HopefulElephant

As everyone here knows, graduate school can be incredibly isolating. The people we can go to for help often aren't much help for whatever reason (advisors, the DGS, other graduate students). Lately, I've been struggling with anxiety about the dissertation. In the spring, if everything goes as planned, I'll be finishing my work for my orals exam and then embark on writing the dissertation in the fall. This is terrifying to me because I worry about being left alone to figure out what the hell a dissertation should actually look like and how to make sure I'm productive enough to write one. Of course everyone has their own way of going about things, but it's been hard to find general information (besides looking at examples of dissertations and guessing on how they came into fruition). At any rate, does anyone have any advice on how to write a dissertation (for a PhD in literature)? I'm looking for readings guides (are there books out there on how to write a dissertation that I am unaware of?) or general advice on how people progressed from chapter to chapter. For example, I recently talked to someone about how she completed her dissertation and she said she considered each chapter as if she was writing two seminar papers together and splicing them with an introduction/conclusion. This made each chapter seem less scary, but I also wonder if this is a good approach. Does anyone else have other strategies for how to conceive of what a dissertation chapter should look like? Also, I'm worried about time to completion. I'm at the point where I want to get out in five years or less (finishing my third year this year). The same person who gave me advice on writing a dissertation chapter finished her dissertation in one year (after coursework--so 4 years total). She said she wrote 5 days a week non-stop. She didn't wait for her committee to approve of everything step by step, but instead used an editing service and made sure she was giving them good enough work quick enough so that she had stamina and they were less likely to stop her. This seems particularly risky because who wants to write a lot and have it turned down? But it also seems smart because there is something to the idea of just keeping going at all costs and revising later. She said her committee said something like "this could be revised, but you can save that for the book anyway." Thoughts? I just really hate the "sink or swim" attitude of academia. I think the idea that you have to suffer alone is terrible and should be changed. Perhaps that seems off topic, but basically I'm trying to figure out how others complete the dissertation in general, but also how to complete it without going insane. In the title of this post I included "reading advice" since I'm doing reading for the oral exams. I'm having a hard time completing things quickly. I assume the answer is skim skim skim, but since I can't get myself to skim, all I wind up doing is looking at all the piles of books and feeling stressed that I'll never complete them (i.e. I'm basically doing nothing right now). HELP!

Thanks for the suggestion, rising_star. I've thought about going that route (keeping her on till after my lists). But, the way that she does the lists is that I have to write four mini papers, have four meetings with her (rumor is that they're like interrogations) and then have to pass my oral exam. I just don't see how I'll make it through, just on a psychological level.

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but this whole scenario is so depressing. I can't help but keep thinking that all of my options are sucky. I guess deep down I don't want to give up studying the 19th century. I've been so negatively affected by this person on my committee that I'm willing to give it up, and I just hope I won't regret it down the line. I just keep turning all the different scenarios over and over again in my mind. But I guess ultimately I just have to keep going with the degree, and it's better to have a supportive committee. le sigh.

Thank you both for the advice. That was my gut feeling too--get the 19th century person off my committee. I'm not sure what the motive is of the DGS, but I don't see why I can't switch things. I agree, my mental health is the most important. Thank you for reassuring me I'm not insane to want to move my committee in a different direction!

*correction, not "re-arrange my committee" but "replace the one committee member with a new one, as well as have one of the current committee members be the new main advisor"...if that makes sense.

Thanks, serenade. That's exactly it--we all feel like imposters, and I felt like it was confirmed that I am one. At any rate, I have a little bit of an update and would like more advice if anyone has any. As of now, the other people on my committee think my work is fine. I met with someone outside of my committee to see if he was willing to be on it, and he said yes. But, the DGS (who is on my committee, and is married to the person who I want off of my committee) doesn't think I should kick the 19th century person off of my committee. She thinks I should just rearrange the committee so that someone else on the current committee is the main advisor. That would mean that I would still have to do an orals list in the spring with the person I want kicked off, as well as make it through the orals exam, and then as a second reader she could still veto my dissertation chapters in the future. It's causing me so much anxiety to think that she would remain on my committee. I get that I would be switching my area of study, and perhaps the DGS is trying to help me keep studying "what I love," but it seems like I should put my self-worth as the most important thing and just re-arrange my committee. Thoughts?

Yes, I can change advisors. I don't think my topic is super specific, but in a change of advisors I'd be going from studying Victorian literature to studying 18th century literature. I imagine that the 18th century person could help if I wanted to do a chapter on Victorian literature. But it seems like it wouldn't make sense to do an entire dissertation on Victorian literature with the 18th century advisor. At this point, I've mulled it over quite a bit and I'm okay with doing 18th century literature because I care more about the theoretical framework that I'm working with and can do that in any century. So, yes, I can switch advisors...that is if the 18th century person reads my paper and thinks that I am in an okay place to continue with the program. I guess I'm just so shaken up about everything it's hard not to feel like a failure. I mean, if you're advisor tells you to drop out, how can you continue? This doesn't seem like something most grad students face. It's just tough to know what to do.

I'm in my third year of my PhD in English working on my oral lists right now. Unfortunately, my advisor and I are not getting along. She doesn't think my work is up to par, and made it clear that if I don't "learn how to write better" that she worries I will not be ready to move on to the dissertation stage (I have taken this to mean that she thinks I should drop out if I can't prove I'm good enough). She told me this in June. This semester I've been working on a paper to prove to her that I belong here. I'm in a publication workshop led by our department chair, and we've been workshopping this paper all semester. I expressed my concerns about my advisor and my writing to the department chair, and she reassured me that she thinks my writing is on track and that it is PhD level work. Today I met with my advisor after she finally read a full draft of my paper. She hated the paper. She doesn't think that it's where it needs to be. It's hard to tell all the details without talking about the paper, but she basically thinks that it needs a lot of work. And, that's okay with me. I'm okay with getting criticism. What I'm not okay with is the way in which she delivers it--she treats me like I'm dumb. It's almost as if I'm offending her with my bad writing. During our conversation she asked me why I was in grad school and I gave several reasons. She followed up by saying that I should reconsider being in grad school, especially with the job market. She also told me that perhaps her and I are just not on the same page and that perhaps I would work better with someone else. I'm smart enough to know that being told that I should consider dropping out and having an advisor suggest different committee members is pretty much the worse news someone can get in grad school. Clearly I'm doing something wrong. I'm willing to face that. What keeps me going is that other professors like my work. The only issue is that they're not in my direct field of study so I would have to change my focus. I'm willing at this point to do that because I want to finish the degree. I'm sending the same paper I gave to my advisor to two other people to see what they think, and that will largely be my determining factor for staying. At any rate, I guess I'm just curious if this is common--could it just be that my advisor has a different standard and we're just not seeing eye to eye? Or should I drop out like she says? At this point obviously I can't work with this advisor anymore. It's sad because I have to shift my area of study. Oh well. I don't want to be naive or defiant. I don't want to go against my advisor simply because I am invested and am emotional...I just need to get advice from someone outside of my department. Any help would be appreciated.