chp5: reword limits para

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/chapter5.md b/chapter5.md
index 26d28ba..86805b6 100644
--- a/chapter5.md
+++ b/chapter5.md
@@ -27,17 +27,14 @@ used apocalyptic language as an essential tool in the author's rhetorical
 strategy. In chapter 4, I went further, and argued that in order to succeed now,
 green rhetors must use similar apocalyptic rhetorical strategies.
 
-My analysis has severe limits. As I explored in chapter 1, there are many
-reasons why green rhetoric is too often failing at present, and there's no good
-cause to think that any one solution will fix all. Nor have I made any attempt
-to explain why the catastrophic dialectic criticised in chapter 2 is so
-consistently reproduced in green rhetoric, nor have I provided a feasible means
-of ensuring that green rhetors can and do adopt the apocalyptic strategies I
-have proposed. In chapter 1, I warned that a great deal of contemporary green
-rhetoric does not successfully identify a practical plan of action or the right
-audience to carry it out: I am happy to confess my guilt in the same sin. I have
-also not given nearly as much attention to people who hold millenialist
-worldviews as I would have liked, and they deserve.
+My analysis has severe limits. There's no good reason to believe that reviving
+good apocalyptic language would solve all the problems facing green rhetors, nor
+have I proposed any practical plan of action which could lead green rhetors to
+change their literary style in the ways I prefer. I have also mostly assumed
+that green rhetoric is only addressed to people who do not hold millenialist
+worldviews, and this is of course untrue. Many people with a huge stake in green
+issues, from the Appalachians to the Congo, hold millenialist worldviews. My
+analysis is significantly weaker for having largely ignored these people.
 
 What I do claim, is that, contra the many critics of apocalypticism, and
 despite the fact that apocalypticism, like all good things, can and is twisted