First chapter worries

My first chapter has, so far, been complicated to get my head around. I began by writing what my supervisor described as a "potted history of duelling" and it has developed into a smoother study of the development of popular perceptions of masculinity in poetry and drama. I'm still a little uncertain about this as a subject matter for the first chapter as it alone seems a suitable subject for an entire thesis, but I'll see how it goes. Currently, I'm considering what traits contribute to overall perceptions of masculinity and heroism and how they have developed over time. I am then (in the second half of my chapter) going to broadly discuss how masculinity was realised on stage at the end of the seventeenth century. I'm also going to include some thoughts on contemporary public perceptions of actors to throw that into relief.

I was going to limit myself to writing about masculinity in poetry and drama for the century or two preceding my research area, but I felt as though I couldn't write about lots of drama (particularly drama which utilises prior characterisations of mythic and historic figures - King Arthur, for example, or Achilles) without discussing their presentations in Greek and medieval texts. Essentially, I want to find out how heroes came to be perceived the way they were by the end of the seventeenth century.

I think the problem here is that I don't feel familiar enough with many of the pre-seventeenth-century texts to be really confident in a lot of my writing. Of course, reading constitutes the bulk of my research and there's nothing stopping me getting hold of the books and settling down with them for a few hours - but there's a constant worry that I'm not moving along fast enough. As much as anything else, I don't think that I've read enough secondary material.

There's also the problem of worrying that I'm becoming too tangential in some of my arguments. For example, part of my discussion concerns the masculine/feminine labour divide and its impact on how we view the ideal masculine. However, I want to show that masculine roles aren't universal and I was reminded of a fantastic book I read a few months ago, American Colonies by Alan Taylor. Part of the book discussed the masculine/feminine labour divide in American Indians and the horror of the European settlers who discovered that Indian women didn't just stay indoors all day and cook, have children, and mend things: a clear demonstration of my argument. In the wider context of the thesis I think quoting Taylor makes sense; it's just that a sudden quotation from a history of America seems startling when it's surrounded by quotations about gender in classical and medieval Europe.

Similarly, I wrote a (frankly awful) paragraph comparing the changing portrayals of action stars in movies from the 1960s through to the 2000s: sort of James Bond vs. Rocky. I think it tallies with my argument but it seems very frivolous and out of place when I look at that paragraph next to my discussion of The Odyssey and Le Morte D'Arthur. Then again, am I being too much of a culture snob?

I suppose that about summarises my position right now: I'm confident about my overall argument (which I'll go into more at a later date) but it's the execution that is weighing me down.