The Employee by joshua schwebel
About this project

Editing update

Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ > To: Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

Hi Josh,

Wow! This essay has raptured! I’m so impressed!

Just wanted to send a little update.

xL

Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

Oh thank you!!
That feels good to hear.

Lauren Wetmore <████████████████████████████████ >

Hi Josh,

As I said before, the essay is totally excellent. The level of research, argumentation, and voice is extremely high. This essay is going to contribute exactly what the publication needs, and what we hoped it would. Thank you for taking this on in such a huge way.

In my edits so far, I have done my usual mix of line-edits, question-asking, and suggestion-making, but as I was approaching the final pages of the essay I go the feeling that in these final sections, I needed to zoom out and first address structure.

Here are a few over-arching notes:

1. The Employee is still not sitting totally smoothly. I think either a discussion of The Employee needs to be woven consistently throughout the text, or it needs to sit only in the intro/conclusion sections you have outlined. I think that the latter might be better because …

2. As a reader, I feel like this essay really wants to be operating on a very strict organising principle that is delineated by sub headings. And, as a reader, I am really craving more of that. Right now, I am not sure if the essay is organised chronologically based on the artistic-precedents, or thematically based on the issues these precedents bring up. I know it sounds silly, but it might be helpful to draw out a linear map of the essay as you want it to flow and function and then see if that is reflected in the text. Don’t be afraid to use more subheading and to explicitly direct the reader to you focus and themes. 

3. I find the arguments and elucidation in Asher/Siegelaub section SO strong, but at times it was hard to follow the flow of which work was being talked about, and some parts felt repetitive. I suggest you focus here on clarity and streamlining. 

4. Should the deeper discussion of gender arrive earlier in the essay, linked to where it is already introduce with Laderman-Ukeles?

5. Does the discussion of ground get dropped a bit in the second half of the essay? Should “ground” be the organising principle of the essay, or hold less weight so that other themes can flow?

This is probably a lot to take in in one email. I’m happy to chat about it all, once you have taken a look at my notes so far.

xLauren