sit. stay. speak.

Please read the following with a pan-European accent–pretend you are smoking, and are wearing wire rimmed glasses:

Reviewer:
The abstract does not address “place” nor “space” to any significant
extent, and does not explicate very clearly how it would be interested in
discourse or interaction either. The theoretical framework is indicated by
pointing to a reference, but a description of the methodology remains
totally absent. No results are indicated, only areas of interest and
questions.

Well, I wish I could say that I wasn’t set back by this rejection, but I am a little. I guess that my feeling of defeat is linked to my real desire to win–to get a chance to explore an idea from multiple theoretical perspectives. This is a very bittersweet moment in my exploration of a possible return to graduate school because if I wasn’t bummed, I would know that it didn’t matter to me whether I continued my education. Since I feel badly that I didn’t hit the mark, I know I care. Now that I know I care, how do I pursue those goals my reviewer points out that I missed?

Maybe I should do as Omeros suggested: write a book first–and use that as an artifact to get into school. Right now, though, I am doubting any ability to write a book, about anything much less my interests in how electronic games represent the body, or successful online donation strategies enacted by non profits.

Maybe I should write a book about scholarly ambivalence.