Scholarly expert?

According to one of the readings I had to do for uni, the exegesis (that thing I'm supposed to write for my masters) should demonstrate 'scholarliness' and that the writer is 'an expert in the field.'

Looks like I'm screwed...

Post-Jungian shadow archetype despair has set in. (Hey, did that sound scholarly?)

To be honest, I'm not even sure that see the point of the exegesis, much less want to write one. The readings I've been doing for uni so far have meant to give me a greater understanding of what an exegesis is and its purpose. But for me, the readings have made me question the necessity of such a document at all.

I want to write a manuscript. I want to write the best, most entertaining manuscript I can write that will appeal to my target audience, take them away into a different world for a while and, when they come back, maybe even make them think.

I enjoy doing research to the extent that it can give me new insights and ideas. But do I really want to crap on for 7,500 words about my process of writing the manuscript, its place in a historical/literary/cultural context and defend it against possible criticisms?

I really hope I've got it wrong and that's not what I've signed up for...