Description

• no hurry to respond

18 hours in between replies

• first letter is formal in tone--a call for papers

uses lingo of the trade--CFP

• response is informal in tone--no caps in signature name

sentences are around 20 words

• obviously friends
• written as string of messages
• punctuation is normal for English profs
• didn't notice any misspellings, uses contractions, slang "brew" "trying to scrimp here"

no indents, uses lots of abbreviations--MN, AC, SCSU, CFP, "spending most time at home" incomplete sentence.

• there's an attachment
• Header Elements *written RE: demands a response
• uses a smiley emoticon
• capitalzes "Fall" might be college convention
• questioning tone of "not sure what you mean by 'wiki writing text'"
• time between second letter from Matt is 22 minutes
• 'maybe we can share resources' is an invitation for more communication

Analysis

Parts of Messages

First (4:59 from Matt)

most of this is to a large audience of rhetoric professors the first line is semi-personal--Greetings--but not to anyone in specific that I cantell since there is a missing address line. This possibly was sent to an English department as a hit or miss communication. It is also incomplete.

Second 1230 Mike

Excited for friend--what a deal! though this is dependant on tone without knowing the persons involved. Publish or perish job is what comes to my mind. Small talk. no caps in name and a dash before name--possibly in a hurry?

This also has bolded Re:Wiki CFP in the subject line--Why? this has to serve some rhetorical purpose--possible for notice, importance? wouldn't an email from a friend get notice and attention anyway?

Time passing between these letters is close to 18 hours. There was not a quick response for whatever reason, but what about the tone? My friends who say "what a deal" about something are usually talking about something that has teeth and looking for something to bite. Perhaps trying to think of a nice way to be congratulatory? The second sentence is a command--Get your book...Then a sort of response of "this is what I'm doing..." Little nicety that doesn't necessarily mean much, then a blowoff (?) We'll talk soon.

Interpretation

A resonable guess at interpretation of these three emails is that the second and third emails are surprise responses to the first, which is a formal call for papers (CFP). This first email, though incomplete, is a formal "shotgun" style approach from two professors working in conjuction on a book about wikis. Cleverly enough, their book is a collection of articles by other people who have thoughts or studies on or about wikis--in one respect they are using the work of others to come up with a book for themselves. Ironically, this method is similar to how wikis work.

This first email is carefully written and planned as it is going out to several universities and the author's want it to be taken seriously. (They are collecting these papers for a book.) More thought has gone into this email as to whom the audience will be--other professors/professionals. This is written for an audience of possibly "publish/perish" professors who need to be on the cutting edge, which may be why the phrase "the time has come for an edited collection..." This is an invitation to be on this edge. It is also a call to communicate and determine what wikis are, will be, or whatever. The message is designed to appeal to writing teachers in a college setting.

The editors "invite" other professionals for their thoughts on "theory, politics, future, and application...", which is further specifying their audience. Many teachers may be interested in the application and future of wikis, maybe even the theory behind them or their use, but who is going to be concerned about the "politics" of a wiki besides an academitian? (okay, I'm not sure it's the word I'm looking for).

The second email is a response to the first, but with a change of tone because the authors are now operating at a friendship/collegue level as opposed to an impersonal formal level. The tone of the second I hesitate to read too much into as it was done over the lunch hour and seems to be rushed. It's mostly small talk between two professors, one more established than the other.

The third email goes into a bit more personal detail and description of his offce, the weather (mentions no AC), and classrooms. However, this is mostly small talk and possibly some wistfulness and loneliness about being in a new job and new community--"be nice to get a brew!"

This last email is also an invitation to more than a brew, but professional inquiry of "wiki writing text" and a further invitation to look at a wiki textbook on a wiki. This seems loaded with irony to me, because the traditional walls of private inquiry and research jealously guarded seem to be breaking down because of the open nature of wikis.

Evaluation

Given the personal nature of these emails, at least the latter two, it is difficult to evaluate the messages as good, bad, right or wrong. Perhaps, ineffective and effective would be better adjectives in this case. It depends on what's actually going on and the evaluator's (me) past experience in reading messages, etc.

My take on these three emails is that the first message really had no significance beyond getting some well-chosen thoughts from other professionals. Though, it could have been a fishing expedition to see what else is "out there." Given the open nature of wikis, I doubt the latter. I don't know the two editors involved, but readers do learn that Matt is a first year teacher at a state university, which we get from the second email.

The second email could be written in haste since it's short and the time is over the lunch hour. There is possibly a bit of shock/surprise on the writer's part that someone so new to the field is writing book, it could also be envy or jealousy. It depends on the tone of the phrase, "What a deal!" I can't determine this tone from the content and not knowing the writers involved. I thought of this because the greeting line is capitalized (Matt) and the salutation line is lower cased (-mike). Perhaps this signifies the writer was feeling less important because he's jealous/envious. It could be that he missed the shift key and didn't worry about it.

I would say the second email is a simultaneous quick reply to a CFP and a friend. The writer obviously wants to be part of this book because he offers to send them a chapter/"something."

The third email is a quick reply too, but it is more out of loneliness than concern for a paper. The paper isn't mentioned, the other professor's work is. This is more in tune with the fishing expedition theory of the first email's evaluation. Though most of the text is a rambling of the past few months of this guy's life--moving, new job, no money, etc. He's obviously lonely.

In his second paragraph, his personal stuff out of his system, he's back to being professional--he indirectly invites comment/critique/criticism on his textbook that's on a wikibook. This may be "bait," to continue my fishing metaphor, to get the other writer to tell more about the mysterious "wiki writing text."

So, even though there is some aspect of friendship, there is an overall motive of publication throughout the emails. I would call this publication motive pervasive. The first is a call for papers to be included in a book, the second is not only an answer, but a promise of "something" for the book, the third is an admission of still another book and a request for more information about a "text," which does not necessarily mean a book.