The third view

First, I want to shout that I like the article as it is! Mumble Grumble. @#$%^&*

Okay now that is off my chest. Here are my thoughts about cuts. I reread the article twice, noting likely slash sites. I found that most of my sites were the same as J's, except that I agree with Mike that a big chunk of the history section should come right out. Details:

1. I agree with all of the cuts regarding bios and citations. It the history section is shortened, a chunk of those citations go, too.

2. Start with the second paragraph (or maybe with "Writing today means writing digitally . . ." and go to "Even so, . . . ")

3. Cut the quote from Starr, the WRT 106 description, and the first paragraph of the Teaching section.

4. We could cut the diagram, although this will entail rewriting, since a discussion of the diapgram is so embedded in the text. I vote that we wait on this cut until the others are completed; maybe it will not be necessary.

5. Cut the Yancey section. The flow is fine without it.

6. Cut the history section as Mike indicated. Keep the first two sections, then go to the fourth iteration paragraph. Savings = more than 2 pages. The text adjustment can be minimal between paragraph #2 and #6. Something like: "The development and application of the writing environment concept-metaphor came somewhat naturally out of the several iterations of the course. WRT 235 was originally designed and adopted by our program in 1991 as an analog to business writing, as that seemed to be both the environment and the rationale for a course in writing with computers. Within two years, the course's purposes, goals, design and assignments changed, and then changed again, and again, until by 2005 it had gone through four iterations, each time designed with more critical analyses about computer mediated discourse, with more rhetorical demands for writers writing in that an electronic environment, while the where of such writing became both more omnipresent and metaphorical. The fourth iteration of the course included an explicitly rhertorical dimensiton . . . ." continue with paragraph #6 of the history section. (If you do not like this bridge, feel free to edit it, please.)

7. Michael suggests shortening the collaboration stations section. I disagree. The assignment is a wonderful realizatoin of the environment metaphor, and the more we help readers see its full potential the better.

8. Michael suggests shortening the conclusion, and this is a possibilitity if the previous cuts do not add up to 9 pages. It could be two paragrpahs, perhaps beginning with "We look forward to a time when we . . . " Then skip the next paragrpah, and finish with the current last paragraph. I would rather cut this section than the diagram section.

L.

MP's possible cuts

After looking over the 39 pages of the manuscript, I've got some ideas for cuts. Hopefully, many of these overlap with Jeremiah's and we'll find 9 pages shortly.

1. Redundant bios at beginning and end of manuscript; I vote we delete the bios on p. 39 as this gains us a page.

2. For me, some deleting and tightening can occur in the metaphors section. In particular, I think the information architecture section could be one paragraph (p. 6). We can cut the paragraph quoting Nicole Brown and combine the others. The ecology section could be two paragraphs (down from 4).

3. The where section, in which we outline infrastructure, can be trimmed. I nominate the paragraph beginning with Borgmann and including the long quote from Starr (pp.10-11). Also, on p.11, the paragraph beginning "We believe..." can be cut except for the first line, which can maybe be placed in next paragraph. This gets us more quickly to how what we are doing is different/new.

4. To my mind, p. 13, which focuses largely on how this focus impacts our majors, can be significantly cut. This is frustrating as I think the reviewers asked us to add some of this in.

5. I find it hard to say this next potential cut, since the practitioners' history has always been an important element to me. However, what if we revised the history section so that it opened with the most recent iteration of the course. We could then include a few sentences looking back at previous approaches.

6. The section on collaboration stations can be shortened--especially towards the end. This would allow us to delete Figure 1 (the course handout, p.23). I don't have specific paragraphs to delete but I'm wondering how we can get to the reason for including collab station section sooner. Then by deleting the figure, we can also delete references to using the handout in class.

7. Our concluding section could be two paragraphs. Jeremiah just told me he thinks the Yancey can be cut (or that's what I heard!). At the least, it could be shortened considerably and briefly noted in opening of para. 3 in that section. The last paragraph could be cut or, actually, maybe the final two paragraphs could be cut.

I don't know how many pages those cuts get us, and some of that will depend on the domino effect caused by the deletion of sources and footnotes (JD mentioned footnote 11 as a possible cut and I agree). After looking over the draft, however, I'm much less worried about how the loss of 9 pages will hurt the article. It will still make its point.

mp