reflections

Hi everyone!
Thanks Ian for continuing to push us and drive the project. I gave the 'afters' paper a good read and have several comments:

1. In terms of how "these excerpts worked together", I loved the (Walter Benjaminian) montage style and effects. I like the various surprising dissonances and overlaps with the contents. I also like the appearance of the different shaped blocks of text

2. One criticism I have is that it seems a lot of the v. interesting Blog comments on "corporeality" (Rachel), "viscerality" (Charlie), as well as "Bodies, Visceral Difference, Visceral Imaginaries" (Allison and Jessica) have been dropped and eclipsed by the political (e.g. Otherings, positionalities etc.) dimensions of food. Can something be done about that?

3. Might it be a good idea (following Kersty's question: 'was this paper about blogging or about food'?) to reduce the Blogging self-reflexivity material on pages 2 and 3? At times, I felt it was indeed more about blogging than food.

4. I'd also like to see more words (difficult I know given the limit) devoted in the introduction to prepare the reader for the following material. I also think the paper could be greatly enhanced with a fairly traditional conclusion - nothing too long - that sums up what the paper did and future research directions?

5. A few typos:
P. 1 “allowed us to quickly write 43,000 about” Change to "43,000 words"
P. 9 Bell hooks should read "bell hooks"?

Paul