SUBJECT: Re : review ? On Mon , &NAME &NUM , &NUM at &NUM : &NUM : &NAME &NUM , &NAME &NAME wrote : <QUOTE> &NAME / &NAME , I do n't think &NAME would publish your squib as it stands without reviewing it ( not my decision anyway ) . If you want to go this route , I suggest you submit it to the editor , &NAME &NAME , with a note saying I encouraged this . Alternatively , you cld stick with &NAME and still review the book in about &NAME words for us , pointing to this squib for more extended discussion . For what it is &NAME , I agree with most of the substantive content of your squib , but have a few comments which might help : &NAME , <END_QUOTE> very good comments , thanks ! The problem is that taking them into account , which we 'd be fools not to , will make the squib longer not shorter . It 's almost 5k words now , by the time we revised along the lines you suggest it will be 6k words I 'm afraid . What you suggest , have a smaller piece in &NAME as a pointer to the larger squib in &NAME , may still make perfect sense , the only question is what ground should be covered in this 1k review , do you see it essentially as a precis of the squib , or do you think it should concentrate on other points , such as the &NUM you bought up ? Distributing the argument over &NUM papers may not work very well from a rhetorical standpoint ... &NAME