reviews are in!!
I am terrifically grateful to these people who are taking time to help me make this happen. Sure, I better werq, and with the packing and moving and whatnot, it will be *interesting*, challenging, but the plan before me is doable (esp given the work i've put into it, so far), so much so that last night, I had a lucid epiphany about the introductory chapter: the existing intro needs to be Ch 1, and Ch 1, Ch 2. Also, a new intro needs to emerge (the proposal writing process made this clear to me, and now, it is back in the foreground).
This reconfigured introduction will explicitly define the conceptual frame, moreso than the current work (which assumes a lot on the part of my readership, a common trait in my work, one that I see as ennobling, avoiding condescension. But it's also a move that ambiguates in ways many readers do not appreciate, post-________________ notwithstanding).
So then, this new intro articulates more clearly my use of 2 of the main figures (film critic André Bazin, and rhet/comp scholar Robert Connors) I reference to frame this history I'm tracing and the ethnographic mapping I am indulging as a way of telling the story of this emergent field I've been calling "film-composition."
Of course, this reflection comes prior to reading the reviewers' comments. I will get to that soon. I need to build up to it. I am the reluctant writer.