I'm applying for Another Prestigious Fellowship. It wants me to submit many, many things. Among them is a dissertation abstract and an abstract of my proposed research. That's all well and good.
Here's the tricky part.
This fellowship explicitly says that the proposed research plan is expected to be a revision of the dissertation into a book manuscript. Great. That's awesome! I could use some time off the tenure clock to whip that bad boy into shape.
But since they've already got an abstract of my dissertation, what the hell am I supposed to tell them in my research proposal? Do I need to find a page's worth of exposition that boils down to:
My dissertation is sweet, so I'm going to make it a book. Revisions and editing will probably take a while.I mean, I'm pretty far along in the dissertation process (I think). I know what each chapter is about and I've got about half of the damned thing written. But can I explain how I'm going to revise portions that I haven't written yet? Am I expected to?
Do I just give a list of things I'd like to incorporate but don't have time to currently?
"More footnotes. More articles in French. That'll take three years, right?"So, if any of you have advice on what the hell a proposal like this is supposed to consist of, by all means - chime in.
4 comments:
Will you need to add a chapter to the front or back to broaden its historical scope? That is what an editor mentioned to me might be in my case, although it was more of a "you might expect this as a revision comment; would you be willing to do that if you went with us?"
Other than that ... eh? Maybe Germano's _From Dissertation to Book_ will give you some brilliant ideas for describing extending and revising the diss.
PS: good luck!
I've been told to have 1-2 more chapters waiting in the wings to turn a diss into a book, but also that it's a significant change in tone. Here's a link to a section from the book Sisyphus mentioned -- I thought it was pretty helpful. If you think about it, your diss is aimed at proving you know all the critics you should know while adding something. I'm sure your addition is brilliant (because I know you) and witty (because I've seen you make references to modern rappers/musicians in various papers and get away with it). So you probably suffer from Encyclopedia-itis less than others. But it's still good to keep in mind that the audience for a monograph is semi-experienced, or just not your diss director. I think the major bit of advice I've heard is simply that books are longer and yet more coherent/compact.
If you learn any great secrets on this front, do let the rest of us know, yes?
Hey Harker,
Long time reader, first time commenter :P
I'd recommend having a look at books that have started out as dissertations, and then hunt down the original dissertation on Proquest vel sim. for some sweet comparing and constrasting action. It seems to me that dissertations have to include a whole bunch of crap to establish the foundation of one's argument, whereas a book can assume more knowledge on the reader's part.
Or perhaps you might end up focusing the book on a particularly strong chapter. Diana Spencer's "Roman Alexander", for example, bears little resemblance to her original Cambridge dissertation which was a study of Curtius Rufus. I think she figured a study of the cultural myth of Alexander would have more appeal/sell better than a historiographical study of the relatively unpopular Curtius.
So yeah...hope this helps?!
Bonam fortunam! Dylan x
Sisyphus - Huh. These are good suggestions. Direction! I have it!
Procris - Ah, yes - the change in audience. Another good point. It would be nice to have an audience of 5+, wouldn't it? And you're far too kind regarding the quality of my writing, but I'll take it and bask in the compliments like warm sun. Thank you. :)
Dylan - Glad to finally hear from you! If I had more time (read: more than 36 hours) I would totally check out some of those comparisons... The transformation of Spencer's dissertation is informative, though. Thanks!
Post a Comment