I've written a grant proposal for my second book project. I've gotten a couple of people to put their eyes to it and give me some suggestions (thanks, Squadratomagico & T!). I have my first presentation on it in a couple of weeks.
And guess what? It feels facile. I have an idea that seems neat in the proposal, but I have no earthly clue if or how the result is going to say something really new. And that's terrifying.
Part of this, I know, is the result of being at the beginning of a project, barely into the new sources, both primary and secondary. Part of it is due to having just finished a project that managed to make a pretty original argument about a worked-over topic. So I keep plugging away at it, knowing that my real inspiration for the last project didn't come until I worked on it for several years.
I know these things. So why doesn't that knowledge make me feel any better?**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** Oh, but you know what does make me feel better? As of today, I'm back on the bike!
14 comments:
Because what you're feeling isn't intellectual or rational. It's a feeling! Fortunately, you have good intellectual backup (in the form of the things you've written here, and in the tangible form of your first book!) that can help you keep going despite the feeling--and that maybe will even let you look at the feeling and see where it comes from.
Dr. S., you're totally my Yoda. Thanks.
Facile is GOOD! Anyhoo, my experience is that people are pretty much the worst judges of the significance, innovation, and impact of their own work. So put the shitte out there and you'll see what other people have to say about itte.
What Dr. S. and CPP said. I think CPP is right that getting it out there, talking it up, and seeing what other people have to contribute is the best way to develop new ideas and generate interest in your new project.
I find that doing conferences and presentations is a great way to boost my own interest in a project, which of course flags from time to time. We would all do well to imitate CPP's aggressive style of getting it all out there, seeing what sticks to the wall, and using that information to amend and improve our grants and papers/books for the future.)
You have lots of fresh ideas already, and it only gets better over time. You certainly can give a great presentation now!
I understand the feeling, though -- I think many of us have been there. I've been working on my second project for ... well, for longer than I like to contemplate, actually, and I think it's only in the last two *months* that I actually figured out what it really was about; only in the last three weeks I've experienced writing it as exciting, rather than rote. (Remember my last blog entry?) Things come together -- they just take their own sweet time!
And you certainly have a great start, with a creative topic and a workable strategy to explore it.
Thank you, all. I think this is probably something that I'll always struggle with, but I will also keep taking notes, writing, and plugging away at it until inspiration clonks me on the head again.
When I give seminars or conference presentations, I always talk about stuff still in its developmental stages. That is much more fun and rewarding than talking about stuff that is already finished, and it provides the benefits of getting an informal initial peer review before the formal peer review of grants and manuscripts. Based on this early peer feedback, we can tune our approaches and anticipate later reviewer concerns.
It's also much more fun for the audience. Why would they wanna spend an hour listening to me blather on about some published shitte that they could read in five minutes?
Exactement. The dumbest conference presentation I ever saw was a d00d who rambled on in an incoherent fashion for 20 minutes about his subject and then announced that "if you want to read more about this, please take a copy of my recent article just out in the Journal of Douchehat History," and started flinging out photocopies into the audience.
I have heard that in some humanities disciplines, a "presentation" is usually some asshole standing up in front of the room and literally reading one of their published papers out loud. Is this true?
CPP & Historiann, you're right, and this is precisely why I agreed to give this presentation: because by the time I'm confident about it, I won't need the help that a presentation will be able to give me.
And yes, CPP, this is what we do. Two weeks from Friday, I will be the asshole.
You're really gonna stand in front of the room and read a paper out loud?
Much of it, though not all -- some will be extemp. But the read paper is the custom of the country.
What a fucken nightmare. I can't imagine a worse way to convey complex information in spoken form. Would you be expelled from your discipline if you gave a conversational talk, instead of reading out loud?
While we don't read papers out loud in the natural sciences, there are relatively standardized formats for seminars and conference presentations. I tend to eschew those standardized formats and do something unexpected, and I invariably get very positive feedback for not just doing the same fucken shitte that everyone else does.
Back on the bike is great news! There is nothing like simple pedaling for generating ideas. I savor my daily ride to and from campus because its so quiet and relaxing, and I can let my mind wander.
Post a Comment