Ok... an honest assessment of Lit 3.

Lit 3. Huh.

I had three papers, Plath, Pinter and Forster (which I did in that order). Pinter sucked. I wrote four pages three lines of absolutely nothing, which was a good practice in surrealism. I did the context, where Davies is going on and on about absolutely nothing (besides the clock)... and so I wrote absolutely nothing about that, and ooh, the time really flew. Talk about the clock.

Plath was fine; but I hardly did any paragraphing and kept referring to poems all over the place, which got me a little irritated. Nothing seemed to click tight, the way it has to when you do an essay right. Then I did Forster, and by this time I'd finally gotten over my nerves and was writing something really brilliant but as I got to the bottom of the fourth page, time ran out... though I'd said practically all what I wanted to say anyway.

Was it much better than the Lit 1? You know, I'm really not sure. By how much will Forster outweight Pinter? What if I end up with a "B"? Dear God, PLEASE DON'T LET ME GET A "B". An "A" would be really nice, thanks. But if I don't get there, if I don't deserve to get there, (but I really really really really studied........) PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME SOMETHING AS AMBIGUOUS AS A "B"; give me a "C" or something. Like, tell me I'm a loser and tell it to me straight. Don't smash me with a "IF I HAD DONE PINTER A LITTLE BETTER..."

Alright... and now I'll go on to thrash the Unseen paper, which I can't study for. And these dodos have actually scheduled it for next Thursday.

HOLIDAYS ARE OFFICIALLY HERE.
(Not that I want to rub it in for the rest of you... but hey, I do.)