In our Skype session, S told me (again) that my material is fine and the way I package it isn't. I need to include more details of my arguments. Its not that I don't have the evidence or the understanding. I just don't spell it out in the right way. I don't include enough examples (I'm always worried about the word count). I should have got this right after nine years of university courses in the humanities.
But I think he liked my overall argument that the fascination of Cohen is the way he uses language typical of conversation alongside language typical of narrative fiction alongside language typical of academic writing. And he draws the reader/listener in by being intimate and challenging at the same time.
It occurred to me that no-one as far as I know has ever done this kind of analysis on Cohen before. So its all original. And that feels good.