For English Majors, and the rest

[shortstoryfan]

I know some Litnetters have some degree in literature. What I would like to know is how much had you read before entering university? Did you read a lot of criticism before beginning studies? Why did you decide to get a literature degree? I guess I am trying to gauge the level of preparedness required...

And for the rest of you! Were you avid readers as children? Are you even readers now? Haha.

I'd just like to know where everyone is coming from.

[Virgil]

I had read a lot of literature, but I don't believe I had read any criticism before college. Yes I was an avid reader as a child and I tried to write fairly young as well.

[Dr. Hill]

I'm going to be majoring in English when I enter college in the fall. Yes, I've read all my life.

[mayneverhave]

I was incredibly deficient before entering the University, and continued to be until a Freshman year British Lit. class beat my a$$.

After that I began reading voraciously, although perhaps not to the extent that I am currently.

Before I entered college I read only dreadful teen-lit (don't fault me too much, I was a teenager after all), and did very little reading in high school outside of the required school reading.

I don't consider myself backwards at this point, but it took work to catch up.

[JBI]

I started reading at 15, and seriously later that year. I had half a year off before university (I graduated early), and so amassed a great deal of works, and really started digging into criticism. I don't recommend theory before university, as I don't particularly like the majority of theorists, but I recommend reading criticism, so that you can learn something about writing about literature. After all, you will need to write essays, and if you're in Canada, chances are you won't learn how to write a proper essay in highschool, or university. The only way to really differentiate yourself from the average student then, is to read more, and gain ideas and skills that they don't have - the way to write, the way to read, and, the very simple yet highly neglected trait, the ability to not just read, but to argue in your essays.

Though, I must acknowledge I seek controversy to some extent, especially in my writing. I think one needs to develop that sort of confidence in the way they write, if they will prove any real thesis, which isn't predicated by the professor. More and more, I find that professors want something that they have taught, but on the other hand, want something far beyond that, which blows their lecture away. Not an easy task, and unless one really knows the full possibilities and forms of criticism, it can be very, very difficult. For instance, I had a mediocre proff in first year, who tried to teach Tintern Abbey, and failed miserably, by preaching that the thing was about God. My essay on the Edenic, which better explains the poem, could not possibly have been arrived at, without some backgrounding in Romantic poetry.


Really, you should start with the classics of criticism - The Mirror and the Lamp by Mayer Abrams, The Anatomy of Criticism, and Fearful Symmetry by Northrop Frye, The Art of T. S. Eliot by Helen Gardner, though this is a very different book, The Madwoman in the Attic by Gilbert and Gubar (just because I think it is a good beginning for many different approaches), Orientalism by Edward Said, amongst many others.

[Lokasenna]

I originally wasn't going to go to University. I had really low self-confidence, I thought I should only go if I was going to do a 'useful' degree, and there was our family business which I could have gone into. Then my English teacher (a woman who I respect very deeply, and made me fall in love with the subject), having heard this mentioned in the staff-room, cornered me for three and a half hours and essentially bullied me into applying for an English degree.:D

Actually, most of the negative stuff I'd heard came from my parents. They said they'd help do anything I wanted, but nonetheless they questioned the validity of the subject, and my dad in particular. Fortunately, they now both admit they were mistaken, and my self-confidence has improved a fair bit. Hopefully, I have a future as a professional academic ahead of me!

[The Comedian]

I have a couple degrees in English and one in Classics, plus I read much philosophy on my own. I didn't read any criticism until the university and found no need to have done so. Honestly, with only a few exceptions, literary criticism is just 3rd-rate philosophy mostly published by one of the following groups:

1). Self-satisfied, self-indulgent professors
2). Desperate assistant professors looking for tenure
3). . . . . no, really just the first two.

JBI's recommendations are good. But you'd be a fool not to look at literary criticism like a beauty contest. When I was in school in the 1990s, all you had to do was mention the words "hegemony", "patriarchy", and "new historicism" in almost any order and with as much frequency as possible, and in short order. . . .viola! you were a genius. A+ all around.

Watch. I can still do it: "The new historicist perspective on the patriarchal hegemony in the novels of Hemingway depict the futile attempts of the masculine hegemonic narrative to complete its interpretation of the historical events around coastal Cuba during the time of the Old Man and the Sea."

See, just twenty pages of that you're good to go!

NOTE: I'm sure that these are not the important words now, but that there are other that you can simply plug into sentences like those above that would work like a charm.

:)

[cfh]

i only read what was required throughout my entire academic career, and like some chose a concentration having some practical use for employment. i had also taken a few classes that truly interested me, but i dropped out. i have been working since and now ten years later a true appreciation for the classics has dawned.

it is also important to note that a good number of the great authors had not written anything of significance other than correspondence before their first novels.

[Mariamosis]

Although I do not have any degree of any sort, and have become used to working for slum wages; I have recently been considering going back to school for something in the literature department.

In elementary, middle, and high school I always loathed reading projects, but looked forward to essay writing projects.

Now I have made a 360 and will read anything I can get my hands on, and can't find the drive to write (maybe that is corporate America ruining my motivation)

However, literature has become a keen interest recently. and hopefully I will keep interested and strive to make a career of it... who knows :)

[Virgil]

I have a couple degrees in English and one in Classics, plus I read much philosophy on my own. I didn't read any criticism until the university and found no need to have done so. Honestly, with only a few exceptions, literary criticism is just 3rd-rate philosophy mostly published by one of the following groups:

1). Self-satisfied, self-indulgent professors
2). Desperate assistant professors looking for tenure
3). . . . . no, really just the first two.

JBI's recommendations are good. But you'd be a fool not to look at literary criticism like a beauty contest. When I was in school in the 1990s, all you had to do was mention the words "hegemony", "patriarchy", and "new historicism" in almost any order and with as much frequency as possible, and in short order. . . .viola! you were a genius. A+ all around.

Watch. I can still do it: "The new historicist perspective on the patriarchal hegemony in the novels of Hemingway depict the futile attempts of the masculine hegemonic narrative to complete its interpretation of the historical events around coastal Cuba during the time of the Old Man and the Sea."

See, just twenty pages of that you're good to go!

NOTE: I'm sure that these are not the important words now, but that there are other that you can simply plug into sentences like those above that would work like a charm.

:)

That's a great post Comedian. I think we're soul mate. :D That's exactly how I feel. All that critical theory, especially themore recent stuff, is crap. C-R-A-P.

[JBI]

That's a great post Comedian. I think we're soul mate. :D That's exactly how I feel. All that critical theory, especially themore recent stuff, is crap. C-R-A-P.

American literary theory - which is essentially a bastardization of French theory. Canadian theory is different, as is Italian.

Besides which, criticism is a whole other field. Some critics don't even mention theorists - in fact, many do. Some write outside of theory, and just focus on texts. There's this whole myth that theory is everywhere, but it really isn't - well, at least not at the university I attend. The goal is to teach people how to approach things in different ways - if you say what has already been said, there really is no point in saying it. Easy enough with new texts, but trying doing that to single anonymous sonnets that everyone has read - it becomes troubling - how far can a thing stretch without the reader having to play with things?

Either way though, the "New Aestheticism" seems to be the latest in emergence in Academia at the moment - that will probably offset stuff to some extent. I just think that people should give theoretical backgrounding a little bit of a chance. Bakhtin is a very interesting writer, and had a lot to say - people seem to forget that. Besides which, one needs to be able to read on a theoretical level to appreciate some subtle things. Take this for instance:



From Erin Moure's translation/interpretation book O Cadoiro:

If God answers prayers and I prayed:
Ah already, so unlikely!

don t look at my eyes.
(I ve been crying.)

if god wanted to assure my good!
(Already, don t look at my eyes.)

It s early.
(Don t see my eyes.)


[628] #665
Vasco Gil


[then on the next page]


It s early, i ve gone walking.
So you won t see my eyes!

Only the leaves will see my eyes
these branches as I m walking.

Walking is not yet prayer
stops short
________I am thinking of my mother, blind.
________I too have eyes from the steppe, azure!

Abur, abur. Wake up, Mother.
(Don t see my eyes).


[628 bis_87] #665
V. G.


I think if one understands the theory behind the wordplay, one can appreciate Erin Moure's play with language and translation more. The collection this came from generally made no significant splash, despite the poets established career, yet it seems the closest to perfection that she has crafted.

Why? because she took literary theory, notably post-structuralist language theory, and manipulated it so that she could get the meanings she wanted. I think when you know how the book is constructed, it seems even more beautiful.


That being said, theory and criticism aren't too essential to enjoying literature, though critical books can be enjoyable in themselves. But if you are studying literature, clearly you don't wish just to read literature, you wish to study it. If you wish to study it, then you need to create a different meanings, or know of different meanings. One can only go so far just "enjoying" literature. To study literature, is to study, not to just enjoy reading. It helps if you love books, but you will need theoretical opinions, since knowing how other people read is significant to understand the way the text fits in with society, ours and its contemporary. Coleridge was a theorist, I don't see anyone bashing him. Zola also dabbled a bit in theory, as did Racine.

The real struggle seems to be the American self-loathing of its academic discipline. It seems to have adopted French theory (a choice I think largely done since French thinkers had already established the left-wing thought American academics were seeking), and misread it, then formed it into an American theory, which ultimately defeats itself. I can't help but say, that one can't help but feel the American academic tinge behind every bit of American academic scholarship. The same can be said of most countries, but American academies seem caught in a struggle that has been going on in American society.

In Canada, it is all different. People here seem less anti-theory, and read it as a way of reading, nothing more. Mind you, we don't have as defined a tradition, so there doesn't really need to be anti-traditional discourse, but I think the real difference seems to be the way Americans have interpreted what I call "Post modernism".

[Virgil]

American literary theory - which is essentially a bastardization of French theory. Canadian theory is different, as is Italian.

Oh I don't know much about Canadian or Italian theory. Any suggestions? I would imagine the British literary theory falls in with the French and American.

[JBI]

Oh I don't know much about Canadian or Italian theory. Any suggestions? I would imagine the British literary theory falls in with the French and American.

The groundwork was laid out by Frye, collected in The Bush Garden: Essays on the Canadian Imagination, and then taken over by D. G. Jones in Butterfly on Rock, and Margaret Atwood in Survival. But as prominent post-modern theory goes, Linda Hutcheon's A Poetics of Postmodernism seems central, as do other texts. Poetic theorists and novel theorists, as well as critics, seem rather divided. Most cover one field (Hutcheon herself seems more inclined to novelists, or poet-novelists), but there is some cross-over, and general theory. It may also help to actually know something about Canadian literature, which I think most people don't, which can be impeding.

Also, for critical works on certain texts, I recommend Earle Birney: critical views on Canadian authors edited by Bruce Nesbitt with an Epilogue by Earle Birney,

P. K. Page: Essays on Her Works edited by Linda Rogers and Barbara Colebrook Peace

And of course, Sinclair Ross's As for Me and My House: Five Decades of Criticism.

That will give you a basic feel for Canadian criticism, and its range, but beyond that, even works written about other works feel different. One of my Professor's work on Wilbur, for instance, feels very different than the American reaction to Wilbur. Also, Asian-North-American literary critics seem to deal more with identity, from what I feel, when talking about the texts, than with politics. The American perspective on Asian-North-American literature to me feels very, very different.


I would also note, I didn't really mention French Canadian criticism, since I really cannot read it, and very little of it is translated. I will say though, that as a tradition, I can't place them within American contexts, Anglo-Canadian contexts, or even French contexts. Unfortunately however, I only know minor bits, and nothing really substantial - perhaps Etienne knows more, or a francophone Canadian can fill in something.


Oh I don't know much about Canadian or Italian theory. Any suggestions? I would imagine the British literary theory falls in with the French and American.

French theory works well with French texts. British theory seems exhausted, like British culture (it seems artistically the culture has dried up and become a museum). American theory is very different however. It involves, I would think, a shame in one's own nation, that tinges everything - a sense that what happened in Vietnam cannot be undone, and that what is happening now is a repeat - in short, a sense that the whole culture is but one big lie. American identity itself seems on one hand supported, yet on the other hand, to many, I would think shameful. and I certainly feel this emanating from scholarship. But to top it off, I think most critics also are fed up with this idea that the culture is but one long imitation. Disney Land to Baudrillard was the ultimate fake reality, yet in many ways it is the soul of the American imagination.

Italian theory, from what I can gather (I confess, the only real Italian critic I feel comfortable to comment on is Eco, and then perhaps Croce) seems very different all together. It doesn't seem to have this self-defeatism in the tradition and culture, but has a greater sense of tradition, and the power of literature. I think in general literature, and poetry especially is more central to the culture of Italy, as is music, both contemporary and classic, and that shows. If you said Dante was a half-rate author, I think you would be laughed at, whereas in America if you said Shakespeare was third-rate, you may get entertained for a while.

I think that has more to do with language though - after all, the literary language, especially in poetry, has remained rather unchanged, unlike the English language. The tradition seems more current, and more real, and that remains central. From what I gathered talking to Italians while I was there, the way it is taught is very different too - more like a tradition than what English instruction is like, and more central. OF course, even highschools are divided there into specialties, so who knows - but I think a sense of humanism is more ingrained in everything in Italian culture, whereas in American culture a sense of consumerism and economic value is in everything.

Just compare, for instance, Pynchon to Calvino - that's the way I visualize the divide - a whole other tradition.

I would also like to note, that classic books there seem better annotated and edited - virtually all with chronologia, and many with notes and introduction to individual poems within a collection (this is classic works of course). My Copy of I Canti by Leopardi seems to be 80% editor's notes, and 20% poetry, which itself is good, and the book is not a scholarly edition, but a simple paperback I got in a regular sized bookshop.

[shortstoryfan]

I thank everyone for their input, although it only raises more questions.

[sixsmith]

Though an English major, it wasn't until after my undergraduate degree that i really began to read in earnest. As for criticism, i read and enjoy a lot of what i imagine is considered comparatively low-brow. James Wood, Wyatt Mason, Martin Amis, Clive James. My encounter with french theory pushed me very toward the popular critic.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I started reading at 17 and read all manner of stuff, gradually moving onto better texts as I soon got tired of the rubbish. I read quite a lot over these years but read without focus, I mostly read for enjoyment. I started a part-time degree at around 26 which obviously means that I read criticism and theory at this stage and started to study literature as opposed to simply passively reading it.

If you are thinking about undertaking study I would say just do it, sooner rather than later. By all means you can start to read a little criticism but don't worry about it either way. If you have the opportunity to study and you enjoy reading then you should just grab it with both hands. Same goes for that other chap who mentioned being a wage slave (as I was) just bloody do it, time is precious, trust me. :thumbs_up

[miyagisan]

I've been an avid reader since I was a kid. I devoured the classic adventure books in grade school (Huckleberry Finn, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Treasure Island, etc). I never read any theory or criticism until I got into college, but even now it is of my own volition. Thus far it seems to me, and I routinely hear it from others, that one can easily go through your entire undergraduate work in English Lit without delving into theory at all. Graduate school is where it comes into play, so if you're considering an MA or PhD I would suggest you start exploring theory on your own.

[Wilde woman]

What I would like to know is how much had you read before entering university? Did you read a lot of criticism before beginning studies?

If you're going to an American university, I seriously doubt you need any real preparedness to get a degree in literature. Definitely not any background in criticism. As I understand it, most American colleges will not require you to commit to any specific major when you apply; you have two years of general studies to get out of the way before declaring your major so when you declare, chances are you'll already have studied a bit and know a little bit about what area of lit you want to major in. That's really as much preparedness as you need.

I've always been an avid reader, but obviously at 8 years old, you can't read what is considered "classic" literature. So as a child, I read all sorts of children's books, teen series, and lots of contemporary fantasy/sci-fi series. I didn't really get into reading classics until late in my teens. I will say I always had an interest in the ancient Greek pantheon and their mythology; I read everything about them I could get my hands on. Honestly, I think it's a mistake to start pushing yourself towards reading books in the literary canon "just because" especially at a young age. I remember cracking open Heart of Darkness at age 13 and going in completely over my head; I didn't understand a thing and hated the book until I reread it in my senior year of high school. I had matured as a reader and could definitely understand and appreciate it more.

As for criticism, I read a tiny tiny bit in high school. But really, criticism in high school is a joke. It is only used to teach you how to make proper citations in your research papers. It doesn't require any depth of thought. But props to you if you want to study criticism on your own.


Why did you decide to get a literature degree?

I had always had a "talent" for reading, analyzing, and writing about literature. Also, I knew I wanted to study a language specifically to read literature in. So I did. Studying literature is never a practical choice; let's face it...the job market is not exactly roaring for English/literature majors. In my experience people do it for one of two reasons:

1. You love literature and/or writing. There are also some who have a great passion for teaching literature. Many of these students go on to grad school.

2. You don't know what you want to study and you figure that English is an "easy" major. Then you figure out what you really want to do after you graduate.

Not to be dismal or anything, but that's how English majors generally turn out, in my experience.

[JBI]

There's that point, and that good Grad Schools start taking at a cut off GPA of 3.0 - 3.3 - 73-77%, whereas the average in most cases is somewhere in the mid to high 60s. One must assume that the bulk of students don't go on. It most certainly isn't an easy major either, if you plan on going on - no Major is particularly easy, though I hear poly-sci is a joke :p.

Really though, as a student, I feel English works better in a Double-Major degree, than as a single major or specialist (In Canada, it's generally 1 major 2 minors, 2 majors 1 minor, or 1 specialist 1 minor). Second language requirements eventually kick in when you get to Grad school (Ph. D. level), so if you are at all serious about continuing, make sure you choose a combo of courses you think sellable.

I don't know what the situation is like in the States, but in Canada, to get a Ph.D. in English, you essentially need to have proficiency in French (enough to read anything and write about it), or in some cases, another language. You should probably look into that first, before you commit. What you take is very important, and I thinking reading really can direct you. The competition really, is staggering, especially in graduate school, so prepare for not the easiest of runs.

Don't let that detract you, however, it pays to have some direction. The mistakes one makes early on have a knack of not disappearing.

I don't know how free your system is, in terms of choices of courses, but if you read criticism, you'll be introduced to a better range of thought, and have more options. It pays to know a little before you go, incase you wish to incorperate a feminist, or post-modern perspective into your writing, without the professer telling you to do so. IT also helps to be familiar with the tradition, so that you can participate and get more from you classes. Older professors, I find, assume one is familiar with the bulk of works, so that when Eliot writes "Those are the pearls that were his eyes." the professor doesn't even need to dwell on explaining the reference, besides saying it is from the tempest.

[andave_ya]

I'm going to be majoring in English when I enter college in the fall. Yes, I've read all my life.

Ditto. But I haven't read any criticism yet.

[amalia1985]

I've been an avid reader since I was eight, but I started reading criticism when I was fifteen, prompted by my father's large collection of criticism books that refer, mostly, to Theatre. So, I had some sort of experience, an image of what "criticism" and the mechanics of writing look like, when I entered the university. In fact, my father's books were much more interesting -even more "difficult"- than those chosen by our professors in the course studies, but that's a whole different story...

[kelby_lake]

I know some Litnetters have some degree in literature. What I would like to know is how much had you read before entering university? Did you read a lot of criticism before beginning studies? Why did you decide to get a literature degree? I guess I am trying to gauge the level of preparedness required...

And for the rest of you! Were you avid readers as children? Are you even readers now? Haha.

I'd just like to know where everyone is coming from.

I need same advice :)

[snakesandapples]

Coleridge was a theorist, I don't see anyone bashing him. Zola also dabbled a bit in theory, as did Racine.

Errr... Well, I must say I totally agree on the difference to make between enjoying litterature and studying it. You clearly need theory and criticism to understand how a text is supposed to be read and how it is articulated...

Well, as for me, that's what I think.

But actually, It is going too far to say Zola and Racine were theorists. They certainly followed some theory, though.

For instance, Racine constructed his whole work on the basis of the rules of tragedy -more greek-like than roman-like, but he had to yield to his society's demands as well, not to have the characters die on the stage (or have them poisonned, then) to avoid blood effusions which were utterly depreciated at that time.

This was no part of his intentions, but when you realize a character is dying out of stage, you just don't know how to explain it.
For us readers, blood is quite normal (well, take any action movie, if there's no blood in it, people tend to be all the more disappointed as it's quite common, now).
Theory just can't explain it.
If I remember correctly, the rules for theater at Racine's time were the unity of plot, time and space. No " have the cursed characters die out of stage not to shock the ladies, please".

So Authors can certainly be theorists. I do believe all of them are, in some sort of way. But litterature has something that's beyond theory. It's the very reason everybody can read a text twice with the same incomprehension, or the same feeling. Might be because it deals with humanity. God knows how magic and messy it is.

Anyway, I would like to mention another point. You talked about French theories... Yeah, made me smile, actually... I don't think american litterature's aims in theory are the same as the french... American authors made up their own ways and since both culture are different, subjects are different as well.
Take Frank Norris and Zola.
Norris was inspired by Zola. True. But his work has something that Zola doesn't have. American naturalism is not the same as french naturalism. There are some common points, but both of them are unique.

And I as I read all those people saying they knew theories and all... Well, I'm a bit ashamed. In France, even if you're studying litterature and not just enjoying it, you ARE the one criticizing. Teachers expect from you not to read essays about works but to find yourself what's so interesting about the way the author treated some subject. Of course, you have to know (and if not, to make some researches) the author's cultural and historical background. But that's all.

So, I am wondering what's the most important... Cause your own "theory" about theory and litterature makes sense as well... :p

[Drkshadow03]

What I would like to know is how much had you read before entering university? Did you read a lot of criticism before beginning studies? Why did you decide to get a literature degree? I guess I am trying to gauge the level of preparedness required...

And for the rest of you! Were you avid readers as children? Are you even readers now? Haha.

I'd just like to know where everyone is coming from.

I read a lot of Cam Jansen, Goosebumps, Choose Your Own Adventures, Wheel of Time, lots of Star Wars books. Not really many classics when I was younger, unless they were assigned in school, and I didn't necessarily always read them then either.

As far how I eventually decided to major in English, I originally went to a two-year community college; I was an Honors student majoring in liberal arts. I had no idea what I wanted to major in for real once I transfered to a four year college. Luckily, I took an "Honors: Intro to English Literature" class that suddenly converted me.

The epiphany arrived when it came time to read the assigned novel for the class. The novel assigned to us was Philip Roth's "Goodbye, Columbus."

It was the first time I had ever read an American Jewish writer writing about American Jewish characters. I didn't know such literature even existed! However, ironically it wasn't the Jewish themes I related to the most, but the deterioration of the young love relationship between the main characters, Neil and Brenda. I had recently broken up with a girl I had been dating in high school for over a year; at the time I thought of her as my first love.

These lines from the book were so powerful:

"What was inside of me that had turned pursuit and clutching into love, and then turned it inside out again? What was it that had turned winning into losing, and losing--who knows--into winning? I was sure I had loved Brenda, though standing there, I knew I couldn't any longer."

I had this unexplainable emotional reaction to those words and that story. Maybe it's what Aristotle means by catharsis. This story, while certainly not a complete parallel of my life, especially given its social class issues that it raises, still managed to reflect how I was feeling about the whole situation and my emotional state. It was the first time literature became more than just entertaining, more even than a mere intellectual puzzle to solve; it featured characters engaging in a situation that connected directly to my what was happening in my own life.

I continued to take more literature classes with a heavy emphasis on Creative Writing because I had always wanted to be a writer and still do. Then when I finally transfered to a four year college to finish up my degree the logical thing to do was to continue studying literature.

As far as what you should know before entering university, I wouldn't worry too much about criticism or theory. Criticism I would leave until you enter undergrad, while theory I would leave until Graduate School. My advice would be to focus on as many Canonical works you haven't read as possible, especially those core works (Ancient Greek writers, Shakespeare, The Bible, and Dante). You might want to write a journal or a blog (like mine for example) to keep track of your thoughts, so you're not passively reading.

Keep in mind that if you plan to make a career of literary studies and hope to become a professor rather than just looking for something to major in as an undergrad, the job market is currently saturated. Any one job tends to get 200 - 300+ replies, which then get widdled down to top 10 candidates for preliminary interviews who then get widdled down further to three or four top picks, until only one remains standing.

[The Comedian]

Why did you decide to get a literature degree?.

I started college majoring in literature & biology with a Latin minor. In time, the non-living sciences -- chemistry and physics -- were too much for me, emotionally. I just couldn't muster up enough "care" to continue in the sciences. So I switched to just words: majored in English and Latin and minored in philosophy.

I had no idea what wanted to do for a career; I just studied because I loved it. I went to grad school to put off the j-o-b issue for a little while longer.

And one more thing regarding theory: you need it to do well in graduate school; you do not need it to analyze, criticize, speculate, postulate, ruminate, or anything else you'd like to do with literature.

[Wilde woman]

There's that point, and that good Grad Schools start taking at a cut off GPA of 3.0 - 3.3 - 73-77%, whereas the average in most cases is somewhere in the mid to high 60s. One must assume that the bulk of students don't go on.

Oh yes, I agree. The vast majority of English students don't go on to graduate programs.

What I meant by English being an "easy" major is that it is not graded in quite the same way as biology or chemistry...that is, not quantitatively. Like many humanities disciplines, how well you do is (supposedly) measured by how well you write. And since writing is so subjective to grade, many poor writers can get by in English without the same amount of work as other majors. Many English students don't even end up reading the majority of the assigned texts in class, yet still pass the class. That's probably more a reflection of bad instruction than anything. But if you're really invested in what you're studying, literature is no easier to study than any other scholarly field.


It most certainly isn't an easy major either, if you plan on going on - no Major is particularly easy, though I hear poly-sci is a joke :p.

At my college, Mass Communications is the joke major. And that's saying a lot, considering my college has BS majors like "Peace and Conflict studies".


I don't know what the situation is like in the States, but in Canada, to get a Ph.D. in English, you essentially need to have proficiency in French (enough to read anything and write about it), or in some cases, another language. You should probably look into that first, before you commit. What you take is very important, and I thinking reading really can direct you. The competition really, is staggering, especially in graduate school, so prepare for not the easiest of runs.

As you said, language requirements don't generally kick in until grad school. For me, however, I was required to have a second language for my major, comparative literature, which obviously gives me a leg up in applying to graduate programs. As I understand it, the language requirement is pretty much all that separates comp lit from English, at least at the undergrad level.

I'm currently applying to graduate programs so, believe me, I know it's not nearly as easy as undergrad.

As an undergrad, there wasn't a huge emphasis on criticism, though we did read some. But as a potential grad student, I'm finding I have more interest in criticism and am buying books on my own to bone up a little on the writers I'm interested in studying.

JBI, since you've studied Italian, can you direct me to some Italian criticism? (I studied Italian as my minor language.) I've only ever read some Eco, but never in the original. How is Italian or French criticism different from American?

[JBI]

I can only give you bibliography that I've developed from reading on certain authors - Outside of Croce and Eco, I am not to well versed in Italian criticism as I am in Canadian, American, and French, I confess, and my impression comes primarily from going through essays on my favorite poets, and occasionally flipping through works in the stacks of Robarts Library.

For a good English text on Italian Modernists, try Fredrick J. Jones's The Modern Italian Lyric, or individual works on Italian authors. I confess, my proficiency is not as good as I would like, so I can't particularly fish through essays (I can read poems, but essays give me trouble). I was just using that to prove a point, that literary criticism means many things. In truth, I'm a Canadian specialist if anything, so you would be better off PMing someone like Petrarch's Love.

My general impression from Italian criticism though, is that it has a greater emphasis on the artist and his life and surroundings, than anything else. There seems a stronger yearning for bibliography, as apposed to politics, and there doesn't seem to be this self-doubt in the tradition that American criticism seems to perpetuate.

[shortstoryfan]

You know, I think at the university I will be attending you have to actually take courses in two different languages. I think most art based majors are required to do that actually.

[JBI]

Errr... Well, I must say I totally agree on the difference to make between enjoying litterature and studying it. You clearly need theory and criticism to understand how a text is supposed to be read and how it is articulated...

Well, as for me, that's what I think.

But actually, It is going too far to say Zola and Racine were theorists. They certainly followed some theory, though.

For instance, Racine constructed his whole work on the basis of the rules of tragedy -more greek-like than roman-like, but he had to yield to his society's demands as well, not to have the characters die on the stage (or have them poisonned, then) to avoid blood effusions which were utterly depreciated at that time.

This was no part of his intentions, but when you realize a character is dying out of stage, you just don't know how to explain it.
For us readers, blood is quite normal (well, take any action movie, if there's no blood in it, people tend to be all the more disappointed as it's quite common, now).
Theory just can't explain it.
If I remember correctly, the rules for theater at Racine's time were the unity of plot, time and space. No " have the cursed characters die out of stage not to shock the ladies, please".

So Authors can certainly be theorists. I do believe all of them are, in some sort of way. But litterature has something that's beyond theory. It's the very reason everybody can read a text twice with the same incomprehension, or the same feeling. Might be because it deals with humanity. God knows how magic and messy it is.

Anyway, I would like to mention another point. You talked about French theories... Yeah, made me smile, actually... I don't think american litterature's aims in theory are the same as the french... American authors made up their own ways and since both culture are different, subjects are different as well.
Take Frank Norris and Zola.
Norris was inspired by Zola. True. But his work has something that Zola doesn't have. American naturalism is not the same as french naturalism. There are some common points, but both of them are unique.

And I as I read all those people saying they knew theories and all... Well, I'm a bit ashamed. In France, even if you're studying litterature and not just enjoying it, you ARE the one criticizing. Teachers expect from you not to read essays about works but to find yourself what's so interesting about the way the author treated some subject. Of course, you have to know (and if not, to make some researches) the author's cultural and historical background. But that's all.

So, I am wondering what's the most important... Cause your own "theory" about theory and litterature makes sense as well... :p


Actually, it is not too big a stretch. Just look at the amount Racine put out - not too many plays, yet there is tons of work by him about his ars poetica, as well as his work as head of the Academie Francaise.

Zola too started really writing theoretical works, even going so far as too bash the notion of "imagination" as being an important factor in writing novels.

There is actually a document he wrote for himself about the differences between his view of literature, and Racine's. Not to mention, the introductions in front of his novels, notably the preface to the second edition of Therese Raquin. They were highly theoretical writers.

T. S. Eliot as well, was a theorist, and critic, as much as a poet. Theory isn't a bad subject, and neither is criticism, or poetry. In truth, some of the best writers have been theorists. William Hazlitt is by far the better writer than Leigh Hunt, despite the fact that Hunt was a writer of poems. Northrop Frye is still considered the first truly great Canadian writer, and I would argue, by many (including myself) to be the greatest Canadian writer.


Isn't the introduction to Lyrical Ballads also somewhat a theoretical text? What about all those theoretical epigrams you see floating all over post-modern novels. Surely even writers are somewhat informed about criticism and theory. I think theory had a significant part about bringing about the emergence of the Nouveau Roman in France - which essentially redefined the French novel. Would the novel have emerged without Alain Robbe-Grillet? Possibly, but definitely not in the same way. In truth theory is hardly apart from literature, and can even predate the movement substantially.


Theory even infiltrates literature at different levels. Look at novels using Carnivalesque motifs after Bakhtin became mainstream in the English world. Hell, Bakhtin himself even makes an appearance in Andrew Glover's Elle. Robert Kroetsch casts Pantegruelesque drinking scenes in his novels, simply because of the power of Bakhtin - the novel emerges from critical theory on novels.

Dante himself was a form of theorist, not to mention, was most certainly influenced by the theoretical works of his time. There is another crossover. De Vulgari Eloquentia is nothing more than a theoretical work of its time period, brought about by previous theoretical works.


In truth, theory is everywhere, and like reading biography, one should probably read theory as well, to get a sense of literature. Post-structuralism, which seems dreaded by many on these boards (and I think, to an extent, we can thank Bloom), is just one aspect. There are many critics who don't touch theory. There are many theories that are accessible, and relevant. Trauma theory, for instance, is accessible and interesting. Anything by Kristeva, however, is relatively incomprehensible. It's useful, however, to understand the way these theorists work.

A basic understanding of Derrida is perhaps the most useful thing one can have for entering University English. When you start thinking in deconstructive terms - that is, surface deconstruction, basic thinking in terms of "how is X constructed", you start to understand texts more, and essays come easier.