....I by chance today found 2 works that refer to sources I wanted to use to make a conference posterr and a chapter in my thesis. Luckily my paper I have written before is safe - but I am going to have to spend all weekend trying to think how I can approach and intepret things differently for my conference paper and thesis chapter. At least I found out now. But I still feel as though I have swallowed a bottle of laxatives - totally drained and empty.

It seems like for the early modern period because so few sources are extant that people just pour all over them...

I know how you feel, because it happened to me two weeks ago! I would recommend you to look at this with a detached attitude though. Read these two publications back and your primary source again. Often, things are misinterpreted, or even more often, some crucial information have been omitted. Other documents/publications can contribute to change perspective on a particular aspect of your research. Don't call it off too quickly. In my little experience I found out that a good number of publications are not accurate and therefore there is always room for improvement. Even in those written by big names. Bon Courage!

I already have it in my mind how I can potentially approach these sources differently and more throughly - and I'll sit down this weekend and start putting things on paper. Deep breath.

Thank you.

You are very welcome. Trust me, sometimes you need very little to make a useful contribution. In my case, the author of the article had published the entire document I was looking for, except for half a sentence...that was crucial to my argument! And that little thing changed the outcome of my research quite substantially.
I am sure that you will manage to turn this problem into a good piece of work. Good Luck!

Well, I think it happens all the times in the humanities... It depends obviously on the area but there are not a lot of manuscripts or documents left unstudied!

Earlier this month I discovered an article which seemed to cover about 40% of the chapter I'm writing now - I was slightly disappointed but when I read it, it turned to be very useful:

1) The chronological scope of this paper was wider than that of my chapter, so it provided me with a sort of historical background.

2) I discovered that, from my primary documentation, I had gathered a rather larger number of facts than those mentioned in the paper.

3) My interpretation of the same facts was only partially coincidential - so in a sense some of my thoughts on the subjects were confirmed, but I felt I still had enough room to develop my own ideas.

Hope something similar happens to you as well!

Hi Chrisrolinski,

just wanted to share an experience regarding poster presentation. Recently went to the Quality and Safety Forum in Health Care in Barcelona. People presented their poster. What struck was that the things which were presented were not "Great ideas", on the contrary often very down to eart and not by definition new. Quite a few people in the audience could quote similar and better studies yet the presenters were praised for their work and not criticised.

May be that helps to put things into perspective

Thank you all of you.

Nimrod81: I have begun to draw up a list on how I plan to make my treatment of the 'same' subject different. I'm planning at trip to the BL in two weeks time to look at the same sources, and find some 'new' ones too. My supervisor has consoled me and told me it is all in my interpretation. So I feel less devastated now. I guess I just worry about the whole 'originality' and PhD thesis thing.

I just want at least part of it to use sources not used before - but this is probably naive. As you said - in Barcelona they were sensible contributions....