In this episode, I want to gently dismantle that image, because I don’t think it is consistency at all. I think it is a fantasy. And I think most of us have spent a significant amount of time feeling like failures in relation to a standard that was never real to begin with.

My definition of consistency, arrived at after years of coaching writers and also after years of being a writer who has stared at a blank document wondering how I ended up there again, is this:

Consistency is not sticking to a writing routine perfectly and never getting off track. It is the commitment to return as soon as you can.

That distinction matters more than it might seem at first. I spend time in this episode on the difference between avoidance disguised as busyness and genuine overwhelm that requires triage, because those two things feel different from the inside, even when they look similar from the outside.

I also return to a metaphor I find myself coming back to again and again with clients: the meditation analogy. A meditation practice is not about achieving uninterrupted focus. It is about noticing when your mind has wandered and bringing it back, without drama, without self-flagellation.

Writing consistency works the same way. Returning to your desk after three weeks away carrying a backpack full of shame is not actually productive. The punishment is just another obstacle between you and the sentence.

What I most want you to take from this episode is permission to come back without the accumulated weight of the time you were away. The practices and the structure still matter. And the interruption is not a failure; it is just an interruption. Regardless of the detour, the destination was always there.

Share

Work with Me

And, believe me, I understand that impulse completely. When your book is bound up with tenure, promotion, years of accumulated work, and your sense of whether you actually belong in this field, critique can stop feeling like feedback and start feeling like a verdict.

But peer review was never designed to tell you whether you are a real scholar or whether your project deserved to exist. It is diagnostic. It shows what is working, what has not yet come clear on the page, and what the project might need in order to become what it is trying to be.

In this episode, I also get into something harder: how to work with feedback that feels frustrating, unfair, or even hostile, without either collapsing under it or dismissing it out of hand. Not every reviewer is right. Not every suggestion should be followed.

But even a poorly framed or seemingly off-base comment can sometimes be pointing at something real—a problem of scope, audience, framing, or significance that the reviewer couldn’t quite name, but you, once you stop wincing, might be able to see.

The approach I want to emphasize here is about treating reviewer feedback as information rather than punishment, so you can sort through it with more steadiness and judgment than the first raw read usually allows. In the end, the goal of peer review is to come through it with a clearer, stronger, more intentional book—and with a little more trust in your own capacity to receive hard things and keep writing anyway.

Subscribe now

In today’s episode, I’ll walk through why significance often crystallizes late in the writing process, why vagueness can feel protective, and how to think about the “so what” as something your book makes possible rather than just a gap it fills.

My hope is that this episode helps you stop treating an elusive significance claim as evidence that something is wrong with your project. Sometimes the "so what" is already there, threaded through the work, waiting for you to see it clearly enough to name it and feel confident enough to claim it.

Share

That experience in the gym has an uncanny resemblance to the moment in writing when an argument gets difficult, the structure will not quite settle, and suddenly email, footnotes, or “just a little more reading” starts to look very appealing.

I talk about the difference between real rest and avoidance and why both matter for academic writers. Rest is essential and it is part of how growth happens. But sometimes what looks like rest is actually a retreat from the intellectual discomfort that makes our work stronger. I also reflect on consistency, not as writing every day or meeting some punishing productivity standard, but as the practice of returning to the gym, to the page, and to the hard thing that slowly builds progress over time.

All of this is to say that you can do hard things, and it is the act of doing those hard things that makes the magic happen.

Leave a comment

Related Content

Architect-writers begin with the blueprint, the chapter map, and the planned sequence of ideas. Explorer-writers need to write fragments, follow associations, talk through examples, or spend time with one part of the project before the larger argument becomes visible.

You can read more about the distinctions I’m making here:

If you’re an explorer-writer too, common academic writing advice can make you feel like you’re doing everything wrong, especially when that advice begins and ends with “make an outline.” But struggling to outline at the beginning doesn’t necessarily mean you’re avoiding the work, lacking structure, or failing as a writer. It may mean that writing is how you discover the argument before you can organize it.

In this episode, I discuss a method for still producing structured academic prose without beginning with an outline.

Academic writing still needs to become generous to the reader. Your reader needs a path through the problem, the evidence, the intervention, and the stakes. But the process that helps you find the argument is not always the same as the structure that helps someone else follow it.

So, I walk through a more useful process for explorer-writers: start where there is traction, write to discover, harvest what appears, cluster before sequencing, name the emerging argument, build the reader’s path, and use a reverse outline to refine the structure.

You don’t have to begin as the architect. You can instead begin as the explorer, learning the shape of the terrain as you go.

Share

You can access those posts here:

Today’s episode asks what happens after the tenure sprint is supposedly over.

The promise of tenure is that the pressure will ease, the finish line will hold, and a more spacious academic life will finally become possible. But for many scholars, the habits formed during the pre-tenure years do not simply disappear.

When you spend years working inside ambiguity, trying to discern what will count as “enough,” overproduction can start to feel like the safest answer. Saying yes becomes more than a habit; it becomes part of how you prove you are serious, generous, collegial, and deserving.

I also look at why advice about “just saying no” often misses the deeper problem.

Not everyone has the same freedom to set boundaries without being judged, penalized, or read as insufficiently committed. Service, mentoring, diversity work, and emotional labor often fall unevenly on scholars whose belonging has already been made conditional.

I want to hold both truths together: individual strategies for saying no can matter, especially as acts of self-preservation, but they are not enough on their own. The deeper work is building departments and institutions where labor is transparent, shared, and recognized and where exhaustion is no longer mistaken for commitment.

Share

Here, I offer a different way of thinking about it: a strong conclusion doesn’t just summarize the manuscript. It synthesizes the argument, helps the reader see what the pieces add up to, and makes the stakes of the work clearer.

I also explore how a conclusion can open outward without becoming inflated or vague. That might mean showing what your analysis lets us understand differently, clarifying the broader implications of your argument, or pointing toward questions that emerge from the work in an organic and grounded way. I share how writing the coda to my book helped me see conclusions differently, not as administrative cleanup, but as a genuine space for reflection, interpretation, and extension.

If conclusions have felt dull, frustrating, or difficult to pin down, I hope this episode gives you a more interesting and more useful frame.

Leave a comment

In this episode, I talk about how that belief takes hold, why it’s normal to desire these blocks, and why it reflects a model of academic life that does not match the reality most scholars are living, especially those juggling teaching, service, caregiving, health concerns, and the constant interruptions of institutional life.

I also make the case for a different way of thinking about writing time. Progress does not depend only on having more hours. It depends on matching the kind of time you have to the kind of task in front of you. Not every part of book writing requires the same level of focus or energy. Freewriting, outlining, revising, note-making, and drafting all ask different things of you, and some of them fit surprisingly well into smaller windows.

When I stopped treating “working on the book” as one single activity, I could make meaningful progress in the time I actually had instead of dismissing it as insufficient. That shift changed more than productivity. It changed my relationship to the project itself. The book stopped feeling distant and accusing and started to feel like something I was genuinely in conversation with again.

Share

I walk through three common reasons deadlines keep slipping:

1. Sometimes the work requires a strategy you haven’t developed yet, so the real task is not producing faster but figuring out how to proceed.

2. Sometimes the deadline was built around a fantasy version of your week rather than the one you’re actually living.

3. And sometimes the problem is that the manuscript is asking for a decision you haven’t made yet, so you stay busy without truly moving forward.

What I hope this episode offers is a more useful way to read your own patterns. Instead of treating missed deadlines as a verdict on your character, I want you to see them as information. If you can identify whether you’re dealing with a strategy gap, an unrealistic plan, or an avoided decision, you can make a much better next move. That might mean testing a few approaches before setting a new deadline, planning from the evidence of your real life rather than your ideal week, or writing your way toward the decision the project is demanding.

The goal here is not to become harsher with yourself. It’s to become more accurate so your deadlines can start supporting your work instead of quietly undermining it.

Share

In this episode, I explore why so many scholars blame themselves when a routine falls apart, rather than questioning the assumptions built into the strategy itself. I wanted to name that pattern clearly because I think these breakdowns often reveal far more about the limits of the system than about your commitment or capacity.

I also consider what changes when we stop asking, “What’s wrong with me?” and start asking, “What would actually work for my real life, my real energy, and my real writing process?” I talk about the invisible assumptions built into many productivity systems, why so many of them don’t hold for scholars juggling caregiving, heavy teaching loads, neurodivergence, chronic stress, or writing in an additional language, and why flexibility is not a weakness but a necessary design principle.

If you’ve built up a graveyard of abandoned routines and you’ve started to believe that nothing works for you, I hope this episode offers a gentler and more honest reframe.

Share

perfectionism is a strategy for surviving in environments where the cost of imperfection feels dangerously high…[Furthermore,] perfectionism doesn’t look the same on everyone, because the conditions we’re surviving in aren’t the same. The stakes of imperfection are not distributed equally, and that changes everything about how perfectionism operates, what it’s protecting, and what it costs.

You can read that post here:

Today, I’m taking a similar approach to the podcast by thinking through the structural roots of what we often call imposter “syndrome.”

I explore why so much academic doubt is not a sign that something is wrong with you but a deeply understandable response to working in environments where the rules and conventions are unclear, the feedback is inconsistent, and the expectations keep shifting. If you have ever felt like everyone else got some secret handbook you never received, this conversation is for you.

I draw on Dr. Angélica Gutiérrez’s concept of impostorization, which provides a way of shifting the focus away from individual pathology and toward the structures and practices that make people question their intelligence, competence, and belonging.

Throughout the episode, I talk about how doubt and uncertainty can function as useful information rather than evidence that you do not belong, and I offer a more grounded way to build efficacy: not by pretending uncertainty is not there, but by learning how to navigate it with more clarity, support, and self-compassion.

My hope is that this episode helps you feel a little less alone, a little less self-blaming, and better able to see that your uncertainty may make much more sense than you have been led to believe.

Share

In this episode, I talk about the quiet threshold that often sits underneath all that preparation: the moment when you have to decide whether you trust your ideas enough to start putting them on the page. You worry that your ideas aren’t new enough, sharp enough, or important enough—and that if you draft, you’ll find out they don’t hold.

I also name the impossible standard that tends to fuel this fear: the belief that your book has to revolutionize your field to be worth writing. And I offer a gentler, more accurate definition of what strong scholarly work actually does—how most meaningful books move conversations forward without needing to reinvent the whole discipline. Along the way, I unpack why “I need to read more” can sometimes be less about reading and more about self-protection, and I return to a distinction I come back to often: writing to think versus writing to communicate.

If you’ve been stuck at the edges of your project, trying to get to certainty before you begin, I hope this episode gives you a steadier standard to measure yourself against and a little more permission to start drafting before you feel completely ready.

Share

What I haven’t talked about as openly is what it actually looks like to work with me one-on-one, especially when you’re trying to move a book project forward. So in this episode, I’m pulling back the curtain.

I walk through the difference between coaching and developmental editing, why I weave both together, and how that combination helps scholars move complex book projects forward with more clarity, structure, and sustained momentum. If coaching has ever felt a bit opaque or hard to picture, this episode should make things much more concrete.

I also get into what the process looks like in practice—from the initial strategy session where we identify your goals and the obstacles standing in your way to the ongoing support that helps you keep making steady, real progress over time.

Along the way, I dig into why so many academic writers find themselves stuck, what makes book coaching different from other forms of writing support, and why having the right kind of help can shift not just the project itself but your entire relationship to the work. If you’ve been quietly wondering whether this kind of support might be the thing that gets you unstuck, this episode is a good place to start exploring that question.

Learn More About Book Coaching

In this episode, I’m talking about the hidden cost of carrying too many writing projects at once: the almost-finished article, the chapter that needs revision, the proposal you keep meaning to start, and the project you feel guilty for neglecting. Individually, each one might be manageable, but together they create a constant background hum of obligation that drains your cognitive and emotional bandwidth—even on days when you’re genuinely productive.

We often treat these difficulties as a scheduling problem, but what I see again and again is that the deeper issue is scattered attention: too many open tabs on your brain’s desktop quietly pulling on you. Academia trains us to tolerate this, even to see it as ambition, but it comes at a real cost.

So I’m inviting you to consider a different kind of progress—choosing what’s active and what’s explicitly dormant for now. You don’t have to abandon anything forever; sometimes naming what you’re not working on is what finally lets you focus, settle, and move forward without guilt.

Share

If you’ve ever tried to follow that instruction and immediately felt your brain seize up, your confidence drop, or your draft suddenly look unfamiliar, you’re not alone. In this episode, I talk about why the problem usually isn’t effort or discipline—and why it makes perfect sense that writing can feel hard to restart, even when you care deeply about your work.

I share a gentler way to think about what’s really happening in those moments: not failure, not laziness, not a character flaw—just the very human challenge of re-entering a complex intellectual world. We’ll explore what it can look like to build a small “bridge” back into your project so you’re not trying to leap in cold, and why a few minutes of orientation can change everything about how a writing session feels.

If writing time has been feeling tense, punishing, or slippery lately, consider this your invitation to try a different approach—one that helps you reconnect to the work you’re already in the middle of, with a little more steadiness and a lot more kindness.

Share

One of the biggest hang-ups I see with academic writers has very little to do with skill, intelligence, or even training. It has to do with who they imagine is reading their work.

Who’s on the other side of the page when you sit down to write?

Is it a sharp-elbowed reviewer just waiting to tear your argument apart? A senior scholar who already knows more than you do? A committee, a field, an imagined crowd of skeptics who will notice every gap, every imprecision, every missing citation?

If so, it makes perfect sense that writing feels slow, heavy, and tense. When we imagine a hostile or hypercritical audience, we start belaboring every sentence. We hedge. We qualify. We over-explain. We try to preempt every possible objection before we’ve even finished saying what we actually think.

I’ve talked about this dynamic before here:

But it’s worth returning to because it shows up so consistently in my coaching work. When writers imagine a more engaged, curious, and fundamentally friendly audience—readers who are interested in the problem, open to the argument, and excited to see where the thinking goes—the writing almost always loosens. It flows more freely. Decisions come more easily. The work starts to sound like a person thinking on the page instead of a defense brief.

Another version of the same problem shows up when writers imagine too broad an audience.

We write as if we need to satisfy everyone who might possibly read the book or article. We try to anticipate every subfield, every theoretical orientation, and every potential objection from readers who are not, in truth, our readers at all. But no academic book, or article, or chapter, can do that. And trying to write as if it could sets you up for failure before you begin.

Narrowing your audience isn’t about dumbing your work down or making it smaller. It’s about making it decidable. When you know who you’re writing for, it becomes much easier to decide what to include, what to leave out, what to explain carefully, and what you can reasonably assume.

I recently realized that another mindset shift can have a significant impact on both the amount of anxiety some writers feel and the reader's experience.

I was listening to an unrelated podcast episode about public speaking, and the guest said something about audiences that really resonated.

She suggested that if you're nervous about speaking in front of a large group of people, try shifting your focus to being a lighthouse instead of a spotlight. Then she explained the metaphor:

A spotlight asks, ‘What does everyone think of me?’

A lighthouse asks, ‘What does the audience need from me?’

I immediately thought about so many of you, my dear readers and clients.

So much of what makes writing feel fraught comes from spotlight thinking. We worry about how smart we sound. What it says about us if we cite one theorist instead of another. How our argument positions us politically, intellectually, and professionally. Whether the work will “hold up” under scrutiny—and what that scrutiny will say about us.

That kind of self-focus doesn’t just increase anxiety. It also pulls our attention inward in a way that makes the writing worse. To put it a bit too directly, it can tip into a kind of professional narcissism: the work becomes primarily about how we are perceived, rather than what we are offering to the world of ideas.

Work with Me

What if what you’re writing isn’t meant to say anything about you at all? What if it’s meant to do something for a reader?

To be clear: academic reputations do matter. Writing is tied to jobs, tenure, promotion, and funding. I’m not pretending otherwise, and I’m certainly not suggesting we slip on rose-colored glasses. But I also know that one of the biggest blocks to progress I see in academic writers is thinking too much about what the writing means about you and not enough about what it does for someone else.

We don’t have to be fixated so intently on the imagined critics. We don’t need to worry constantly about the hostile reviewer. Instead, we can imagine a more generous group of readers: people who find the problem interesting, who are genuinely curious about your approach, and who might cite the work, teach it, or use it to think differently about something they already care about.

What would it be like to write with their experience in mind? To imagine a reader encountering a new pattern of thought because of the work you’ve done—and taking pleasure in that moment of recognition? To imagine clarity as a form of generosity rather than a vulnerability?

One effect I would anticipate from lighthouse thinking is a lowering of the anxiety around what your writing says about your reputation.

In its place, there’s more room to write toward someone: to explain, guide, and illuminate. I also think this shift tends to make writing clearer. When you step outside yourself and ask what the experience will be like for another person, fuzzy passages become more visible. Overcomplication starts to feel unnecessary. You’re no longer proving your worth; instead, you’re helping someone think.

That’s lighthouse thinking.

And for many academic writers, it’s not a change in ability that unlocks progress—it’s a change in who they imagine is reading and why they’re writing for them in the first place.

Leave a comment

So many of us are technically capable of writing and still feel stuck, resistant, or exhausted by it—and that disconnect isn’t a personal failure. It’s often the result of how we’ve been taught to approach writing as a transaction: produce the output, meet the deadline, get evaluated. When writing “works,” the relationship feels fine. When it doesn’t, it can quickly turn tense, judgmental, or even adversarial.

I talk about what happens when trust erodes in that relationship—and why more tips, tools, or pressure rarely fix the problem. Instead, I explore what it looks like to replace judgment with curiosity, and how small reflective practices can help repair the relationship so writing feels safer and more workable again. This isn’t about lowering standards or forcing yourself to love writing. It’s about paying attention to how you show up, learning from what happens, and making it easier to return to the page over time.

If writing has felt heavy or fraught lately, I hope this episode helps you see why—and offers a gentler, more sustainable way forward.

Share

I also spend time with the emotional and practical side of letting go: why we cling to material that no longer serves the book, how scarcity thinking around writing makes revision more painful, and why early drafts are best understood as thinking tools rather than finished prose.

If you’re revising a long project and feeling stuck, this episode is an invitation to trust that cutting isn’t erasing your work. Instead, it’s creating the space your book needs to become what it’s meant to be.

Share

This episode is one in a series of turning your diss-to-book. Here are the others:

I also focus on how to start seeing dissertation mode in your own prose, which is often the hardest part. I walk through a few common signals at the level of voice, citation, and structure and explain why these patterns are so difficult to spot when you’ve been living inside a project for years.

I hope that this episode helps you approach revision with more clarity and less self-blame. Instead, it gives you a practical way to begin shifting from writing to prove yourself toward writing that invites, persuades, and carries an argument forward.

Share

This episode is part of a series on moving from diss-to-book. Here’s the first one, which I reference in this episode:

I share how coaching shifts attention from the finished product to the writer in motion, changing the way progress unfolds—not by lowering standards, but by making it easier to respond to the real sources of friction. I also explore how this way of paying attention differs from mentoring and why difficulty in writing is so often misread.

Rather than treating struggle as a problem to eliminate, this episode considers what becomes possible when difficulty is understood as information and something that can guide more precise, less exhausting choices.

If you’ve ever found yourself working hard but feeling stuck, this conversation offers a different way of seeing what’s happening and how steadier progress can happen when you start paying attention to the right things.

New Offering! Spring Semester Strategy Sessions

If this episode resonated because you’re realizing that what’s getting in the way isn’t effort or commitment but the lack of space to step back and look carefully at how your work is actually unfolding, I’m opening a small number of 90-minute strategy sessions this spring!

These sessions help you gain clarity about what matters most right now, how to use the time and energy you actually have, and how to move forward this semester without burning out.

Here’s how it works:

• Before we meet: Complete reflection questions (about 90 minutes) on your goals, constraints, and what’s worked in the past.

• 90-minute session: We clarify priorities and develop a strategy that fits how you actually work—not an idealized version of you.

• After the session: You receive a written plan synthesizing our conversation, plus tailored resources and recommendations.

You’ll walk away with: a clear plan for the semester, a better sense of how to allocate your time and energy, and concrete next steps that feel doable rather than overwhelming.

I’m offering eight of these sessions in late January and February. Booking closes January 26 or when spots fill.

Book Your Strategy Session Here

If you decide after the session that you’d like continued support, that $495 can be credited toward either my 10-week coaching program or my 6-month book coaching program—the strategy session is the first step in both programs.

You’ll have three weeks after your session to decide if you want continued coaching support. So if you’ve considered coaching before, this is a low-risk way to experience working with me and see if it’s a good fit.

Of course, you might discover that the strategy session alone, with the clear priorities, realistic plan, and concrete next steps, is exactly what you need to move your writing forward this semester. That’s a huge win!

Not sure if a strategy session would help right now? Feel free to reply and let me know what’s on your mind!