As I'm writing up my dissertation, this book came in handy on how to approach the elusive task of writing up. The author has very strong views on how to best tackle writing up, some of which is pretty different from the other advice out there. This was useful for me as it gave me the perfect amount of confidence to start in the introduction chapter - a thing that everyone else seems to think as the worst place to start. But it's working out pretty well for me so far!
Other than that the book is a bit too obtuse for me. The writing style lacks any embellishments which makes some of the statements a bit extreme. The author says that some scenarios are nightmarish - like not having started analysis when you are coming to the writing up period - which I thought was pretty insensitive. PhDs are complex. If you haven't gotten started on analysis yet, I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons for that, ranging from obstacles in terms of health, circumstance, or just that the method and experimental design have taken years to put together. It's fine, if your supervisor is not freaked out, I don't think it is fair of James Hayton to turn you into a trembling ball of panic either.
Another thing that really annoyed me at times was how some parts desperately needed a bit more nuance. In the end, the author talks about viva preparation and in response to a subheading 'Is there a way to predict what the examiners will ask?' Hayton simply responds 'No.' (and then moves on to contradicting that answer by explaining that you can direct examiner questions by the things you say in the thesis). I think this is a bit simplistic, but somewhat also just untrue - there's a reason why things like Viva cards and Viva preparation materials exist: they are based on the idea that most examiner questions can actually be predicted, at least on the non-subject relevant, abstract level. They will ask you about theory, method, experimental procedure, results, and discussion. When a highly structured, official document is the basis of a discussion in the viva, it isn't super difficult to predict what will be asked. It would have been better to spend time pointing out how unexpected questions are likely to also pop up and how important it is to consider each question asked fully, without trying to overly prepare by memorising answers etc.
Similarly, the book recommendations at the end are very hollow. The author just exclaims 'everyone should read this book!' without explaining why. I need a bit more convincing to pick up a nonfiction that I know nothing about, when I could instead be reading genuinely enjoyable fiction. And let's be frank - it's not like there is a lot of time left over to do leisure reading when you are doing a PhD. And my PhD is on leisure reading.
Overall, I found this is a pretty useful resource. It would have been nice to have from the beginning of mt PhD, as it lays out the entire doctoral journey in a realistic, manageable way. The author's struggles are very similar to what I have gone through, and this book would have made all that a bit less lonely. But in parts, the text is too extreme. I can see how the author's clear prose lend itself well to thesis writing, but it didn't grasp me in the form of a nonfictional book.