well, I did much better on my "Semiotic Analysis of the Canopy" than i expected. My Prof liked it, said it was very well written. My biggest problem with it was the abruptness of the conclusion, leaving several interesting ideas undeveloped, which makes sense, knowing that i finished it at 10 in the morning, when it was due at 11. He liked the intro a lot, which is good, because that intro took the majority of my writing time. NOT bombing this is a huge releif, because in my sleep deprived state, i wasn't sure if what i was writing made any sense at all. And i've been afraid to reexamine it since. Now that I have the prof's approval, i've been emboldened to go back in there, and really, surprisingly, its not that bad at all. I mean, that's not to say that with a little revision and some less groggy-minded thought, that it couldn't have been a lot better. But i am encouraged. And yes, J, now that i know its not UTTER crap, i think i will post it, at least here. (I'm not sure The Canopy site is appropriate- my prof thinks its quite sympathetic to the church, but i'm not sure it would come off that way to an avid Canopy-booster, and i don't want to hurt anybody.) Because i'm a perfectionist, at least in regards to things with my name on them (vanity!) i may rework the ending before i post it- as if i don't have enough current papers to work on- but, have patience- it will appear in due time.
all half decent semiotic analyses come to those who wait.