>.<

Yeah, pretty damn sure I bombed that. I'll get some points, of course (I hope), but I think I'm looking at a C at the highest on that thing. What's more, I totally hate the primus of the class. What is sounds like would be amazing--Analyzing Literary Theory. To analyze theories about literature and what makes it stay . . . but not actually. Really, we're analyzing literature. Do you know how much I hate that? That is one of my pet peeves; yes, let's take a perfectly good story and see what bull we can pull out of our asses and supposedly support with the work. Yes, you can tell a lot about an author from reading what they write. No, the reverse is not also true. What's more, all those themes and crap you found? Yeah, you made those up. The author didn't put them there. What's more, my orange juice is gone.

Now, supporting theories about events in the story is something else entirely. Maybe I can do something like that . . . but somehow I doubt it. Analyzing Literary Theory seems so much more . . . rigid . . . than WaCT.