<prompt: As David Foster Wallace wrote in his 2001 story "Good Old Neon":

What goes on inside is just too fast and huge and all interconnected for words to do more than barely sketch the outlines of at most one tiny little part of it at any given instant.

Using what you've learned from your reading of Montaigne's techniques and topics, do you agree?  How does Montaigne's style provide a window into his thinking?  Compare with Austen's style in Pride & Prejudice.  Include examples, and avoid merely summarizing the main points of the former or the plot of the latter.> 
While trying to make do with what short time was allotted towards writing my new essay (roughly twenty minutes I would estimate) it came to mind that I simply could not finish in time and deliver a quality essay that is expected of someone taking AP Literature and Composition. Simply put, I ran out of time. It's to be expected out of all of us at least once at some point or another, but that doesn't make the disappointment any more comfortable. Combine that with the inevitable "Oh shoot, I just remembered something I could've added to my essay  to make it better" train-of-thought, and it's bound to stitch into the recesses of your mind. Had I had more time, I probably would've focused on the differences between an essay and a novel, most notably how an essay is supposed to a piece of writing where an author establishes his point of view and usually supports said point-of-view with evidence, while a novel is usually a fictionalized piece of work that tells a story. With Montaigne, we get a clear frame on his thinking process, and why he thinks the way he thinks. His essays are bound endlessly with quotes and evidence from men like Horace, Cato, Cicero, Alexander, Caesar, Dionysius, Pompey or Aristotle. We see where he's coming from, and usually can agree with what he says. With Austen, it's a bit different. She can't just openly state what she believes. She is a novelist, first and foremost, meaning that her beliefs must be masked behind the characters and setting she creates. The way her characters act, the way they think, that is the best determinate of her thought process. (Most notably societies emphasis on what makes a "real woman" and the importance of marriage). Oh well, it is what it is.
That's not to say that the interruption was, per say, bad or an absolute abomination. One great advantage it lent to me was that, realizing there was no hope of finishing without completely rushing and BS'ing my way through, I proceeded to take my time, and focus on key points that I could elaborate on in the time given. Rather than jot down any little thought that came to my head, I could instead study the prompt, and form the best argument that I felt I could give.