Communication and Violence in the Poetics of Terayama Shūji: From the Poetic to the Theatric
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, an interesting an original work. The second half of the article, purporting to discuss the poetics of Terayama's dramatic works only touches upon a few of them. I would encourage the author to look further within Terayama's works, as there are more examples to support the author's contentions.
The author also posits that they will analyze Terayama's early essay on action poetry in regard to Tenjo Sajiki's performances. I would encourage this line of pursuit but would also encourage the author to expand their research and consider the reviews of the productions and how the violence was perceived and received.
Author Response
I wish to express our strong appreciation to the reviewers for these insightful comments have helped me significantly improve the paper.
Point1: In discussing the practice of Terayama's poetics, I have added concrete examples to support my thesis, such as the Japanese version of "Hair" and the rock musical "Our Age Comes Riding on a Circus Elephant"(Jidai wa sākasu no zō ni notte).
Point2: Also, as you pointed out, I think that the perception of "violence" in Terayama's work has changed over time. Several experimental dramas "Jashumon" and "Ahensensō" (Opium War) which were performed in early 1970 were criticized for their violent involvement in the audience. I have clarified “how the violence was perceived and received”. So, I thought it was important to look at both the possibility and the impossibility and evaluate it by focusing on various aspects.
Point3: Since the effect of "metaphysical violence" that I have discussed this time has been overlooked, I would like to discuss violence in more detail in the future by making use of the knowledge obtained this study.
Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is helpful to have some of the original Japanese. However, it disturbs the reading when too many Japanese words are added to the English, especially when they are repeated. Therefore I suggest making more translation choices to make the argument stand out clearer. Please check that all references are adequate, e.g. to Yamato Kenkichi's essay on the first page.
In general improve consistency in reference system.
Use of phrases like "on the other hand" and "in earnest" seem a bit off some places in the text.
Interesting points that can be developed and stressed on the collective poetic creation that also lies in some poetic traditions/practices.
Explain the particular use and meaning of violence a bit more. Maybe by including analyses of particular examples.
Author Response
I wish to express my strong appreciation to the reviewers for these insightful comments on my paper. I feel the comments have helped me significantly improve the paper.
Point 1: Certainly, as you pointed out, there are a lot of Japanese words, and I thought it might give the impression of being complicated to read. So, I omitted extra words to a minimum.
Point 2: Also, regarding Kenkichi Yamamoto's essay, I researched it again and clarified the source. I also made it clear that this is not a single essay, but a section of 18 chapters.
Point 3: In addition, I have corrected phrases such as "on the other hand" and "in earnest" that are out of context.
Point 4: I would like to answer your question regarding the definition and usage of violence. For the definition of violence, Terayama does not clearly define it, but he uses Sorel's "metaphysical violence", the power from below. However, I think a particular use of “Language as Violence” is the word as “graffiti” which is different from the word of power (print). Also, I think that the voices unique to the person, which are not "standard language" or "standardized words" in later theater, are an example of "Language as Violence". Terayama probably thought violence in a broader meaning than Sorel, and I think that violence is the power to create new words in order to escape from the standardization of words.
Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to strengthen my manuscript with your valuable comments and queries.
Reviewer 3 Report
This article makes the compelling argument that Terayama Shuji's artistic and theoretical work is interconnected through and shaped by his engagement with "dialogue" (taiwa) in poetics and "violence" (boryoku) in theater. Through a well-researched analysis, the author demonstrates how the relationship between dialogue and violence is established in Tereyama's work while also making historical and theoretical connections with such thinkers as Bakhtin, Sorel, and Ong outside Japan, and Amazawa, Tanikawa, and Tsurumi within Japan. I consider this article to be an important contribution not only to the study of Terayama but also of poetry/theater in 1970s Japan and the avant-garde movement. I recommend the editors to publish this article after minor revisions. I look forward to seeing the final print version of this article.
I have the following suggestions for improvement:
*While the article engages with Japanese language scholarship on Teruyama, it ignores Anglophone scholarship (i.e. Ridgely 2010 & Sorgenfrei 2005). Especially the former also discusses the concept of "violence" in relation to Terayama. The article's argument would benefit from a discussion of such scholarly works.
*The article historicizes in detail Terayama's work within the Japanese context. Perhaps, it could discuss briefly the historical context of the global avant-garde movements and their concerns with which Terayama engages in a paragraph or with several references throughout the text. Were Terayama's efforts to theorize his poetry and theater in relation to dialogue and violence part of a larger, global discussion among avant-garde artists? Did Terayama engage with any foreign (avant-garde) artists or its theories? Highlighting the global context and broader avant-garde poetry/theater trends could improve the article's reach to a broader readership and strengthen its contribution.
*The article requires some substantial copy-editing. There are many inconsistencies in using Japanese terms/titles with or without English translation and written in italics or not. There are also several typos and other minor linguistics errors. Some short quotations are indented while longer ones are not (usually quotations shorter than 3 or 5 lines are not indented). Certain names only appear with last name when mentioned for the first time.
* The article has many quotes running either throughout the text or indented, which weakens the flow. It it also confusing where quotes start and end. Perhaps the quotes by other scholars, such as Soeda's, could be paraphrased instead. The same for some of the in-text quotes.
Author Response
I wish to express my strong appreciation to the reviewers for these insightful comments on my paper. I feel the comments have helped me significantly improve the paper.
Point 1: As you pointed out, research on the English-speaking world was missing from the previous research, so I incorporated Steven C. Ridgely's argument dealing with the anonymity in graffiti. In another place, I also mentioned the thesis of Daisuke Akiyoshi, who discusses the boxing novel Aa, kōya (Ah, wilderness). Because it shows the possibilities and limits of violence in a mass-consumption society, it is highly suggestive and allows the discussion to develop.
Point 2: Also, you pointed out that Terayama's activities involving dialogue and violence, poetry and theater should be viewed in the context of a broader global avant-garde movement. So, I have added discussion of performance and collective creation in American avant-garde theater. For that reason, I cited The Living Theater as a concrete example. I pointed out that Terayama's focus on the process of generating poetry was supported by conceptual art like Joan Cage that was actively introduced to Japan, mainly at the Sogetsu Art Center at the time.
Point 3: In addition, philosopher Hitoshi Imamura has conducted excellent research on theater and violence, but Terayama was inspired by the theories of Marcel Mausse and Antonin Artaud, and later developed a dramaturgy ("Labyrinth and Dead Sea “). I would like to discuss in detail in a separate article on theater theory in the future.
Point 4: Other minor corrections have been made. For example, I deleted typos and excessive Japanese terms, and incorporated parts that could be paraphrased into the text, such as quotes from Soeda.
Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to strengthen my manuscript with your valuable comments and queries.
