Last week, I finished a bio of Queen Elizabeth I, and I'm starting the week with a lot of options and not a solid decision on what to read. I've got a few books stacked up: Spenser's Mother Hubbard's Tale, Anne Clifford's Diary, Greenblatt's Renaissance Self-Fashioning, Alan Bray's The Friend, and Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor. I think I may need a week where I get through a few things, so I may start with the Shakespeare and Spenser.
UMass requires two areas for the exam, although it required three before 2003. The areas must be clearly different, but can be related. I ended up choosing one exam around reading I wanted to do (Spenser and Shakespeare--I wanted to read all of the Faerie Queene* and had just TAed for a Shakespeare class), and the other around an advisor I really wanted on my committee (Jen Adams, a medievalist whose first book was on medieval chess--I ended up with late Medieval and early Renaissance women writers). Both areas combined had to have at least sixty works (both primary and secondary), and the written portion consisted of two essays, both together totaling less than 30 pages. My lists had a respectable amount of primary work, but ended up weighted toward secondary sources. I found that my tendency was to rely on others' readings rather than focusing on my own readings (as usual). (What, for you, is the rightful place or role of secondary sources? How do you keep them in that role practically?)
The exam itself was fine, but overwhelming. I left feeling like I'd done what I needed to do to pass, but that I had so much more work to do and that the exam hadn't gotten me any closer to a dissertation topic. I think I've finally recovered from it 10 months later. The exam did help me read a lot of material and think about some of the issues surrounding the works I read, but the dissertation seems like a whole new project, and it's hard to see now how my exam material will integrate. But I'm trying not to worry about it now. My goal for the moment is to read some background material on the period, get familiar with some major works in the field that people will assume I've read, and bulk up on primary sources. I'd like to be able to start writing my prospectus by September 09.
I do think making "exam lists" or some sort of categorization of sources will help me later on as I'm moving into writing chapters. They may even take the form of annotated bibliographies on particular works I'm dealing with or on arguments that I want to make.
*I highly recommend the Hackett edition that came out about a year ago. The books are published separately (except 3 and 4, which are together), there's a lot of white space on the smooth pages, and the notes are limited, clear, and unobtrusive. It made reading the whole thing a much more pleasant experience than other editions I've dabbled in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You know, I've always had that same problem with secondary sources. In the MA program, I would read the primary source and then go straight to the secondary sources. They were the crutches that would prop me up for a while until I felt confident to "walk" (read: interpret) on my own.
Things are different with Haywood. I think that's because I was so struck by Fantomina the first time I read it, and I had so many thoughts/opinions about it. Then I started reading The Female Spectator and had more opinions. Then I read some secondary sources (after I had already sent some of my ideas to the folks in Aber) and was surprised at what I found. So, from the beginning, I've had my own take on her work.
That said, the more I read, the more I learn what parts of my initial ideas might have been wrong (or even ignorant) and, on the other hand, which of my ideas could be scholastically useful.
Post a Comment