I can already tell that this is where I’m meant to be. Dramatic, yes, but where else will could I point out that using non-written and material sources to substantiate a hypothesis on dragons in low Medieval culture is completely apropos, since using written sources from theologians kind of defeats the purpose of “low culture”? That, by the way, actually got me a grin from my professor; it was almost a “By George, I think she’s got it!” grin, but I’ll take what I can get.
Especially since my second class, Intro. to Research, requires a 20-25 (but make it 27, since that’s the typical article length) “original contribution to the scholarship on your chosen topic.” Have mercy. And we’re supposed to provide background information on the topic, but only two or three sentences here and there as needed. Plus, add in a few pages on the historiography of the topic (that’s what’s been written about the topic, how it’s written and how that stuff reacts to stuff written before it). Can you see my brain exploding?
Dr. Jones (who’s a dead ringer for Bill Clinton) very graciously extended the due date for our proposals to Monday, since the class used to be on Mondays and students thus got Labor Day to work on them. This has to contain a proposed title for the paper, proposed beginning and end dates (say, 1968-90 when dealing with The Troubles), and notes on several primary and secondary sources that sound useful at this point in time.
I’m thinking along the lines of:
Catholics in Ulster: Complications in the Post-Troubles Peace Process and the Movement Toward Reunification
Yea or Nay, peoples?