First post here from the department's newest ABD (I've supplanted Tim as the baby of this little academic family). I passed my area exam on Nov 19th, and I've spent the last 10 days trying to get the muscles in my neck to relax (without much luck, by the way - apparently several consecutive months of stress will do that to you).
My primary area was about performance issues in Renaissance Drama in general. I used information from the plays to describe what it might have been like to go to the theater, but I'm actually more interested in what it was like to be on the production side - e.g. Shakespeare vs Jonson and their attendant problems (indoor vs outdoor venue, adult vs boy company). My second area was on manners, using various courtesy books / manuals and manners in the plays to talk about ideas of etiquette and virtue (or lack thereof). For me, acting styles (which is one of my greater passions) and social etiquette are intimately linked (not so much for my examiners).
Here's where my head is, currently, on an idea for my diss: at this moment in England, we have for the first time the rise of a profession theater and thus professional actors. At the same time, we have the rise of a strong courtly culture. It seems to me that both of these cultures are based around performance and perhaps that is one of the reasons that so many plays are about the court (and flattery and disguise) - actors and courtiers are essentially the same kind of animal, and actors can speak to the issues of performance at court, perhaps better than courtiers would want to admit. I think that, in fact, actors are offering an alternate system of behavior. So, for example, courtiers want to conceal how hard they are working while actors want to show it. And I think there's an argument to be made that theater professionals were often more successful than courtiers (compare, for example, Shakespeare's end - wealthy, given a coat of arms - to poor John Lyly's - poverty-stricken and begging for any kind of preferment to no avail.)
For me, this all connects to one of the fundamental rifts in performance studies - what does performance actually mean? For courtiers, it's what they do all the time; for actors, it's what they do onstage. (Full disclosure: As a person coming from a theater / performer background, I find the desire to think about what we do in everyday life as "performance" to be a little insane.) I think my biggest theoretical touchstone will be Joseph Roach (he wrote "The Player's Passion").
And I think my biggest dissertation hurdle is going to be getting someone to agree to head up my committee. I spoke to Jenny Spencer the other day (she was on my areas committee) and she basically told me that I'm going to have to write a chapter before anyone will even agree that the argument works. And if I could get it published, that would be even better. Oy.
So that's that for now. I'm enjoying eveyone's posts and am already getting tips to help me rethink my methods. It's greatly appreciated!
We read and we read and we read, and then we write.
About Us
We are UMass-Amherst English PhD students in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, those writing in Amherst and those who have deserted Amherst to dissert elsewhere.
4 comments:
Congratulations, Ann!!! Woohoo!
Sounds like you're well on your way to the dissertation. Bummer about your advisor situation. I hope our little commmunity can at least make being advisorless less lonely, if not offer some helpful support.
Congratulations Ann. Great news!
In regard to the advisor/chapter situation, I find it a little hard to believe that no one will work with you until you write a chapter. In my experience, that's hogwash.
The next step for you is the Prospectus - an infuriating genre - and that was the moment when I began to articulate what my diss project might look like and the moment when I began collecting advisors. Kinney will agree to anything, but he will be no help. Joe will likely need more information before jumping on board. Jane and Adam are the two "theater" people who may be able to help.
Do what I did: ask them individually out to a beer/coffee and run the ideas by them. Think of it as an "informational interview." You can get a gauge quickly as to their interest, and figure out if you'll want to later ask them to be on the committee.
Another thing to consider: much will change between now and then. My prospectus barely resembles what I am now writing; Adam was initially on my committee, but then I replaced him with Joe (nothing personal, just better alignment of interests and training).
best of luck
Thanks for the welcome and suggestions!
Kevin, I know you're right about meeting with them but I actually don't know Jane or Joe at all - I never took a class with either of them. Adam is, in fact, *the* perfect person for this diss, interest- and scholarship-wise, but he and I have strong disagreements - perspectives, methods, feelings about the world in general - which were apparent in my area exams (that's where Jenny's advice came from, I think).
Opinions: Should I just be upfront with Adam and tell him my concerns about working with him? Or should I just tell him my idea and see if his response makes me depressed (which has happened in the past)? Other ideas?
BTW, does Wanda have sample Prospecti, like she does for the rationales? This genre is a complete mystery to me.
Joe and Jane are both great, and I imagine would be happy to talk with you (especially next semester after they get unburied from the current one). Chatting with them at lectures or other events might be a good way to introduce yourself and open the door to scheduling an appointment.
As far as the prospectus goes, what profs will accept varies from person to person. When Nick was grad director, he recommended writing a "zero draft" at the beginning, and then writing a couple chapters before turning it in. His idea of a prospectus seemed to outline the argument each chapter would make. At my exam, Joe said his prospectus was one sentence (and it sounded like he might sign off on a similar prospectus). Most advice I got said to talk to your primary advisor about the prospectus.
A third way to talking with Adam might be to discuss how he sees the advisor/advisee relationship, separate from the particulars of your ideas. He may or may not be opposed to advising someone who takes a different approach, and his advising strategies may or may not work in your particular case. He might be a fantastic second reader to push you to support and develop your arguments in ways you wouldn't ordinarily think of. I think your decision depends mostly on what you want from your advisor. (Joan Bolker's Writing Your Dissertation in 15 Minutes a Day has a great section on choosing a committee).
A last question for all: should we make this blog viewable only by contributors? Right now it's open to the public.
Post a Comment