From Allison and Jessica

Our main comments are first and foremost that we like what has been done. One comment that has been written on the blog recently is to have a more defined intro and conclusion. Neither of us is sure that this is necessary. A traditional intro is perhaps not appropriate here. Maybe it is important (and enough) to say in the beginning that the blogging style (and authors' experiences) mirror the complexity, diversity, and fluidity of recent work in food. In other words, many of us are conceiving of food in these relational and negotiated ways, which makes this blogging forum not only an appropriate style for communicating about the Geographies of Food, but a way to represent food more 'faithfully' (as in Latham 2003). We found the conclusion (as in the end of the document where one might expect a conclusion) to be equally satisfying in its non-conformity and complexity (though maybe a little short; one more post with a 'wrapping up' type theme might help). Another comment from other bloggers was to take out some of the discussion on blogging in the paper to leave more room for food. This could be a good idea, yet we also liked the blending of blog discussions and food discussions in the beginning (and throughout) the paper. Instead, perhaps some sort of subheadings, and/or strategically placed and bolded words (and arrows?) might be helpful to guide our readers, or at least to signal that there are various key themes circulating throughout e.g. RELATING, RACE, OTHER, HUNGER, POOR, MIXING, VISCERAL. These are just examples - maybe we could use some of the ‘codes’ that Ian came up with when analyzing the document? (A short comment about our own continued combined participation: we started out commenting jointly because we often collaborate on our food research – in the field and in writing – and so writing as a team here has offered us a space to recognize what we like about our joint scripts and how we organize our efforts.)