More of the former than the latter really.
I am thinking about ekphrasis. I am wondering if Alice will like my paper. I am planning on having it done on Saturday. This will require intelligence, tenacity, and focus. Unfortunately I seem to be lacking that letter quality since finishing Jim's paper. I just need to put my mind to it and perhaps do a few late-ish nights. It is rather imperative that it is finished before the week is out, as I'll be starting classes and do not want this hanging over my head when there is new work to be done.
I feel very lost in the paper. I know what I want to say, but it seems not to amount to much. I have a great outline :D and I have probably 7 solid pages, but I'm not really close to being finished when I look at my outline. Unless, that is, I don't focus too much on the other examples of reconstruction I am talking about. That actually makes alot of sense. Philostratus is my case study. The other monuments and items are there primarily to show the Lehmann-Hartleben essay as a member of a wider school of thought. In other words, they show that I'm not making more of one article than is warranted. I guess that's what I'll do. Still, I'm not sure of exactly how to deal with them. I know their place in the paper, but the skeleton outline lies fleshless between the full Intro and Conclusion. It's all going to turn out, but not as a great paper, merely, I think, a fairly good paper which needs work. That worries me though, given the comments that Nickie received from Alice. ((On a side note, I am utterly determined that Alice's reign of terror ends. I'm not going to fear her any more.)) She might not be as forgiving once she sees my paper.
I'm also thinkin' it'd be insanity to audit Pam Webb's 2nd Seminar since she'd want a 2 hr. presentation. It would be too much. Consider it decided. No 4th Seminar. Homer is going to be hard.
To anyone who's still reading, a hearty hello and an equally hearty goodbye.
