This is more of a self-indulgent mope than a plea for help - I know there aren't that many historians on here. :-(

I had feedback for a chapter today, and whilst my sups think it is well written, uses a good range of sources, and has some origniality - they point out that it lacks a clear chronology and thus a strong historicised element. Before my panel in early October I have to address this problem. They've pointed this out before, I am know I need to address it. I just find it so hard.

I don't understand it. I'm a historian who can't historicise! :-( ;-)

I can get together interesting material and write it up well enough - I just need to form a historical argument. I have great material and I just need to form it into a meta-narrative.

Well off to get the felt pens and graph paper....timelines here we come.

Time to get

Hi - no real advice for you, I'm afraid, but just wanted to chime in to say that I think this is something that a lot of historians deal with in one way or another. In fact, last chapter I got told off for going too far the other way and it being too much of a straight historical narrative. At the moment I am turning it into an article and structuring it so it works both thematically and chronologically is a complete nightmare that is making me lose sleep! I think it is something that only comes with practice and something even my supervisor has confided that he has real trouble with - and he's a professor!

So, I know the feeling. And probably so does every historian out there! I know that doesn't make it any easier, but...

Thanks for your historian solidarity!