminism a fad? Women are people, and we are gonna stay that way). Linking everything and its dog to Schopenhauer is nice to do when you're retired on the Côte d'Azur, but you will need a - how can I say this - broader appreciation for literature than as an explication of Schopenhauerian principles.

As regards applying. You cannot get into a program if you don't have solid grounding in languages (regarding Medieval, that would be Latin) and especially if you are not familiar with the critical literature in your area. Languages are to your scholarship as mathematics is to the scholarship of a theoretical physicist. They are your fundamental skill and your best advantage. Your knowledge of existing criticism is what speaks to your potential as a scholar and what lets you, firstly, know that your pet project isn't some bullshit that was looked at 60 years ago by a youthful Harold Bloom. I am frankly surprised that you are considering this path if you have never read any criticism. I mean, you don't even know what the job entails.

I get the feeling that you are trying to shoehorn your interest wherever it will fit. Not that all of us don't do that to some extent to get the ole funding, but if you are reluctant to pay your dues to the profession, then maybe the profession is not the right choice for you.

Edited July 25, 2015 by ExponentialDecay

[Thorongil]

@ Decay

 

I sense a slightly brusque and sharp tone to your post, so I will respond to your points in full and in kind. 

 

"About the Schopenhauer thing. It sounds like a fascinating thesis for a journal article, maybe a couple. But it cannot form the basis of your scholarship."

 

Well, this guy is kind of a model for what I'm talking about:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=DfehAgAAQBAJ&pg=PP3&dq=Overcoming+Matthew+Arnold:+Ethics+in+Culture+and+Criticism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIxsXwq6H3xgIVSFs-Ch2f-wc9#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

It's his English PhD dissertation on Matthew Arnold, in which he analyses the pessimism of Arnold in part through the theoretical lens of Schopenhauer's philosophy. It's almost exactly the template I'm suggesting. I've looked at PhD dissertation titles on department webpages and I don't find find that my interests are any more esoteric than them. I can easily imagine my dissertation project entitled, for example: "Life and its Denial: A Schopenhaurian Exegesis of Kate Chopin's The Awakening." If the Arnold guy can do it, I don't see why I can't. 

 

"English scholarship is a profession, and like any profession, it has standards."

 

Yeah, I did know that. 

 

"An English scholar isn't simply a well-read person - they are a specialist who understands their particular area in a systematic way. The value of an English scholar is not that they know who Melville or Poe are, but that they can connect Melville to Poe and then to others in a systemic narrative that is focused, but which does its due to a number of interpretive possibilities."

 

Of course, but I wanted to make sure about whether I needed to pick a specific literary time period or not, hence the existence of this thread. 

 

"English scholars form a community, and these conversations happen within the intellectual bounds of this community. That is why you are required to be an expert in a time period, that is why you need to know languages, that is why you are required to read other people's scholarship, and that is why you are required to understand and appreciate "fads" (honestly, when will we stop calling feminism a fad? Women are people, and we are gonna stay that way)."

 

I disagree about the latter. Another person mentioned Derrida. To take him as an example, maybe I will have to read a bit of him in some general theory class, but if he has absolutely no relevance to my research, then yes, I will ignore him, fad or not, just as I will effectively ignore, for research purposes, other literary periods besides the one I'm writing on. And I didn't mean to imply that feminism was a fad, but that the analysis of gender in literature is a fad, in the sense that it is very popular at the moment. That's all. Do you dispute this? I also don't happen to have any interest in analyzing literature from this particular perspective. I want to analyze it from the perspective of Schopenhauer's philosophy. If you can do the former, why can't I do the latter? I don't have to have the same interests as you to be an English literature PhD student and scholar. 

 

"Linking everything and its dog to Schopenhauer is nice to do when you're retired on the Côte d'Azur, but you will need a - how can I say this - broader appreciation for literature than as an explication of Schopenhauerian principles."

 

Yes, just like linking everything and its dog to gender critiques, Marxism, etc isn't something to do when one's retired? Come on. There's no need to pick on my theoretical interests, as I find them to be just as perfectly legitimate as a whole host of others that English students use. Moreover, there's something wrong with the syntax of your sentence as I have quoted it, so I'm not sure what you meant to say in the second half of it. 

 

"As regards applying. You cannot get into a program if you don't have solid grounding in languages (regarding Medieval) and especially if you are not familiar with the critical literature in your area."

 

Alright, this is probably true. Do you think I would have to learn Latin in addition to a modern European language like German and that would be sufficient if I chose the medieval period? And would I be taking such language classes while getting the PhD?

 

"Languages are to your scholarship as mathematics is to the scholarship of a theoretical physicist. They are your fundamental skill and your best advantage. Your knowledge of existing criticism is what speaks to your potential as a scholar and what lets you, firstly, know that your pet project isn't some bullshit that was looked at 60 years ago by a youthful Harold Bloom."

 

Yeah, yeah, I know. This doesn't mean I can't tailor my language requirements to my abilities, though. 

 

"I am frankly surprised that you are considering this path if you have never read any criticism. I mean, you don't even know what the job entails."

 

What do you mean by criticism? I do read literary theory if that's what you mean. I also read secondary literature, but my point with respect to the latter was that I don't read it for it's own sake. I do read it, and will read it, but only as I must. As for my ignorance of what the job entails, I think I do have a good idea of this, but as for what I don't know, I come here to ask questions. Do you have a problem with that? 

 

"I get the feeling that you are trying to shoehorn your interest wherever it will fit. Not that all of us don't do that to some extent to get the ole funding, but if you are reluctant to pay your dues to the profession, then maybe the profession is not the right choice for you."

 

You know, you're right, shoehorning my interests so that it fits with the expectations of an English PhD is exactly what I'm doing. But as you imply, this is certainly nothing unheard of. I don't know what you mean by paying my dues. I will certainly do everything that is necessary to obtain a PhD and become a professor, and I don't believe I've ever implied the opposite. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by Thorongil

[Thorongil]

So bracketing my thoughts on "postmodern philosophy," I'm not saying you *can't* work on Schopenhauer, just that a Schopenhaurian study of a single author may not be a project that you could do at this moment. (For the record, I bet you'd have a hard time convincing a committee to do a pure Derridean thesis at a lot of places these day as well). On the other hand, it is definitely conceivable to do a historicist project that involves how Schopenhauer's thought pervades certain works of the period or what have you. 

For language prep in 19th century american? Well, if you wanted to do Schopenhauer, basically you'd need a reading knowledge of German, and that would probably be fine. Perhaps Spanish as well if your program requires a second language. 

 

Thanks. Do you think I would be able to take German classes while getting the PhD in order to become proficient? I'm worried that I might have to start all over again because my undergrad courses we're geared towards learning greetings, directions, and so forth, certainly not for learning how to read primary and secondary sources in the language. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by Thorongil

[ExponentialDecay]

Okay, I will itemize my questions.

1. Your interests are anchored by the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Again, you can use whatever you want as a critical lens, but you are getting a degree in literature, which means you must be anchored by literature. You will be developing a detailed knowledge of a period and maybe a movement. That's what you will be teaching later on. That's why the "I can do anything with Schopenhauer" shtick would be a hard sell. Forgive me if you felt that I was denigrating your critical lens, as that was not my intention. However, I don't see the similarity between it to something like Marxism or feminism. Marxist scholars don't just read Marx. There's like 15 other famous thinkers who fall under the umbrella of Marxism, all of which are particularly relevant to literature because they say something about cultural production. Marxism is a whole separate field. Ditto feminism. You have just the one guy. And it's great that you already have a project in mind - maybe you're a great applicant and you'll get in everywhere with double the funding, I don't know as I only know what is written here, but then, you can just ignore us internet bullies - but keep in mind that that is just the dissertation. Scholars that continue on in this market hopefully do much more work, which is in conversation with their colleagues, and which speaks to the interest of the field, which is literature. It is easier to write compelling criticism of, say, Beowulf when you have questions about Beowulf, rather than about Schopenhauer. For a literary scholar, coming to literature through philosophy (not even critical theory) first is kind of the other way around. That's why I said that Schopenhauer looks like good material for an article or two, but you can't build a career as a literary scholar on Schopenhauer. Anyway, this is something to ponder. People have certainly gotten in having expressed a strong interest in some philosophy or other, but never without good hards.

2. There's all sorts of programs out there, but if you want to get into a good one, either for medieval literature or 20th century, you will need languages. Probably more than one to be admitted. It is impossible (I ignore the negligible outlier) to get into a medieval program without Latin, plus the language of the primary texts you are interested in studying. That is why most medievalists do a masters first. But we have many medievalists stalking around here who occasionally drop by to comment, so I hope somebody can make a more topical contribution than myself in this regard. Then, if you want to read Schopenhauer, as in form your scholarship around him, people will expect German. The modicum you do have seems fine for admission to me. You see, with your interests, I would recommend that you look to more interdisciplinary departments which are open to more involved work with philosophy, like some Comp Lit programs or stuff like Modern Thought, but since you have no languages, I can't recommend that in good faith. Languages, people. If you want to be humanities scholars in any discipline, you need to know lots of them.

3. You need to read criticism, as in the work of your future colleagues, not Derrida and Foucault (you also need to read those). You need a writing sample, which you will send to programs for $100+ a piece, which is aware of and engages with that criticism. As in, though you may be interested in Schopenhauer (whew, couldn't you pick a shorter philosopher to type, like Kant?), you need to show awareness of the wide scholarship in your field. You will also need to engage with that scholarship throughout your career. This is also something to ponder.

If we were being real, your flippant attitude towards existing scholarship, to the interests of other scholars, and to necessary shit like knowing and engaging with those and knowing languages makes me question whether you've looked where you're about to jump. Sure, I've internalized some of those values, but that doesn't mean they're not fundamental to what you want to do. It's probably not a good idea to ignore things like Derrida, because that directly interferes with your ability to understand your colleagues' contribution to your field. It's probably not a good idea to call postmodernism or feminism fads, since those things have, over a period of 50 years, become stalwarts in the field. What I'm saying is, this is fundamentally the wrong approach that you are taking here. One thing your committees will be asking themselves is, does he play nice with others? Something to keep in mind.

[Thorongil]

@ Decay

 

"you can use whatever you want as a critical lens, but you are getting a degree in literature, which means you must be anchored by literature."

 

Why do you assume I don't know this? Were you expecting a reaction of gasping disbelief? If I'm going to apply to literature programs, then I shall expect to read both it and literature about it. What philosophy I do use will be used as my theoretical framework with which to analyze literature. 

 

"You will be developing a detailed knowledge of a period and maybe a movement. That's what you will be teaching later on."

 

Yes, I know this, as others have helped confirm for me in this thread with much less condescension. You must really think me a simpleton, but I assure you I'm not. 

 

"Marxist scholars don't just read Marx. There's like 15 other famous thinkers who fall under the umbrella of Marxism, all of which are particularly relevant to literature because they say something about cultural production."

 

Why do you assume this is not the case with Schopenhauer?

 

"but you can't build a career as a literary scholar on Schopenhauer"

 

This claim is too tersely and vaguely worded for me to believe you, lacking as it does any substantive reasons in favor of it. I don't see why I can't incorporate Schopenhauer into the study of literature, and that's all I'm suggesting. 

 

"You need to read criticism, as in the work of your future colleagues"

 

Once again, I am aware of this, and even anticipated you saying this in my last post. 

 

"flippant attitude towards existing scholarship"

 

This is your perception. 

 

"to the interests of other scholars"

 

And you haven't been flippant about my interests? How absurd. 

 

"and to necessary shit like knowing and engaging with those and knowing languages makes me question whether you've looked where you're about to jump"

 

I already knew I would have to take languages, but in relation to my ability to learn them, I have expressed my desire to learn only what is necessary. 

 

"It's probably not a good idea to call postmodernism or feminism fads, since those things have, over a period of 50 years, become stalwarts in the field"

 

If they have become "stalwarts in the field" over just a period of "50 years," and if we consider that literary criticism has been around for millennia, then they show every sign of being a fad, in the sense that they are popular now but might not be so in the future. It seems to me that you're miffed because I don't share your own interests. I have struck a nerve somehow, for everyone else in this thread has been very polite and helpful. 

 

"One thing your committees will be asking themselves is, does he play nice with others?"

 

Well, you're not very nice and yet you somehow managed to get into a program, so I think I'll be okay. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Thorongil

[echo449]

I don't think exponential is off-base with respect to Schopenhauer, but let me go a little into why. If you are a Marxist scholar, you have a lineage of philosophers and critics you can cite--a lineage that includes major figures working in the field today. If you know scholars and thinkers that you could mention in your Schopenhauer-based lineage (major, well-cited ones), then ignore me and exponential, and go about your MA as you were.

If not, then let me make an argument that you should then be perhaps a little dishonest. The truth of the matter is that, in applying to grad school, you are applying to be a kind of apprentice. As such, you are limited by the interests of the field and mentors that you have at your disposal today. And it is unclear to me that you would be able to convince a graduate admissions committee that a primarily Schopenhaurian reading of a given text is something that they could help you shepherd along. Your dissertation will be, for better or worse, reflective of the program that takes you in and of current scholarship--and so Schopenhuaer might be sidelined (unless you were in a comp lit program with a stated research interest in the German 19th century).

As for languages, most schools offer summer courses to teach you how to read a given language. Honestly, work on something in your MA, but don't stress at this point about language preparation (unless you want to be a medievalist).

Edited July 26, 2015 by echo449

[kurayamino]

First, you will need to specify a time period. Because of the way the discipline and market is set up, you will not be accepted to a program with that range. It's fine to be interested in other time periods--that will undoubtably make you a more well-rounded scholar. But the reality is that you'll need to choose a delimited time period and stick with it.

 

 

To just complicate this point a little bit-- I would say that your statement of purpose and writing sample need to focus on one period. However, it seems to me that your larger dissertation project doesn't necessarily have to follow those guidelines. Almost all of the presentations by graduate students I saw during campus visits were trans-historical. They tracked large ideas across a large period of time. And while I agree that I don't think a dissertation project should focus solely on one author I suspect that you could track Schopenhauer across multiple authors (following one theme). However, these are just my impressions as an incoming graduate student with experience at the handful of schools I visited.

[Thorongil]

I don't think exponential is off-base with respect to Schopenhauer, but let me go a little into why. If you are a Marxist scholar, you have a lineage of philosophers and critics you can cite--a lineage that includes major figures working in the field today. If you know scholars and thinkers that you could mention in your Schopenhauer-based lineage (major, well-cited ones), then ignore me and exponential, and go about your MA as you were.

If not, then let me make an argument that you should then be perhaps a little dishonest. The truth of the matter is that, in applying to grad school, you are applying to be a kind of apprentice. As such, you are limited by the interests of the field and mentors that you have at your disposal today. And it is unclear to me that you would be able to convince a graduate admissions committee that a primarily Schopenhaurian reading of a given text is something that they could help you shepherd along. Your dissertation will be, for better or worse, reflective of the program that takes you in and of current scholarship--and so Schopenhuaer might be sidelined (unless you were in a comp lit program with a stated research interest in the German 19th century).

As for languages, most schools offer summer courses to teach you how to read a given language. Honestly, work on something in your MA, but don't stress at this point about language preparation (unless you want to be a medievalist).

 

There was a reason why I asked the somewhat rhetorical question earlier about dissertations. It is my understanding that a dissertation is meant to be an original piece of scholarship about a topic that has hitherto been ignored or woefully unexplored in any great detail, while at the same time fitting within a particular niche of an established discipline. It seems to me, judging by your and Decay's skepticism about my proposed project, that I have met this particular requirement of originality. The alternative is that I write about what everyone else is writing about, which to me is utterly anametha to the purpose of writing a dissertation for the reasons just given. I'm not getting a PhD to win a popularity contest. 

 

Additionally, I can divulge the following relevant anecdote. Differences between the MA and PhD notwithstanding, I applied to 15 MA programs, the majority of which were in English literature. I was accepted by at least 5-6 of the latter, even though on my personal statement I explicitly outlined the very same interests I have presented to you in this thread. As for a list of thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer, I could give you a few names off the top of my head, but surely Google is available to you just as much as it is to me to procure this information. I'm also not sure who exactly you have in mind, but rest assured, there are many thinkers influenced by him. I have given you several examples of his influence on literature above as well. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Thorongil

[echo449]

I've actually been trying to google things (and failing), and I am interested in what this branch of scholarship looks like--would you mind sharing some of these names with me? I'm aware of the philosophers who cite him as an influence--it's the literary studies scholars that I'm curious about.

And I'm sorry if I haven't been clear--to my mind a historical project on Schopenhauer and English literature is doable and interesting. It's the idea of a Schopenhaurian reading that I'm getting hung up on, if only because I don't know what that even looks like (and I've been trying to get a handle on it for the sake of this thread).

Edited July 26, 2015 by echo449

[Thorongil]

I've actually been trying to google things (and failing), and I am interested in what this branch of scholarship looks like--would you mind sharing some of these names with me? I'm aware of the philosophers who cite him as an influence--it's the literary studies scholars that I'm curious about.

And I'm sorry if I haven't been clear--to my mind a historical project on Schopenhauer and English literature is doable and interesting. It's the idea of a Schopenhaurian reading that I'm getting hung up on, if only because I don't know what that even looks like (and I've been trying to get a handle on it for the sake of this thread).

 

Again, I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by literary scholars. I can tell you this, however. Try doing a Google search for "Schopenhauer and X," where X is Melville, Hardy, Conrad, mysticism, or something like that. You will find, depending on how deep you go, various books and academic articles that are indeed written by scholars in the field of English literature. I have tried, on occasion, to track these people down, but usually what happens is that they work for a liberal arts college, or they recently died, or they have some other obscure status, all of which means that there aren't that many scholars with my interests working for departments that have a PhD program. If I were interested in, say, gender studies, my lord, the world would be my oyster! Every English department imaginable has people working on this topic and others related to it, even though 50 years ago, these topics would themselves be unimaginable for English scholars to work on. Once again, I mean no offense here. I'm just expressing the fact that the generalist character of my interests in literature and the fact that I wish to interpret one author by means of another is perhaps a bit old fashioned, but certainly something I think ought to still be accommodated in an English program.

 

I have no grand pretensions about becoming some famous tenured professor. I simply wish to work in an environment that best suits me and that enables me to pursue my own interests how I see fit. If this means "shoehorning" these interests so that they fit the contours of my research, so be it. That's what I'll do. 

 

As for what my project might look like, take this blog series for example: 

 

http://mobydickasphilosophy.typepad.com/

 

Why could I not do something similar to this, only in the much more polished form of a dissertation? I see no reason why not. Perhaps I will be viewed as a breath of fresh air by admissions committees. That seems just as possible as my outright rejection, and if my MA application experience is any indication, then I do have a decent chance I think. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Thorongil

[thepriorwalter]

If they have become "stalwarts in the field" over just a period of "50 years," and if we consider that literary criticism has been around for millennia, then they show every sign of being a fad, in the sense that they are popular now but might not be so in the future. It seems to me that you're miffed because I don't share your own interests. I have struck a nerve somehow, for everyone else in this thread has been very polite and helpful.

You can keep saying that you "mean no offense," but that doesn't mean you're not committing it. There are historic reasons why it has been primarily in relatively recent times that gender studies have proliferated. It's popular now because of marginalization and, whether you consciously mean to dismiss it or not, the effect of your post is dismissal because it hasn't passed a litmus test of time ("millennia") that is seemingly ignorant to historical realities.

You have received some good, thoughtful advice from a community with more experience in (1) getting into English PhD programs and (2) what finding a committee looks like once you are there than you currently possess, which is surely why you asked the question to begin with. The vast majority of people in this thread have not wanted to dismiss your project at all but have wanted to help you find ways to frame yourself, at least on the admissions side, so that you can get in the door, where more flexible opportunities are in general open to students, because they have shown they can, at least, "talk the talk." It is valuable advice, and I suggest not dismissing it because you are certain of the originality of your project or because you had success getting into MA programs. A lot of this is advice I wish I had the first time I was applying to grad school, when I chose an MA program, and I'm grateful to the expertise of the community of scholars here (in addition to the two years I had to grow in my MA program), as it was invaluable to me during my PhD applications last fall.

[Thorongil]

You can keep saying that you "mean no offense," but that doesn't mean you're not committing it. There are historic reasons why it has been primarily in relatively recent times that gender studies have proliferated. It's popular now because of marginalization and, whether you consciously mean to dismiss it or not, the effect of your post is dismissal because it hasn't passed a litmus test of time ("millennia") that is seemingly ignorant to historical realities.

You have received some good, thoughtful advice from a community with more experience in (1) getting into English PhD programs and (2) what finding a committee looks like once you are there than you currently possess, which is surely why you asked the question to begin with. The vast majority of people in this thread have not wanted to dismiss your project at all but have wanted to help you find ways to frame yourself, at least on the admissions side, so that you can get in the door, where more flexible opportunities are in general open to students, because they have shown they can, at least, "talk the talk." It is valuable advice, and I suggest not dismissing it because you are certain of the originality of your project or because you had success getting into MA programs. A lot of this is advice I wish I had the first time I was applying to grad school, when I chose an MA program, and I'm grateful to the expertise of the community of scholars here (in addition to the two years I had to grow in my MA program), as it was invaluable to me during my PhD applications last fall.

 

Don't assume I'm not grateful for the advice given here, for you will notice I have thanked everyone for it. The one sour apple in this thread, however, has in turn soured my mood, for which I do apologize. I dismiss gender studies and the like only as things I am not interested in. Nothing more. Though I will say that conformists irritate me, as do rebels who all too willingly conform to their rebellion. I sense I have stepped on the toes of someone too insecure to acknowledge that not everyone need have the same interests or goals in becoming a professor as her. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Thorongil

[1Q84]

All the childish namecalling aside, I don't think OP is off-base in seeing gender studies as a "fad." (This is coming from someone who wants to specialize in one of the most "faddish" studies in academia--queer studies.) We all know that academia does move in cycles of fads, especially when it comes to hiring and publishing, and it would be foolish to not admit that. I don't think it's prudent to ignore all fads based merely on wanting to be a nonconformist or someone who "doesn't follow trends" but it's still certainly possible to eke out an academic career without being a Marxist or a gender feminist queer disabilities studies what-have-you.

 

Do I think ignoring Derrida would harm OP's relevancy in some circles? Sure. But assuredly there are plenty of scholars out there that would take to OP's "old-school" approach to literary studies.

 

What I find even more disturbing is the tendency of people like ED to harangue people into agreeing with her under the guise of giving advice because of some perceived elder/experienced status. If there's one thing I'm really dreading about fully investing myself in academia, it's this penchant for arrogant condescension.

Edited July 26, 2015 by 1Q84

[thepriorwalter]

1Q, I went to full view on my phone to upvote, and as the arrows are about a quarter of the size of my pinky, I accidentally hit the wrong one. I am so sorry! Completely unintentional down vote.

[xolo]

 1Q84 you have exceeded my expectations.

 

This is a great thread, just a little rough and pedantic (in my opinion, but then I'm a plebeian).  

 

I don't discredit or disregard any academic pursuit, but it seems there are a few topics that most researchers focus on: 1) gender 2) social class c) race. (citation for Carlos Eire here). It does seem a bit narrow for the universe-city.

Edited July 26, 2015 by eyepod