Well.
It was hard but worthwhile (I hope) to write this last paper. I wrote about Boccaccio, and I never realized how difficult it was to try to keep to the format of a true Renaissance author while also keeping my dialogue unique and interesting. I liked Boccaccio's stories so I knew that was what i wanted to write about, but I originally did not have enough of an idea of how I was going to formulate what I wanted to say. I even considered setting up a dialogue between Dante and Petrarch, simply because of their interesting ideas and I thought it would be interesting to contrast them. But, I did not know what I was trying to prove or what I wanted to show my audience (ha, only another audience for you guys to wrestle with, as though there weren't enough already) in my dialogue. So, I sincerely hope I managed to write a coherent and not completely pointless and rambling paper. I tried to make it as quaintly humorous as possible because I wrote it running on Enviga and a protein bar (Thanks, Chipi-Chipi!). What would the Renaissance be without its unique style of humor? Or perhaps dark humor. MET referred to me a little bit ago as "the figure in black," so if we ever feel the urge to put on a play about the upcoming Sonnets, I volunteer myself to be the Dark Lady.
Off to Social Psych! When I come back to you later, loyal Mac, I think I might blog away about Utopia.
