I think that literature has the capacity to be both beautiful and useful. The first is reason enough to want to study English Literature: Yeats’ employ of Aristotelian wit, by finding the similar in the dissimilar, with Byzantium’s “dolphin-torn, that gong-torn sea” is interesting enough and complex enough to merit avid study. I want to know why it makes me think of a red-purple sea with the dull, muted brown sun beaming down casting amber light on wine dolphins. The imagery is alcoholic and the ability to conjure that effect out of a subconscious part of the reader is a beautiful thing deserving of study.
	The utility is two-fold; I think in the heart of most critics is the want to be able to do. I think there is a hope that understanding the crafts of others might help you forge your own. The second aspect of me comes with a disgusting confession; I agree with the middle-Victorian critic Matthew Arnold; I think that criticism as a form of social commentary can be more important the and political engaging than the text itself. Brecht’s writings on his own work are a prime example of the “current of fresh and new ideas” that have a larger influence on the world than the text itself. This thesis, which I cannot do justice in an essay-proper let alone a short 100 words, is why I think that criticism specifically is useful; that it is often of more social and political significance than the texts that inspire it. (especially if we get into the cycle of previous zeitgeists causing current ones)
	I could spin my interest in the modern period as an extension of the Arnoldian belief that it would be most useful. However, I read a paper that explained Shakespeare’s The Tempest as an environmentally conscious play illustrating both the brutal power of nature and man’s need to defend it. The honest answer is that I just like the modern period more. I enjoy the prose more, and I feel more at ease with the settings. Devoid of ability to find the similar in the dissimilar; familiarity is a better compass to meaning for me.
And now we finally touch on why Glasgow’s course in particular; as testament to your ability to self-advertise I am going to parrot back what you have listed as the course’s strengths. The ‘research-led teaching’ means that I could explore new vogue of vulgarity and intentional ‘badness’ I’m certain has implications beyond being ‘edgy’. The “theoretically informed approaches” is good because I find, as I have said, theory to be as interesting and more essential to promoting social good as the text that it inspires and draws, like a letting-knife, inspiration from. Parasitic or humor-curing, the theory is what I find most captivating. The final draw is that Glasgow seems a nice city filled with interesting people.
	To put it concisely: I want to continue my study in the field of English Lit because it combines beauty and utility. I have chosen Glasgow because I trust you advertising.