School of Writing, Literature, and Film

To learn more about getting a “Research Fellow” notation on your official transcript, click here.

SAMPLE ABSTRACTS

Identifying the Non-Realist Novel:  Toward a New Understanding of Generic Fiction

Theorists of the novel form often construct their evaluations under the assumption that the novel is composed of distinctly “realist” fiction. These suppositions remain despite the popularity of fictions that utilize generic conventions such as, horror, romance, and the supernatural. Though the prominence of critical attention for genre fiction has increased, the emphasis on realism in the novel appears largely unchallenged in the examination of 18th and 19th century novels. This paper aims to demonstrate how many of the well-received theories of the novel can, in a lot of ways, dictate which novels receive the most critical attention. Looking at two explicitly generic texts, Love in Excess (1719) by Eliza Haywood and The Bondwoman’s Narrative (approx. 1855) by Hannah Crafts, this paper attempts to align the theories of the novel based on realist works with novels that have generic elements, to see where the theories succeed and where they fail, and what potential inadequacies imply in the greater context of validating work written by or for, marginalized individuals. These two works are compared specifically through the critical framework of Catherine Gallagher’s notions of fictionality, and the content and structure claims of Ian Watt and Georg Lukács.

The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature: A “Humanizing” Approach

The task of aesthetically appreciating natural environments typically tugs contemporary theorists in two directions: the desire to enhance our sensual experience of nature is tempered by the ethical impulse to establish a sense of respect for the planet we inhabit. One philosopher, Yuriko Saito, argues that these drives can be reconciled by imbuing our aesthetic theories with an explicitly moral component, which would affirm the intrinsic value of nature by recognizing its autonomous existence independent of our “humanizing” concepts. But while this is a laudable sentiment, I worry that its fixation on a moral principle, which in itself can be challenged, also runs the risk of restricting further potentialities for meaningful connection with nature. Thus, my critique consists in two claims, namely that 1) our “humanization” of nature cannot be so easily transcended as Saito believes, and that 2) by embracing the humanizing tendencies inherent in our theories we can still rival, if not exceed, the moral impact of Saito’s approach and at the same time strengthen our encounters with nature. The justification of these claims rests in the ability of humans to regard the natural environment not, as Saito intends, as a distinct moral entity, but as something with which they themselves identify in a sense. Though I present my case in specific response to Saito, it entails implications for a variety of larger communities, including environmentalists, aestheticians, and other philosophers. Such connections are illuminated through references to figures like John Muir, Immanuel Kant, and Yi-Fu Tuan.

America First or America Next? Exploring the Anti-Interventionist Response to Infiltration

This work explores the key role of the America First Committee in attempting to prevent American intervention in the Second World War. The correspondence of AFC leaders (such as John Flynn, R. Douglas Stuart, Jr., and Robert Wood) and the rank and file membership of the organization indicates that the anti-interventionist public was as concerned about the potential for pro-Axis infiltration of their political organization as were their interventionist foes. Previous research largely focuses on the intensity of this infiltration and the accuracy of the accusation. This study argues that, regardless of the scope of actual subversion of the AFC, the charge of extremism produced a potent public controversy, and the AFC’s rhetorical response to it was wholly inadequate. This is not merely because the accusation hindered the AFC’s ability to sway an indecisive or hostile public; in certain key instances, such as the recruitment of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh’s Des Moines address, the AFC alienated the anti-interventionist public and divided its own leadership. This failure to marshal the full strength of pro-neutrality feeling in the country demonstrably diminished the AFC’s effectiveness at crucial moments of the intervention debate, and in so doing, contributed to its ultimate political demise.