Oh, scholarly journals. Such mixed messages. The submission guidelines call for endnotes, yet all the articles in the current issue have footnotes. Way to be inconsistent.

At least everyone seems to be using Chicago style, even if the guidelines call for either that or MLA. Which means I'll have to switch my citations, but I can live with that. The bigger problem is the introduction, which I've already cut down, but which needs to be even shorter, with most of the background criticism moved to a foot/endnote. I think I'm just not going to bother integrating much, if anything, from chapter three into this article, because it feels pretty self-contained as it is, but I still need to write a new conclusion, and in doing so come up with a way to tightly tie everything back into what my new introduction states.

I used to say that my favorite part of writing nonfiction was revision, but I will amend that--it's revision of the first draft, where the ideas are on the page, but need to be expanded and prettied into their final form. This business of chopping up and reworking an already-written set of ideas is no fun at all.

This entry was originally posted at http://icepixie.dreamwidth.org/693529.html. It has comments over there.