At the Threshold

I am approaching an important milestone on the way to my defense and completing my dissertation. In six days, I will hold my final seminar, where a competent reviewer will go through my text and provide a public critique. This serves as a kind of dress rehearsal for the actual defense.

I have a reliable reader, so I feel relatively confident. However, the goal of the seminar is to identify issues that can be addressed before everything is finalized. In addition to my main reader, I also have a professional philosopher reviewing the sections of my dissertation that deal with phenomenology, ensuring I receive solid criticism from that perspective as well.

These past few days, I’ve been reading through my manuscript from beginning to end. I’m finding numerous errors—typos, changes that weren’t made correctly, missing images and illustrations—small things that can be fixed. But larger concerns about the overall structure and my reasoning trouble me more. For instance, I discuss a specific art historical issue, problems with composition in three-dimensional images, and I revisit this example several times in different places, each time exploring its relevance to video games in different ways—or at least I believe I do. I’m unsure whether this approach effectively develops the argument or if I’m simply repeating myself.

I’m also thinking a lot about how the three parts of my dissertation fit together. The third part, in particular, still feels quite short. Should I expand it, or is it a reasonable conclusion that ties everything together?

I’m dreaming about this text now. It occupies my thoughts day and night, and I’m completely absorbed in it. Everyone tells me this is normal, that it's natural to see only problems and mistakes when you're deep into your own work, but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating. I want it to work, I want to be understood, because I believe I have a valuable perspective and a new, useful approach to experiencing video games.