If you are willing to put aside certain things--things like class attendance, sleep, and personal hygiene--it is possible to research and write a 15-page historical research paper in less than 20 hours. You just have to annotate loosely and recognize that the line between plagiarism and paraphrasing is finer than a 17th century air for lute.
Also, you have to be willing to accept certain typographical errors that occur because you have typed too fast, or just have Seinfeld on the brain:
"In the 16th century, the lute was the favored instrument among European aristocrats. The lone exception was in Spain, where the instrument did not really catch on because it was still associated with the harsh and unpopular rule of the Moops. Spaniards avoided the lute, but performing the complex polyphonic music of the time on a four-string guitar was unrealistic. The Spanish solution was to develop an instrument called the vihuela, which had 6 courses of strings, double-strung in unisons or octaves. The top string was a lone “chanter” so the tuning was similar to that of a lute: G-c-f-a-d-g. Some later incarnations bore additional strings. The primary distinction between the vihuela and the guitar was range, and since the vihuela was capable of more it was thought to be a more sophisticated and refined instrument."
Posted by aokie at July 19, 2005 01:09 PM | TrackBackCertainly possible. I once wrote a 15 page paper in about a day and a half - not including getting books from the library, but including opening and reading anything from them. I even got an A on the paper. Unfortunately, I slept through a test the next day that was worth 20% of my grade in another class, thus earning my only C.
Posted by: Zellyn at July 19, 2005 02:01 PMzellyn, i think i still have you beat, as i checked out the books at about 2pm on sunday and finished the paper about 14 hours later.
then again, the end result was not A-quality.
Posted by: abe at July 20, 2005 10:02 AMyou must be a lute-icrously fast typer. (insert groan and that sentence)
Posted by: b at July 20, 2005 01:47 PM"the unpopular rule of the Moops"(?) Is that right? or did you mean "Moors?" I'm not familiar with the Moops or their affinity for stringed intruments.
yes, chris. thank you. it should be "Moors", which is why i put this quote up in the first place. i take it you never saw the seinfeld where george goes to entertain the sick boy who is confined to an immune-protective bubble, and they get into a fight during trivial pursuit:
DONALD: OK, HISTORY. THIS IS FOR THE GAME. HOW YA DOIN' OVER THERE? NOT TOO GOOD!
GEORGE: All right BB. Let's just play... Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?
DONALD: THAT'S A JOKE. THE MOORS.
GEORGE: Oh, Noooo, I'm so sorry. It's the MOOPS. The correct answer is, The MOOPS.
DONALD: MOOPS? LET ME SEE THAT. THAT'S NOT MOOPS YOU JERK, IT'S MOORS. IT'S A MISPRINT.
GEORGE: I'm sorry the card says MOOPS.
DONALD: IT DOESN'T MATTER. I'S THE MOORS. THERE'S NO MOOPS.
GEORGE: It's MOOPS.
DONALD: MOORS.
GEORGE: MOOPS.
DONALD: MOORS!
Posted by: abe at July 21, 2005 02:11 PMAh, yes. I think I do remember. Now I understand your post.
Posted by: chris at July 22, 2005 07:40 PM