corknut | You can't spell 'analytical' without 'anal'.

... Just like you can't spell 'manslaughter' without 'laughter'. Or 'therapist' without 'the rapist'. But anyway...

I have:
One Peace Studies project due tomorrow.
One American Literature paper due Monday.
Another American Literature project due the 31st (this one has to be 8-10 pages long, too).
One U.S. History project due Wednesday.
And one Astronomy project due Friday.
Welcome to high school.

And that's not even counting the Astronomy test I had today, the History test we're having tomorrow, and the French test we're having Monday. But those don't really count, considering I'm not planning on studying for any of them. I haven't studied for a test since fifth grade, and I'm doing okay so far.
So. We're writing an analytical paper on The Scarlet Letter. Mrs. Sullivan stressed that we're not to use any external sources (though I really don't know how we're going to achieve this, considering half the class is reading the SparkNotes version)- yet we have to include a bibliography. The hell? What's the point, if we're only using one source- the friggin' book itself? Does she seriously think that we're dumb enough to put any external sources we illegally used in the Works Cited? Is this required bibliography just a lame attempt to weed out the 'sinners' (Oooh, Scarlet Letter joke) in the class? Probably not, but that would be pretty funny.
Anyway, now that we're essentially through with the book, I will never have to hear about Hester A. (Oooh, another Scarlet Letter joke) Prynne, whiny Arthur Dimmesdale, and not-so-demonic seven-year-olds ever again. At least, not until we're assigned the book again in a year or two. High school English classes seriously need to broaden their idea of American Literature- I've read To Kill a Mockingbird three times in the past four years. Luckily, I love that book to death. I couldn't say the same for The Scarlet Letter, though.
Not that I hated the book or anything. It was okay- but I've had enough symbolism shoved down my throat to last me a long, long while. And it's full of lines like this:

"As the two wayfarers came within the precincts of the town, the children of the Puritans looked up from their play... and spoke gravely one to another:
'Behold, verily, there is the woman of the scarlet letter, and, of a truth, morover, there is the likeness of the scarlet letter running along by her side! Come, therefore, and let us fling mud at them!'" (page 98)

I mean, come on. I bet even tight-ass Puritan kids didn't talk like that. Hell, tight-ass Puritan adults probably didn't. And my mom calls me wordy...