[Ploop]

(Original post by Ascient)
I think that's an excellent list because I've read all but three of the books on there. I'd agree about intentionally veering away from the predictable on a PS too. Even if you're genuinely enthused by 1984, you'll probably still (rather unfairly) disadvantage your application because it's one of those classics that 'pretenders' will go on about endlessly. Or, at least, you won't be advantaging your application as much as you could by picking a less obvious & banal choice.

The classics are classics for a reason though. You may as well advise against mentioning anything from the Romantic or Victorian era then. Joyce, Eliot, Plath, McEwan, Murakami and Shakespeare may as well be ignored too due to the amount of times they're mentioned in PSs.

I just don't buy into the logic that something is to be avoided out of worry of what others may be doing. Besides, it's not just what you've read that tutors are interested in, it's what you've gained from reading it and as such, the title itself is irrelevant.

[LostHorizons]

(Original post by Dionysia)
Different college, different list. Oh, but Vic/Modern list, pick three authors - don't have to read the whole thing. And hobnob, you're right. The list is fine. I've read about 70% of what I'm supposed to, which I don't think is bad at all.

Also can I just say for the record, horizons, NMH = best. Ever.

I agree ^_^

Actually the list isn't so bad now I've actually properly read it. I just looked and assumed it would mean you have to read everything on it. Still, quite fun if that's all they want you to do over the summer.

[hobnob]

(Original post by Ploop)
The classics are classics for a reason though. You may as well advise against mentioning anything from the Romantic or Victorian era then. Joyce, Eliot, Plath, McEwan, Murakami and Shakespeare may as well be ignored too due to the amount of times they're mentioned in PSs.

I just don't buy into the logic that something is to be avoided out of worry of what others may be doing. Besides, it's not just what you've read that tutors are interested in, it's what you've gained from reading it and as such, the title itself is irrelevant.

I think the point is that even if you don't end up mentioning those texts in your PS because you think they're too "obvious", it's good to have read them. The list was intended as a starting-point for people thinking about doing a degree in English, not as a list of titles to name-drop and potentially impress (or perhaps not) tutors with.

[Ploop]

(Original post by hobnob)
I think the point is that even if you don't end up mentioning those texts in your PS because you think they're too "obvious", it's good to have read them. The list was intended as a starting-point for people thinking about doing a degree in English, not as a list of titles to name-drop and potentially impress (or perhaps not) tutors with.

Yes, I don't dispute that; I agree with the idea behind the list. It just seems illogical of me to go against the very point of a PS and refrain from mentioning your favourite books/authors for fear that half of the other applicants has mentioned them too, which seems to be Ascient's point.

[Ascient]

(Original post by Ploop)
The classics are classics for a reason though. You may as well advise against mentioning anything from the Romantic or Victorian era then. Joyce, Eliot, Plath, McEwan, Murakami and Shakespeare may as well be ignored too due to the amount of times they're mentioned in PSs.

I just don't buy into the logic that something is to be avoided out of worry of what others may be doing. Besides, it's not just what you've read that tutors are interested in, it's what you've gained from reading it and as such, the title itself is irrelevant.

I don't disagree with that, but I don't really have a problem with classics as a whole. And there's a difference between staying away from certain books and certain epochs altogether. It's just certain books, of which 1984 is probably the main culprit, are always talked about a lot more in PSs and I would probably veer away from centring my PS around that if there was another book I could talk about. Whether I was genuine about it or not, it's one that's stained by reputation.

[MSB]

An applicant should talk about a text in their PS because they are interested in it, not because they think an admissions tutor will be impressed either by its prominence in the canon or its obscurity. As long as you're talking about 1984 for the right reasons, there's no cause to worry, and, on the other side, as long as you're not talking about 1984 for the right reasons, there's no cause to worry.

[DisgruntledMoth]

Anyway, I like how concise this list is. As someone who knows no-one who reads anything other than supermarket bestsellers it's handy to have lists like these around. Now if only they would let me back into the library.

[Ascient]

Well, I still think that in certain cases (and these are very few and far between) it would pay to be, erm, strategical. I maybe being extremely cynical, but it's just a personal viewpoint. For the sake of ending a debate, though, I would just go along with something like ceteris paribus I would talk about The Lonely Londoners rather than 1984.

[MSB]

(Original post by DisgruntledMoth)
Anyway, I like how concise this list is. As someone who knows no-one who reads anything other than supermarket bestsellers it's handy to have lists like these around. Now if only they would let me back into the library.

I didn't want it to be intimidating.

What did you do to deserve a ban?

[DisgruntledMoth]

(Original post by MSB)
I didn't want it to be intimidating.

What did you do to deserve a ban?

Nothing purposeful. It wasn't even my can of Sprite that got knocked over - people shouldn't leave their books in piles on the floor.

Who still drinks Sprite, anyway?

[hobnob]

(Original post by Ploop)
Yes, I don't dispute that; I agree with the idea behind the list. It just seems illogical of me to go against the very point of a PS and refrain from mentioning your favourite books/authors for fear that half of the other applicants has mentioned them too, which seems to be Ascient's point.

Oh, I agree. To be honest, I don't see why tutors would be so terribly impressed by the fact that someone managed to find and read something obscure anyway. An awful lot of the texts you'll actually read during an English degree are obvious ones, after all. And if something is very obscure, there's a decent chance the tutor won't know it either...

[Ploop]

(Original post by Ascient)
I don't disagree with that, but I don't really have a problem with classics as a whole. And there's a difference between staying away from certain books and certain epochs altogether. It's just certain books, of which 1984 is probably the main culprit, are always talked about a lot more in PSs and I would probably veer away from centring my PS around that if there was another book I could talk about. Whether I was genuine about it or not, it's one that's stained by reputation.

If someone was mentioning 1984 merely in passing or as part of a wider point, I might be inclined to agree, but if there's a genuine interest in 1984 and they would otherwise have written about it, I'd encourage them to continue to do so. Writing on post-colonial theory, deconstructionism or mentioning some relatively obscure book might suggest an advancement in reading breadth that is lacking in the other candidate, but doesn't necessarily suggest a better aptitude for the degree at hand.

Anyway, I think this is one matter that we'll have to agree to disagree on and I think the divide in opinion is quite healthy since it shows prospective candidates that there's no defined content or way of writing a good PS for English.

[Ascient]

(Original post by Ploop)
If someone was mentioning 1984 merely in passing or as part of a wider point, I might be inclined to agree, but if there's a genuine interest in 1984 and they would otherwise have written about it, I'd encourage them to continue to do so. Writing on post-colonial theory, deconstructionism or mentioning some relatively obscure book might suggest an advancement in reading breadth that is lacking in the other candidate, but doesn't necessarily suggest a better aptitude for the degree at hand.

Anyway, I think this is one matter that we'll have to agree to disagree on and I think the divide in opinion is quite healthy since it shows prospective candidates that there's no defined content or way of writing a good PS for English.

Yeah, on reflection, I was probably being too cynical and contrived. To the dismay of your last paragraph, I may go back and edit my first post. I do believe in talking about what you've enjoyed and have a genuine passion in- it's certainly the main thing- but I just can't help but think how banal a PS statement about something like 1984 is, and feel you may be inadvertently punished for that.

Certainly I wasn't advocating digging into the depths of history to find a book that only 16 people in the universe have ever read!

[MSB]

(Original post by DisgruntledMoth)
Nothing purposeful. It wasn't even my can of Sprite that got knocked over - people shouldn't leave their books in piles on the floor.

It sounds terribly unjust. I'm sure you could appeal to their kindness. Besides, are they really that vigilant at checking, or did they do something mean like cancel your card?

(Original post by Ploop)
I think the divide in opinion is quite healthy since it shows prospective candidates that there's no defined content or way of writing a good PS for English.

Oh, well done.

[Prince-Myshkin]

'subscribed' - good work MSB

[alecangeltess]

This is good, but I really haven't read that much general stuff.
I just read what I enjoy. The stuff on my PS is stuff I enjoy.
Due to me not reading all this stuff, is that it for Oxford? Ka-phut? Dream over?

[MSB]

(Original post by alecangeltess)
This is good, but I really haven't read that much general stuff.
I just read what I enjoy. The stuff on my PS is stuff I enjoy.
Due to me not reading all this stuff, is that it for Oxford? Ka-phut? Dream over?

No. Reading any amount of the books on the list will improve your general awareness of the English canon and will come in useful in undergraduate study, as it's more than likely you will come across many of the texts during your course. However, admissions to Oxford, or any other university, is not a 'reading test', and ticking off all the books on my list does not mean you're guaranteed a place anywhere.

If you look over the discussion previously in this thread, the main advice to come out of it was precisely what you said yourself: read what you enjoy.

[LostHorizons]

(Original post by alecangeltess)
This is good, but I really haven't read that much general stuff.
I just read what I enjoy. The stuff on my PS is stuff I enjoy.
Due to me not reading all this stuff, is that it for Oxford? Ka-phut? Dream over?

If not reading all that means that Oxford is a definite no-go, I think most people that apply would be pretty screwed. Either that or I've severely underestimated the amount of reading most people have done by the time they apply =/

[alecangeltess]

Thanks you two.
I worry too much. God knows what I'm going to be like on the eve of the ELAT.

[LostHorizons]

(Original post by alecangeltess)
Thanks you two.
I worry too much. God knows what I'm going to be like on the eve of the ELAT.

Don't worry, I'm the same. I should stop worrying about all things Oxford and get on with my PS at the moment, it's still terrible and I'm scared that other people seem to have almost finished theirs.