Adolescence is a form of insanity

Not only is adolescence a form of insanity, it's a highly contagious form that is easily transferred to unsuspecting parents.

Okay, I have no scientific proof of the above. But I have found some fascinating research (thanks heaps, Leah!) that is going to work in perfectly with my exegesis.

Peter Brugger, a German scientist, has done heaps of research into phantoms of all kinds. One of his theories is that seeing 'ghosts' is related to the phenomenon of amputees who 'feel' limbs that aren't there.

In the case of people seeing ghosts, it's a case of people seeing a phantom of a full body. That is, a surge of dopamine to their brain is causing them to see something that isn't there. The dopamine surge can be a result of brain damage, but intense emotions can cause the effect as well.

And guess which group regularly experience dramatic surges of dopamine and intense emotions? Adolescents, of course.

This weekend I have to get stuck into my first assignment (due 18 May - thank god this is a long weekend!). I'm going to attempt to bring together threads from Jung's shadow theory, recent studies into adolescent brain development and Brugger's theories on phantoms. With a bit of speculation about whether dopamine makes you see things that aren't there, or enables you to see things that others can't.

With luck, I'll be able to pull something thought provoking together. But if not, I won't stress. It's only a masters after all.

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...

Getting into research

I've got 10 days off work to get stuck into my research & weirdly enough, I'm starting to enjoy it. I'm finding the same writers' names in my research around Jung and his shadow theory, so I'm thinking that I'm on the right track.

Even better, I'm really starting to see how this research can give my writing more depth. As I write down notes from the books/papers I'm reading on one page, on the opposite page I jot down random thoughts about how these ideas can apply to the characters.

One character I'm a little concerned about at the moment though is Mrs Steppa. At the moment she seems to be working as a caricature, a plot device rather than a 'real flesh & blood' character. I'm hoping that during my research I can find something to make her come alive. Otherwise, she may drop off the pages and cease to exist. I'd be sad about that, because I kind of like her. Maybe I'll just have to listen a bit more closely to what she has to say.