Solid Beginning Draft

One of the Little Critter titles I read to my daughter all the time is "I Just Forgot." And I just forgot to do a blog post for this week... I think not having class threw me off.

I've been working hard on my PhD applications, to get them done by the end of November. This includes a writing sample, statement(s) of purpose, and the usual online application business. The reason this pertains to our class, and my thesis, is that I'm using what will become my thesis for the writing sample. So while I don't have a really strong proposal at the moment, I have something of a draft. And I'm pretty happy with it. It's 14 pages in its current state before the conclusion which I've yet to write. I think I could stretch it to maybe 18-20.

So I'm trying to figure out whether I can actually get to 40-60 pages without obfuscating the argument or convoluting the flow. I'm thinking of what I talked to Dr. Christie about in our conference... Maybe I can add a second part (or a first part, and have this be the second part), where I give more theoretical context ("Spatial Theory" is the term we were looking for, Dr. Christie.) Then I could close by tying my arguments on Emily Dickinson into the body of that theoretical conversation.

Is this a good idea, or will it make my thesis too broad? I feel like I'd be at my absolute limit at 25 pages with the argument I'm interested in making. Any suggestions on how to enhance the argument by taking it in another direction without taking on too much or losing the focus on Emily Dickinson?

Strides

This week I made some small movements in the development of my argument, but I have made pretty big strides in clarity. I feel I have been trying to anticipate Dickinson's intentions. Even the former title of my paper suggests it: "Traversing Spiritual Space in Emily Dickinson's Prayer Poems" I feel as thought that is something I have tried to do as well as explain... act as a sort of guide through ED's poems, in order to elucidate an aspect of them I feel has been largely overlooked. So I've put some distance between myself and my subject. The new title is "Spatiality in Emily Dickinson's Prayer Poems." So with my new approach, I've tried to explain what I mean by spatiality, and demonstrate how ED establishes it. That's it. I have a bit more of a "so what" paragraph towards the end of my introduction, but this is essentially what I'm going to argue. I think I was overreaching before. So I'm seeing a direct relationship between the size of my claim and the amount of stress I feel. When I step back and try to accomplish less (not be less awesome, just more controlled), I feel more confident that I can make it happen. Sounds like common sense, but it's been a lesson I've struggled to learn since the 4th grade, and will continue to struggle with for the rest of my life, I'm sure.

Right now I'm in the middle of getting my PhD applications together. I plan on submitting an excerpt of what will become my thesis as my writing sample. I'm interested in the different approach I feel I would take towards the paper, depending on my end goal. When I was working on my conference presentation, I was less formal and less concerned with engaging secondary sources. This writing sample is more polished, more professional, and slightly more academic. When I finally put my thesis into full gear, I'm going to need more engagement with secondary sources. But I think I will also have a little more room to explore. I don't know if that's true or not. Whatever, I'm writing this at 11:30 PM.

Methodology

The methodology class on Wednesday kind of messed me up. I appreciated Dr. Christie going around to help everyone figure out this part of their proposal. I'm still not sure what my methodology is. My methodology is informed by my ultimate goal, isn't it? If my goal is to argue similarities between two texts, I would compare the texts to one another. Sure. My goal isn't so concrete as that, though. At this point, all I really want to do is bring a certain aspect of Emily Dickinson's prayer poems to attention. That's it. How do I do that? By analyzing the poems, I guess? By deconstructing the poems? I'm not sure, but isn't that the same exact thing as just doing a close reading? Is that seriously what I'm trying to do? If so... ugh. It doesn't feel like that is what I'm trying to do. What I think I'm trying to do is push against the standard criticisms of Dickinson's relationship to God and religion. I feel like they are missing something, something that would enhance our understanding of Dickinson as a poet. How would it enhance it? That's the part I'm afraid I'm gonna botch. I'm not sure. So if I can't even explain what it is I'm doing, how in the world can I actually try to explain how it is I'm going to do what I'm going to do? It's aggravating.