Anthony,

These are all fine proposals but upon looking at your sample writing the
editorial board agreed that we would like to see you develop your voice,
strengthen your interpretation of the work a bit more before we can publish
a review.

Your writing has a fresh light poppy feel bringing in relevant allusions, reference,
personal association. Though we have an interest in encyclopedic pop cultural
knowledge we are not interested in fast and loose resemblances to both high
and low in passing. This is a relatively unreflexive cultural studies approach for
us. For example with your review of Gum Blondes if a connection is made to
some cultural artifact then what does this resemblance or similarity mean and
why? We are interested in close contextual reading. We would like to see
deeper analysis into the work at various points. Stick to the most key moments
in the work. Diversify sentance structure some more, avoid "weirdly" and
"amazingly", You don't need to say the work "references" something else.
You can invoke the connection via your discussion of a related subject.There
is no discussion of pop or neo-pop as a more general tendency within contemporary
art and what this might mean. What is at stake in this work? Is there no deficiancy? Strengthen the argument. The article is strongest in the section on orality. We
would like to see some more of your writing in the future. However for this issue
we will have to pass. Thanks again for your interest.

Best,


Jordan