"done and done"

when i first heard this phrase from darren a couple years ago, i didn't really understand the need or logic of the repetition it involves.

[the conversation went something like this:

me: so you're done with grading?

he: done and done.

me: ...done AND done?

he: yeah, you've never heard that? i thought you grew up in the South.

me: but why repeat the done?

he: emphasis.

me: so you're saying that "done" by itself doesn't really mean "done"? it means half-done? almost done?

he: whatever it means, it's not the same as "done and done"]

now i think i understand it a little more. sometimes you're done with something, and you're just done. finished. no big deal.

but sometimes you're done with something, and you're really done. you're mentally, emotionally, physically so far from even thinking about that something that a simple "done" just won't do it.

it's like in high school (college) when you burn all the homework from a class as soon as you take the final exam.

or you destroy every piece of evidence of a relationship after a bad break up.

or you return sixty-four books to the UGA library after writing over 120 pages in 18 weeks.

over.
finished.
se acabó.

done AND DONE.

cautiously risky...? or just plain risky?

so i am writing this paper. it's on irony in a certain phenomenal text, The Hour of the Star, by a certain phenomenal writer, Clarice Lispector. (coughreaditrebeccacoughcough!) Lispector claims she's not a writer, the narrative voice in the novel claims it's not a novel, the story is altogether beautifully self-contradictory. really impressive.

so, like i said, i am writing this paper on the irony of the novel, and i thought, what better way to write about irony than in an ironic style that mimics the text in question while still showing my familiarity with (and contribution to) the existing criticism about said novel?

part of the process would also be to mimic the false randomness of the novel, which (ironically) claims to have no technique or style, but obviously does. in doing so, i would also be practicing what is called by some (Irigaray & Cixous) l'ecriture femenine that subverts male-dominant discourse (which is unified and direct) by its plurality, multi-directionality and hibridity...

i think it could be brilliant! well, not really, but at least stylistic and fun, the opportunities for which are few and far between in grad school. there's only one problem....i'm not sure if my professors (yes, there are two) will approve of this or if they will think it's substandard writing because it won't exactly follow the (ahem, "male-dominant-unified-discourse") norms of academic writing....

in short, they'll either be delighted or disappointed.

while i feel pretty confident that i could argue my case quite successfully if the latter turns out to be true, i'm not sure i will have the opportunity, given that this is the last paper of the semester.

so here's my question: should i include a note of some sort to explain & justify my strategy, or be really bold and just do it without explanation like a true (fake) feminist???

the marshmallow buffer

somehow it keeps the hot in hot chocolate way longer than is reasonable, so that when you finally get to the chocolate itself, it burns every tastebud off your tongue, and (since you can't just spit it out onto your carpet) you proceed to swallow it and burn every cell from your esophagus to your large intestine.

and you can't even taste to enjoy the rest of it.