Here’s the problem that I am facing. When I started what is now my book project over a decade ago, I didn’t really know what I was doing. I certainly wasn’t thinking: I am writing a book that needs to have a coherent location in a field of scholarship. I just discovered a topic I was interested in and started working on it.
I started noticing a particular theme in literature, let’s call it: the theme of Short People. I started paying attention to Short People in various works of literature in a certain time period and developed an argument about the representation of Short People and, voila! A dissertation.
Meanwhile, around the same time, a new school of thought was emerging, let’s call it Shortness Studies. So, by the time I finished my dissertation, I needed to be able to situate my study of Short People within Shortness Studies — but Shortness Studies was a fairly new area and it wasn’t that difficult to get a grasp on its main points.
As I continued to tinker away at my study of Short People over the years — sporadically, with various degrees of interest and enthusiasm, and generally distracted by other pressing responsibilities like teaching — I grew rather dissatisfied with my take on Short People. Eventually I noticed that, while I thought I was studying Short People, I was actually studying Short People Who Wear Shoes! Imagine my surprise! But, the introduction of the Shoe Paradigm suddenly gave my book a new and useful framework; I was able to visualize the entire project in a new way.
Unfortunately, I also recognized that there was an entire body of criticism surrounding People Who Wear Shoes. A large, long-standing, rather bulky body of criticism about which I knew nothing. So, in order to finish my book, I gave myself a crash course in People Who Wear Shoes criticism — but, let’s face it, I don’t know that much. I’ve never studied or taught People Who Wear Shoes criticism. I haven’t envisioned myself as working in this field before so none of my book is really oriented towards it.
One of the critiques I received about my introduction is that I treat People Who Wear Shoes criticism rather superficially and I need a more substantial engagement with it. I don’t find this criticism surprising but I am feeling completely defeated by trying to address it.
Because, let’s face it, I don’t give a shit about People Who Wear Shoes criticism. It hasn’t played any role in my thinking over the many years that I’ve been laboring on this project. I am only writing about it now because I need to — so that I can deflect all the critics who would take one look at my project and say, “But, how does it relate to People Who Wear Shoes criticism??”
Not only do I not care about People Who Wear Shoes criticism, I don’t have time to try to learn more about it. It’s completely overwhelming, this massive school of thought that I could spend years getting a hang of.
So what’s an overworked, overwhelmed, depressed scholar supposed to do? I’ve tried being fiercely optimistic and just barrelling ahead. I’ve tried crying into my pillow. I’ve sent myself back to the library to read more People Who Wear Shoes criticism. I’ve thrown People Who Wear Shoes criticism across the room because it is just so freaking dense and useless. I’ve tried writing more generalities — and then erased them. I’ve tried writing more specifics and realized that I don’t know what the hell I’m writing about.
Fair to say: Today I’m feeling stuck and frustrated.

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 20, 2008 at 9:44 pm
squadratomagico
Oooh, I once blogged about my work using the device of “Short Men Playing Bagpipes” — we assign similar cloaking devices to our research!
Can you position your work as contiguous to Shoe Studies, yet not actively participating in dialogue with Shoe Studies? That is, acknowledge that aspects of your work have been informed by this subfield, but also suggest that it’s a lateral influence, one that casts some extra light on certain chapters or arguments, but that is not the governing paradigm illuminating the whole book. I imagine, given what you say, that you will have to demonstrate some familiarity with the major contours of this critical school, but perhaps you don’t need to know every little intervention and argument that exists in that field in detail.
November 20, 2008 at 10:48 pm
bsgirl
I knew I had borrowed that from someone but I couldn’t remember who. So, Tip O’ The Hat to Squadratomagico for her clever conceit!
I’m thinking about your advice: how to achieve contiguous-ness that is still thorough without being exhaustive. Hmmm …
November 21, 2008 at 12:42 pm
historiann
I agree with Squadratomagico on this. In some ways, when subfields like Shoe Studies get really big and well-developed, it’s easier. You can just cite the top 4-5 titles in your footnote as “for example,” and move along, can’t you?
You have identified one of the big struggles in completing a massive project like a dissertation revision. In my sub-field in history, it’s typical for this to take 7 years from Ph.D. date to publication as a book. So, when you include at least 3-4 years writing a dissertation, that’s 10-11 years of historiography to keep up with and incorporate beyond the historiography that informed the original framing and conceptualization of the project. At some point, I think, all authors have to just say, “OK, I’m not reading anything else. This thing needs to go to bed NOW and I’ll just have to live with the consequences.”
It’s much easier when you write a post-dissertation book. You’re freer in many ways to do what you want–in part, because your first book has established you as an authority in your field, so you get more leeway I think. (At least, that’s the fond hope I’m clinging to at this point in my career.) Good luck!
November 21, 2008 at 8:53 pm
bsgirl
Thanks for both your advice. It actually was very helpful for me today as I was continuing to struggle with this section of the introduction; I felt like I had been given permission by two brilliant and accomplished scholars to not feel like I had to be an expert on EVERYTHING but to stake out the area of my interest and expertise. I’m not sure I’ve quite accomplished it yet but the work didn’t feel as impossibly difficult today as it did yesterday. So, thank you.
November 22, 2008 at 7:27 pm
historiann
Glad it helped, but please: no more flattery. If you knew me in RL you would be SO unimpressed.
Good luck with your book! It sounds like you’re almost there.