Today actually went really well, surprisingly. I had taken a few notes on how I wanted to formulate and structure the section on theories of the missing hypotext last night, so when I got to work I was primed and ready to dive into that section. A library run turned up most of the references I needed to supplement my reading of the introductory book on intertextuality, so I feel like I have the various theories I’m juggling more firmly in place after having read further on each of them.
After the theory section was more or less in place, it was pretty easy to go through the analysis section and fine tune it, adding the theoretical vocabulary I needed to link the analysis to the theory. On the way home I sketched out an outline for a brand new conclusion, and, once home, I wrote that up in outline form. All that totally exhausted me, so I took a family break and nap, and then read through the whole article again, doing a little polishing as I went.
I think now that if I get a full day’s work in on it tomorrow, I should basically be done. I’m really glad for the reviewer comments, and for the decision to just delete the whole discussion of “det uutsigelige” (and its parallels). That whole discussion was just too fuzzy. With it gone, and with a strong new focus on theories of intertextuality, I think I have a much tighter and more convincing article. Yay! (Next up is going to be an article on the Skjoldbjærg adaptation of En folkefiende. It struck me today that I should perhaps write it in Norwegian with a more pedagogical focus perhaps ???)
WORDS WRITTEN: too busy deleting and writing to keep track 🙂