|
TracerBullet posted:Since I went to a school very similar to what you're describing (tiny liberal arts school), I'll ask a question based on my experience with the English Department facility. At your school do you have one English professor who's a 'black sheep' and gets in 'trouble' more often compared to the other professors? haha sup, go Lords (1-9 in football). Brainworm posted:It's the first week of May. Classes are over, graduation's this weekend, grades are mostly in, and I've finished my second year as an Assistant Professor of English at a 1500 student liberal arts college. I'm the Shakespeare and Milton person. I'm wondering a little about the admissions process. Right now I've been admitted to law school, but I'm having some second thoughts about leaving my major behind. Additionally, it occurred to me that I am more qualified in this area than in law, and either path will probably leave me poor and alone. I'm thinking I may take the GRE this summer before starting law school just to see what my chances would be at an upper level program. In your experience, do programs tend to take in-major GPA or total UGPA more seriously? My UGPA is good enough, but I could get even more leverage from my in-major. Also, did you take the GRE subject test in Literature in English? If so, do you think it helped or hurt you? I've taken a pretty wide-reaching selection of courses, but when I was making my way through a practice subject test, I found there was still a lot I needed to learn within the ~300 questions. Then again, I suppose most people wouldn't know a lot on a test which subject material includes any single thing ever written in English.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
Brainworm posted:If you're looking to get a job, go to law school. The only reason I'd advise someone to go for an English PhD is if you love the stuff so much you can't imagine doing anything else. That's the thing: I'm beginning to think this is true, and it's giving me a bit of a crisis. I've been doing a lot of self-directed, upper-level work with professors, and I'm beginning to realize I have a serious taste for it. She's an ugly mistress, but she's good in bed.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 01:43
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:Which law schools did you get into, by the way? Because if they aren't good ones, that might be an even worse career choice for you than a doctoral program in English, believe it or not. At least those are generally free. Yeah, that's why I'm having this dilemma. Tier 2 with some money. Unless Temple decides to un-waitlist me (in-state tuition.) I'm aware of the terrible situation in the law profession right now. What you're saying was pretty near my line of thinking; if I'm going to be condemned to relative poverty, I may as well enter a field in which my credentials better qualify me, and that I will probably enjoy more.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 05:05
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:Then your course of action is clear. Find a trophy mistress for your nine to five, and keep this one a close secret in a locked bedroom. A+. The more I think about it the more I realize it's a bad situation either way. I just got my final grades and some good feedback. They looked promising. I don't really know if it's a hobby when I think about it during my free time for a good part of the day. The law school "trophy mistress" is looking like she'd run off with my money. I think I may go for it. I've thought a lot the past few weeks and I think I would be happier staying with English. It's quite a situation. basement jihadist fucked around with this message at 02:29 on May 6, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2009 02:08
|
|
|
A Loaf of Bread posted:Haha, I didn't realize there were so many Kenyon people here. "A writer's college," and all that. Don't drown in the mud today. Anyway, what do you think of Shakespeare's histories? I always get weird looks when I say I've done far more work with the histories than the comedies or tragedies.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
xcdude24 posted:By the way, I consider myself a decent writer, but i'm by no means great. Do you recommend any books that contain useful advice? I've heard Elements of Style is a good one, but i'm not sure if reading it will be useful(in other words, i'm just afraid it's a bunch of talking points out of an intro-level writing course) Well, I find myself turning to it often to answer/remind of more confusing grammatical questions. I wouldn't learn to write by it, but sometimes turning to Google for a grammatical question is as dubious as turning to a "spark-note" website for plot points. Published style manuals have to go through an extensive editing and publishing process, or "peer review," and so I am more comfortable turning to them. This is similar to turning to a website of peer-reviewed journals such as JSTOR rather than claiming "some guy on the internet said." Style manuals represent a consensus on what is considered "correct." As Brainworm said before, a lot of grammatical and writing rules taught by high schools and lower-level courses are arbitrary; but I see the manuals as more of a tool than a teacher.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:What's your opinion on the various styles or literary criticism and ways of reading? I'm currently pursuing a two-year research master program and I'm being drowned past the eyeballs with hermeneutics, semiotics, deconstruction an pretty much all the -isms. Not a professor, and I hope Brainworm answers this himself, but I have found that the best way to relate the theory to a work is to use it as something that forwards your argument, and yet not something that makes up your argument. Derrida/Gadmer, etc., can be incredibly frustrating. But most literature is actually response to the trends that preceded it. Theorists open a dialogue, and you choose how to use the dialogue. It is generally assumed that deconstruction and hermeneutics will come into conflict, and therefore dialogue; it is not necessary that your reconcile the two or choose a side. You forward an argument by referring to the critics in a way that promotes your own rendering of the text. As an example, I used Michel de Certeau's Walking in the City as an example of the concept of a "haunted" city to assert that Frank O'Hara was attempting to uncover a colonial legacy in Rhapsody; I concluded that the colonial legacy was the "haunting."
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2009 05:06
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:I speak Spanish, Mandarin and enough Japanese and Russian to get by when I travel. I can read Latin, (ancient) Greek, and Anglo-Saxon (a.k.a. Old English) but it's slow business. How has Anglo-Saxon treated you? I am one of three students that have taken advanced-level courses in the language in my department. The professor who teaches it is retiring soon. I sometimes think it is a dying thing, but then again I saw it on the GRE II. It remains one of my specialties. Basically, do they give a gently caress if I can translate The Battle of Maldon or Judith? So little survives, it's sort of sad.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2009 05:11
|
|
|
Riven posted:Don't want to derail, but yeah, how does it feel to not be accredited?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2009 06:15
|
|
|
Would you be available on AIM to chat about English things? My friends get fed up. Also, have you read Kluge's Alma Mater? I was able to finish it in about a day, and I thought it was well done. Granted, that may be a judgment clouded by the fact that I attended the institution in question, but I thought it held up as a thoughtful dig into the liberal arts school. Strangely, it pushed me more towards wanting to teach than scaring me away.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2009 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
The "Henriad": Do you believe the central theme of the plays are about the "education of a prince," (a sort of bildungsroman for Prince Harry) or the rise of a "hollow world" where rationalism overtakes ritual and "divine right"? I guess supporting either argument would hinge upon your understanding of the soliloquy in 1 Henry IV (I.iii, 173-195 in the Norton Anthology edition) as truth; the fact that it is a soliloquy leads me to believe it is. The audience is not a character, and Prince Harry is not aware of its presence. There is nobody to lie to; why would he lie? Similarly, I would take the Hotspur/Prince Harry comparisons as support for the "hollow world" argument. Hotspur is doubtless concerned with "honor" throughout the play, while Harry purposefully creates a dishonorable persona (if we take I.iii to be the truth.) For instance: The battle at Shrewsbury is in no way an advantageous engagement for Percy's men. Severely outnumbered, and tired from the march, the rebels stand very little chance against Henry's army. Worcester finds the absence of Northumberland's forces a cause for "apprehension." But Hotspur finds that it "lends a luster" to their "enterprise" (IV.i, 66-78). Winning the battle outnumbered will certainly bring him "honor," but at the expense of the lives of his men. As a commander, he has a commitment to his soldiers to do what is "due or right." By disregarding their lives, he does neither. I would clarify this by saying that Sir Walter Blunt exemplifies an understanding of "honor" that is more rooted in duty than fame: When he is slain by Douglas, it is under the name of "King Harry." Not only has he died for his king, he has been mistaken for the king. His disguise was only so effective because he wore the king's colors and heraldry, and not his own. Would he have slain Douglas, Hotspur, or any of the other rebels, he would not receive recognition for this service. Blunt does not seek fame, but rather adheres to "what is due or right," giving his life not for renown, but service. But the most surprising exemplar of this sort of "honor"(at least up to this point in the tetralogy) is Prince Harry. While he does not seem to possess the more obvious, "grinning honor" of Sir Walter, his commitment to "what is due or right" becomes apparent (V.iii, 57). While he at first seems interested in the same vices as Falstaff and the tavern crew, his soliloquy lets the audience in on a truth that guides his actions throughout the rest of the "Henriad." He "knows us all" and our perceptions. He manipulates the tavern crew, the other characters, and the people of England into thinking him a thief and rabble-rouser, (I had a professor describe the tavern crew as a "fraternity party") in order to later appear "better than his word" (I.ii, 173-95). He lies, certainly, but to renew an England in serious crisis. The soliloquy's abrupt switch to "royal" rhyme from "common" prose hints at an underlying noble capability and refinement: he speaks like a king. Strangely enough, Hotspur's rendering of "honor" seems to have much in common with the lowly Falstaff's understanding. Both characters give honor a ritualized, tangible essence.* Prince Hal, however, cares little for outward display. After he slays Hotspur, Hal gives his "favors" to "hide [Hotspur's] mangled face" (V.iv, 95). Hal's "favors," the representation of "physical honor" obviously mean little to him, as they stay with the dead Hotspur. Additionally, his claim to the death of such a foe is given up to Falstaff. Hal is acting beyond the interests of personal heroic representation in favor of political calculation. He is biding his time. Though the modern audience tends to see such calculation as dishonest and repugnant, it must be considered that the "Henriad" deals with a specific time of political intrigue: the myriad rebellions an example of the fact that such intrigue always existed, despite claims of "divine right" and "God's favor."** Very few characters don't manipulate in some way***, and the most stunning part of the histories is Shakespeare's ability to place his characters in a wider frame of changing intellectual and political thought. Hal biding his time and creating a persona of wide dramatic appeal so that his ascent is marked by a "reformation" not only for him, but for the throne (I.ii, 191). And the idea of a legitimate, reformed throne will help curb the rebellions, and embolden and serve the people of England more than himself. In this way, Henry's "plague" of Richard II looks to be a hope for the crown, and consequently England. He has counterfeited in the name of honor, not gained honor by counterfeit like Falstaff. His counterfeit was aligned with a shade of honor that considers "what is due or right," not "title" or "fame" proven in battle by gallantry as at Shrewsbury. Woah. Really didn't mean to write all that. Gotta run. *Hotspur believes he can "pluck" it from the "Moon." He expresses his desire to "wear" honor, in a sense, and to wear it conspicuously (I.iii, 201-7). Honor becomes a commodity to be collected and stored, an expression of deeds. We still see this today in ceremonies, medals, etc. But, if there is any doubt that the pragmatic "hollow world" began to do away with this notion, consider the abandonment of distinctive officer battle-dress in the modern world. Falstaff similarly understands that he can "wear" honor, in a sense. Truly, he believes it is nothing more than a word, and therefore "Air" (V.i, 134). But he understands that it is not "air" to men such as Percy, and is therefore worth something to those in positions of power. He knows what he can gain from honor: power, money, sack (see his actions as while raising a regiment, where he uses his position of power as a money-making scheme.) Therefore, he estimates honor as "fame" and "recognition," a wooden "stucheon" of heraldry that merely displays these credits. Thus, he has no problem wounding the already dead Hotspur and claiming the kill. Though he sees honor as presentable and accumulated like Hotspur, Falstaff is more interested on how he can use honor. He counterfeits honor: while he will achieve honorable status for allegedly taking down the estimable warrior, the way he attains this status is in no way "honorable." ** See Richard's disruption of the duel, a ritual in which "God defend[s] the right" in Richard II (I.iii, 101). Richard ceases the duel when Mowbray subtly suggests that the king has asked him to give up his honor in the past, hinting at Richard's involvement in the death of the Duke of Gloucester (I.iii (148-167). Richard's banishment of Bolingbroke and Mowbray is exemplary of a politico preventing God's judgment for self-preservation. The action is similar to Bolingbroke's rebellion and the several rebellions in the following play: man deciding leadership rather than God, cutting away the divine thread of heirs. *** See Hotspur and Gaunt for examples. The two are more representative of the faithful, ritualistic "old guard" of outward presentation and straightforwardness.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 21:45
|
|