Oh dear. I’m writing my DAC paper, and I’m at that stage where I have no idea what I’m doing. The abstract looks so interesting, and was cleverly constructed to use stuff I’m doing anyway for the blogging book but with a twist – but now I can’t figure out how to get from abstract to paper and I’m worried the abstract looked cool because it’s a small idea that is simply better in brief form. Like blog posts. I’m good at blog posts.

I also had reviews back from the first Very Good Journal I ever submitted an article to. I got a “revise and resubmit for a second round of reviews”, with lots of criticism but also lots of encouragement, and all in all I’m rather happy with it. One of the more amusing (and comforting) criticisms was that the paper didn’t engage enough with current research on blogs and social software, and that I should look at Jill Walker’s work. Heh. Sure, I can do that. Don’t ya love blind reviews? Of course, maybe the reviewer figured out who I was and wanted to be friendly. But I prefer the theory that he/she has no idea who I am. And that’s why I’m not posting the content of this paper or of the DAC paper – I think I’d quite like to preserve whatever blindness there is left to those review processes.

The DAC paper though, currently looks nicely formatted but god knows where it’s going. I try to comfort myself by telling myself that writing always feels like this – and usually it works out fine with perseverence.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “writing is hard”

  1. Jane McG

    Hey Jill! Aww, I am sending lots of empathy as you write your DAC paper. I know exactly what you mean about the leap from abstract to full paper. It can be a really exhausting process. But your work is so awesome and fabulous that I know you will chug chug chug your way to brilliance. I can’t wait to read whatever it is you’re working on!

  2. randompanda

    I’ve been referring to you a lot in my honours thesis – it’s great to know that even you get write’s block and blur 🙂

    and of course, you’ll be amazing

  3. Julianne

    Another hey Jill! with lots of moral support for the FRUSTRATION of writing. I totally concur about not posting certain kinds of works in progress. Let the seedlings grow in private for awhile!! (Also: you know this already, but writing long stuff is all about the REwriting. Slap down something and then move and fix.)

    I too am polishing a DAC paper, hoping to have it done tomorrow, and the problem with mine is that IT WAS OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS and is now no longer interesting. No longer speculation, just a news report you could get anywhere. Science fiction as a whole has this problem (except that ‘we’ got it wrong in lots of cases) so I should be used to it.

    I’m toying with the idea of tossing the whole project and just sitting in the audience, except that would be sulky and I see myself as more the enthusiastic type.

    Ooops, sorry to make this all about me. Hope to see you in Perth!! oxoxox

  4. Jill

    Misery loves company, and I’m glad to have some comfort here in my writing doldrums… the paper is growing and looking more like a paper but still has so many holes and comments in red saying “expand this” and “is this even relevant?” and “what IS my point, anyway?” Sigh.

    Julianne, that’s another issue with the long process of writing – things change. Fast. And sometimes someone’s already written what you started writing – ugh. And I sure hope you don’t chicken out – I seriously considered that too, but really, that’s just me being wimpy. Much better to fight my way through even if the paper doesn’t turn out to be good enough.

    Hope to see you in Perth!

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

screenshot of blogpost from sept 11, 2001, about blogger.com showing blog posts about the attacks
Networked Politics social media

25 years since September 11

I’ve been reading through my blog posts on September 11, 2001 and the days that followed. The things that stand out to me – in addition to the horror of the attack itself – are how massively we (or at least I) used the web to understand what was happening, […]

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]