More writing

Well I was on track to finish my essay, but then I asked Archer to read it.  I asked him for two reasons.  First, I value his opinion, and more importantly, he knows the theories I'm using much better than I do.  So he read the first seven pages, in which I set up my argument and address the theoretical framework I'm using and challenging, and he got very, very excited.  It seems my argument is challenging some key theories, and it also seems I'm doing this without even realizing I'm doing this.  How do you ask did I not know I was doing this?  Well, that's easy.  I'm primarily using one critic (a political scientist, as it happens) and one theorist (the great and wonderful Foucault--and yes, that is sarcasm you detect).  I'm mostly saying these two people say X, which is really smart, and now I'm applying what they say to this text, which they've never considered.  But at one point I do say something like, these two people are really smart, but here is where they miss something key and this text proves that they miss it.  Apparently in saying they miss something I'm turning lots of theoretical models upside down.  Now this is good in that it definitely means that I'm adding something to the conversation.  It isn't good as it also means I'm not done with the damn essay.