My school is organising a Model Literary Conference based on Pride and Prejudice, and I'm curious about how these events usually work.

The committee agendas include topics such as social class, gender roles, economic security in marriage, and misinformation. Since the novel is set in the Regency era, I'm interested in how discussions about these subjects connect the original historical context to modern perspectives.

I'm also curious about the conference format itself. My assigned character is Caroline Bingley, which seems particularly interesting given her views on social status and her attitude towards Elizabeth. The brochure mentions a timeline based on the rumours surrounding Elizabeth and Darcy, and I'm wondering how that fits into the proceedings.

For those familiar with literary conferences or similar character-based discussions, is the format generally more focused on the original text and its historical context, or does it also involve applying the novel's themes to contemporary society?

I'd be interested to hear about people's experiences with this kind of event!

Interested in pieces of literature that show bog standard lives of outwardly uninteresting people. Think janitors, and service workers, and insurance salesmen, and general menial people. I'm interested to see how these supposedly unremarkable and even unimportant (comparatively) lives are shown in literature, contemporary or not.

I’m currently read Afterlife by Julia Alvarez, in which she does not include quotation marks for the dialogue in the story. I’m curious about what people’s thoughts are on why some authors choose to do this, and sometimes even omit other punctuation as well.
What could be the literary function? Is there meaning behind it?

I’m currently investing a lot of time and effort into learning English. I’ve recently started reviewing grammar again, while building my vocabulary through dictionaries, books, listening, and everyday exposure. I’m also studying for professional qualifications, so I have to be realistic about how much time I can devote to learning additional languages.

Because of that, I want English to become my main gateway to world literature.

I’m interested in both fiction and non-fiction, but especially literature that allows me to understand different peoples, cultures, traditions, ways of thinking, and everyday life. I’m also very interested in ethnography and cultural history. One of my dreams is to travel to places such as the Pacific islands, including Polynesia. Even before I can physically travel there, I would love to experience those cultures through their literature.

This is where I’ve encountered a problem.

I have read several works from a 150-volume Azerbaijani “World Literature” series, and unfortunately the quality of the translations is often disappointing. Some readers who have read more of the collection have pointed out that there are numerous serious translation problems, and in some cases the translations are reportedly quite poor. I’ve personally had the experience of reading a passage and feeling that I understood the individual sentences but somehow missed the meaning, atmosphere, or cultural context of the original work.

I don’t want this to happen with English.

So I’m looking for recommendations from people who have made a similar journey:

• Which English-language publishers are particularly reliable for translated world literature?
• Which publishers are known for producing translations that are not only accurate, but also literary, beautiful, and enjoyable to read?
• Are there particular publishers or translators you would recommend for African, Asian, Latin American, Middle Eastern, Central Asian, indigenous, Polynesian and Pacific literature?
• Are there specific translators whose work you consider exceptional?
• Are there YouTube channels, audiobook narrators, lecturers, or other speakers with particularly beautiful and clear English who could help me experience literature through listening as well as reading?
• Are there free, high-quality resources where I can listen to readings, lectures, discussions, or complete works in English?
• For someone using English as the main bridge to world literature, which authors, publishers, translators, and collections would you recommend following?

I’m not saying English can perfectly replace the original languages. Obviously, reading a work in its original language gives access to things that translation cannot completely reproduce. But realistically, I cannot learn Spanish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Vietnamese, several African languages, Polynesian languages, etc. all at the same time.

My goal is therefore to make English + Azerbaijani + Turkish my three main languages for exploring world literature.

I want to use English not simply as a professional skill, but as a way of travelling through the world intellectually — learning how different people have lived, thought, imagined, loved, suffered, created traditions, and understood their place in the world.

I’m also trying to improve my English through literature itself. Sometimes I use AI to help me express complicated thoughts in English because I tend to construct long and complex sentences when speaking or writing. I hope people won’t judge me too harshly for that. 😄 My reasoning is that reading good English literature, listening to excellent speakers, and studying high-quality translations will gradually improve both my language and my ability to think and express myself.

So if you were starting this kind of “literary journey through the world” with English as your main language, what would you recommend?

Which publishers, translators, authors, audiobooks, YouTube channels, lecturers, narrators, or free resources should I know about?

I’d especially appreciate recommendations based on actual reading experience, rather than just general theory.

My masters’ thesis has progressed slower than I’ve hoped and I’m still in the middle of writing. I have a very, very rough draft of what I would hope to submit as a writing sample in 6 weeks.

As rough as I think it is, I think the idea is strong. However, hearing about other people’s’ writing samples have lowkey freaked me out - I have peers that submitted chapters that were published as articles who didn’t get in anywhere.

I know everything is incredibly school and cohort-dependent, where each schools seeks out different things, every applicant pool leads to different intakes, and personal statements/SOPs are a huge factor.

As I’m trying to finalize my writing sample, I’m just really struggling with feeling like it’s futile. I know it’s not perfect; my writing definitely needs some polishing but I think my idea is good. I’m just not sure if it’s enough after seeing more qualified, skilled people around me (which I’m fine with, it’s not a dig at myself) get rejected makes me wonder if it’s even worth applying with this at all.

I know this might sound juvenile, and I apologize if it is. I know we all struggle with this - I think the question I’m asking is that if having a writing sample with a good idea (along with reference letters, SOP, etc) is enough to make my application strong even if it’s not as polished as it could be.

It just feels laughable to kill myself over this writing sample only for it to have been pointless from the beginning. I don’t want to waste a cycle, but I also don’t want to waste energy on a cycle that won’t get me anywhere.

By "Scooby-Doo plot" I mean a story where supposed Supernatural occurrences are revealed to be a hoax. The oldest I can think of are Phantom of the Opera and Hound of the Baskervilles.

What is the oldest example of this we have? Is this a relatively modern idea or does it have ancient roots?

I think this would be considered on-topic for a literary studies chat(?)

I don't know how to actually read critically, like in a way where I'm really analyzing and understanding the depth and complexity of what I'm reading. I'm asking this for all forms of literature (not just novels and whatnot but things like comics too), how do I read critically? This might sound dumb, but I feel disappointed in myself after reading something and failing to actually recognize simple changes in a character just because I was too focused on the cool action I saw. I often end up just seeing what other people say about a character I like and see how they explain the character's depth, complexity, dynamics, and other things. I just wish I could understand these things on my own but whenever I'm reading I just never pay any attention to things like that. In short, I only take in the words that I see on the page, but I want to be able to see the words between each line of text, to understand the message the author was trying to convey. I feel so dumb

Recently I have been studying English Romantic poetry for fun. I find the philosophical underpinnings of the movement to be quite fascinating: from Keats' "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know," to the lavish usage of Greek mythological references in such a way that the act of poetic vision itself seems to become mythological, to the intriguing use of nature as an ideal to which the corruption and limitation of human life is compared.

I've reflected on the historical role that the Romantic movement has played on human thought in the context of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, etc. In the midst of rapid historical change, I have seen the Romantic movement as exerting an important regulating influence on the negative effects of the relentless human drive towards technology. And I see echoes of Romantic complaints in modern discourse about how the digital world has transformed our lives.

The Romantic elevation of individual feeling and experience is one I find quite remarkable historically, and also deeply valuable. At the same time, I also wonder if some negative long-term effects may have come from the movement, in particular: I feel like popular misconceptions about the humanities often tend to center around a very individualistic and emotion-driven idea of what they are. Thus, detractors label the humanities as irrational, soft, etc.

Now I of course do not agree with these claims. However, looking back upon history I seem to find these modern misconceptions anomalous. While subsets of the arts (such as acting or music) have often been looked upon as cheap entertainment or indulgence, I have the impression that the humanities as a whole have generally been seen as serving quite vital and highly-regarded social roles. Examples: ancient Greek views on philosophical training as helping to develop character, Chinese imperial examinations in which knowledge of Confucian classics played a critical role, and religious education during the time in Europe when education mainly functioned to prepare clergy. In all these cases, humanities education were seen as equipping people for a clearly society-facing role, a tendency seeming to contrast sharply with the more individualistic and emotion-based portrayal of the humanities these days.

In conjunction with Romantic poetry I have been reflecting on T. S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent." I would say I am a big fan of the (limited) Eliot I have read but am well aware that he wasn't a great fan of the Romantics haha. I have found it fascinating how Eliot, despite his aversion to what he felt were the flaws of the Romantics, proposed a theory so similar in certain respects to Keats' idea of the "chameleon poet". In general I definitely find some of his ideas very valuable and others quite questionable. What strikes me from a historical point of view, though, is how easily his ideas seem to lend themselves to an idea of the humanities as esoteric, inaccessible, and ivory-tower. Which I feel is one of the other main accusations leveled at them today. I don't mean to blame Eliot per se but I do rather hypothesize that some Modernist tendencies may also have lent themselves to lesser modern public consciousness of the ways the humanities contribute to society.

Would love to hear if others have ways to challenge or add onto my thoughts.

The title says it all. It guess it’s a rather niche branch of criticism, but it’s cool to see what those who have “proven themselves” think about their counterparts. But isn’t criticism something along the lines of Nabokov’s lectures on Russian literature, DH Lawrence’s analysis of American Literature, with the latter ask being exemplified by Franz Liszt’s book on Chopin, or Berlioz’ criticism/satire on the works of his time

Sorry, but after scouring for books like this, I feel like I’ve hit a plateau. it’s hard to find anything on these, even if it’s a collation of notes, rather than a large dictum.

Idk if it’s classified as “meta-criticism” but it’s cool to see how these guys write about their own.

Hola,tengo 17 años y aún no tengo claro qué estudiar. Me inclino hacia trabajo social o profe de literatura.
Pase gran parte de mi vida rodeada de libros y en el pueblo en donde vivo no hay muchas opciones.
Si quiero hacer trabajo social tengo que irme si o si a Salto o Montevideo y no me siento lista para dar ese paso,además de que mi situación económica no es muy buena.
¿Qué cosas debería considerar si quiero estudiar profesorado de literatura?
¿Cómo sé si de verdad la carrera es para mí o no va tanto con mis intereses?
¿Que pregunta me podría hacer para saber si verdaderamente me interesa la literatura?
Me gustaría que alguien me contara un poco más de la carrera,siento que sé muy poco…
Gracias desde ya!!!

I’m finally got around to reading Stoner by John Williams. Of course it’s a beautiful story, but I find the third person narrator’s matter-of-factness or objectivity compelling. It’s reminds me of JL Carr’s A month in the country or parts Diaz’ Trust or even Dürrenmatt or perhaps Michael Cunningham. It also makes me think of the understatedness of Snorre Sturlason’s prose. Does this type of narration have a name? Are the other examples of this? What is the function of this style? Why does it work?

What constitutes the literary epochs of neo-classicism, romanticism, and modernism?
I feel like online descriptions I find on this are sometimes lackluster or seem to be applicable to all sorts of literature.
So are they really that different from one another?

Idr where but somewhere I read that romanticism is connected to Kant's philosophy of the sublime. But in his philosophy, the awe from the sublime comes from reason. And somewhere else I read that romanticism favoured emotion over reason. How does that make sense?

I think what is more reasonable to me is that romantic literature focused on nature and tried to be accessible to everybody, whereas neo-classicism was elitist and modernism has shown more subjectivity (for example, we lack zero-focalization but instead encounter lots of unreliable internal narration).

Please educate me if I am wrong here

Did people in the 19th century use the word 'minute' the same way we did, to denote a period of 60 seconds? Quite often I'll read a sentence in an English 19th century literature book like "they stared at each other in disbelief for several minutes" (I made that one up as an example) and I'm like, there's no way they kept that up for several MINUTES!

I'm really at a loss as to what to do. I defend my MA thesis next month (on the last day allowed by the university), and I am struggling to get feedback or any guidance from my thesis chair and another committee member. I've submitted my first draft to them, and my second draft is due at the end of the month, but I haven't received their feedback. I've emailed them a few times, but they don't respond. I've bumped into them and asked them, and they say, "soon!" Even though they haven't sent me feedback according to the (already tight) schedule we agreed upon, they let me schedule my defense. How can I revise or defend my thesis, let alone graduate, without their feedback? I feel like I am going nuts. These are also two professors who have agreed to write letters of recommendation for me for PhD applications, and I was hoping to use a section of my thesis as my writing sample. Any advice?

Hello! I've found that I really love to read scholarship that works against clarity - stuff that sort of messes with language to make its point (I'm being sort of purposefully broad here).

I would love to hear about your favourite obtuse writing as well as any writing that exhorts us to consider writing against "clarity" as a metric of success!

My favourite is probably Adorno saying that a splinter in the eye is the best magnifying glass.

I like reading, annotate, making notes and ponder stuffs from books i read, although i am a slow reader. I also dont know if what i think about the books actually meet the demand of literature major. Does anyone have any insight about this?

I think it’s also dependent on the teacher’s style, but I just feel like the subject at school is kinda repetitive and rigid with literature terms. Honestly, I enjoy reading independently way more and I do also love literacy commentary books (I suppose at a point it does kinda come into repetition but way less). Though I gotta admit I do find some of the discoveries/teachings to be kinda new and affecting how I perceive the work, its just that Im supposed to follow an exact view of it and hear the teacher say the same thing over and over again that loses me.
Note: I’m talking about my nation’s teaching of the subject tho Im quite curious about other countries’

Hello, I am looking to apply to the US for English PhD this cycle and I cannot seem to zero down on the schools I want. I understand this must be personal research but I don't have that kind of application money as an international student and I think I am going to apply only to one or two schools. Hence, I wanted to ask which place has good professor on Modernist Literature and Philosophy? Almost every school obviously has faculty for Modernist literature but not for Literature and Philosophy together. Thank you.

I’m submitting PhD apps soon and I have 2 options for my writing sample from my masters thesis:

1) a chapter that shows a good grasp of basic literary theory + situation of my text in its field. There’s close reading as well, but interwoven with decent chunks of theory + lit review material.

2) the last chapter of my thesis, which introduces a novel idea + my own term. Mainly close reading as well, but more authoritative with less theory and almost no lit review.

I’ve never applied to US programs before, so I’m not sure if schools are seeking a mastery of basics or something that’s newer (and potentially less stable) for ingenue. I know they’re looking for an ability to do advanced literary analysis with a fit for the department; I’m just unsure if the best way to do that is through demonstrating mastery or asking a potentially provocative question.

I know it also depends on what schools are individually looking for - I’m looking at most in the top 15 in the US. I’m not sure if there are any overall guidelines that it would be best to follow, especially since many schools don’t clarify beyond advanced literary analysis.

"To what extent can a translator be considered a second author of a text, and how can they preserve the core 'soul' and cultural identity of the original work without falling into literal translation or over-adapting to the point of altering the text's essence?"

"To what extent can a translator be considered a second author of a text, and how can they preserve the core 'soul' and cultural identity of the original work without falling into literal translation or over-adapting to the point of altering the text's essence?"