Bloody Petticoats: Performative Monstrosity of the Female Slayer in Seth Grahame-Smith’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction does not well represent the quality of the paper to follow. The first paragraph seems to have some issues with diction and syntax, but those language issues appear to be cleared up completely by the second page of the essay. The introduction of the topic is mildly confusing, as it seems to promise a focus on female monsters while also suggesting a focus on female (human) protagonists--it takes until much later in the paper for readers to understand the kinds of "monsters" are being considered and it what context. The discussion of the zombie needs to explain (a footnote would likely be fine) how the author is using "zombie," "zombii, and "zombi(i)/e," technical variations on the idea that would not likely be clear to most readers. The foundational information on zombies, zombie origins, zombie narratives, zombie symbolism, etc. is well represented via a number of scholars, but most of the ideas mentioned--such as "the zombie as a product of imperialistic and capitalistic institutions"--were first published in Kyle William Bishop's American Zombie Gothic; the lack of any reference to his work demonstrates a blindspot in the article's research efforts. The longer quotes are variously formatted (and not ever necessarily correctly), which makes reading the article a bit confusing (obviously a formatting, not a content issue, but perhaps worth noting nonetheless). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As stated, the first paragraph reads a little odd to me, with diction that needs revising. There's also a potential typo on line 355.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

• I have rewritten large portions of the introduction and made my argument much clearer, including expressly stating how the coming sections are divided.
• In the introduction rewriting for clarity, I signposted the kind of monster I am referring to for my close reading of Seth Grahame-Smith’s Elizabeth.
• I added the footnote outlining why I use the term zombi(i)/e as requested.
• I have read and inserted Kyle Williams Bioship’s scholarship as requested. I read his work whilst researching and writing this article (originally a chapter) and I am not sure why I didn’t add him in the first round. You were right. It is an oversight on my part.
• I reformatted the longer quotes problem. They are separated from the paragraphs for the reader’s convenience.
• I found and fixed the typo on line 355

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although I'm not entirely sure that I feel this essay HAD to be written (there is some precedent work on PPZ), this study of GSG's PPZ affords an opportunity to share with an audience the researcher's solid research on both female monstrosity and on the zombie myth. I found the use of research of a high quality-- though perhaps a bit more should be said about Edward Said's reflection on Austen, especially since the author will reference the way that PPZ neglects to shine a light on the colonies as cultural forebearer of the zombie (a point that I think could be brought out a bit more to the betterment of the essay). Perhaps the author's larger point could be made even clearer: the last few lines of the conclusion seemed to me to take us in a totally different direction than I was expecting. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I did not think there were many errors to be corrected, but I did not understand the use of the word 'impunity' in the opening line. I think in quite a few places, the author might strive for clearer expression and less dense sentence formulations for a stronger article. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

• I added more of Edward Said’s scholarship to contextualize my argument more thoroughly and address a comment from the next reviewer.
• I deleted the last paragraph of the conclusion because I agree with you. The final lines veered outside the scope of my original argument.
• To continue with the previous point, I also deleted the sentence that included the word ‘impunity.’ I felt that the next paragraph was more effective with the next line (now the first line) at diving straight into my argument instead of starting the article with a vague claim.
• I reread the article and I looked for clunky expressions. I highlighted the areas that I rewrote for clarity. However, if there are any more sentences that you found particularly difficult to get through, please let me know and I will rewrite them. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would urge the author to reconsider their use of “feminism” in regard to the 19^th-century female authors cited. Some scholars contest the use given how the term doesn’t appropriately apply to the period when evoked retroactively. The author’s use of “proto-feminism” on page 2 solves this tension to a degree, but it is evoked too late. Similarly, to claim that Austen herself was not writing with a forward-thinking perspective on gender, sex, and marriage thus requiring a “feminist rewriting” is a disservice to Austen and to the work of scholars like Nora Gilbert, Devoney Looser, Francesca Marinaro, and Jill Heydt-Stevenson. I do not think this is the intention of the author of the article, but a more careful reworking of their lens, especially in the introduction would benefit the work. In part of the conversation Lady Catherine evokes “slave” (line 425) in discussion of Elizabeth’s mother. I thought that a discussion of how this word fits into the author’s close reading of Grahame-Smith’s text would follow but was left wondering. Is Grahame-Smith intentionally (and problematically) making a connection between the zombies in her text and slavery? I don’t think so, but such a cultural and racial unawareness seems like an important angle to discuss.

 

Overall, the author should take another look at contradictory moments in the article like the two mentioned above. I hope to see a revised version of this work in print; addressing the use of the zombie outside of its racially charged history particularly in a novel set in the 19^th century is an excellent contribution to the field that can prompt similar reflection in other texts.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3:

• I spent considerable time reading the sections/sentences where I use the word feminism. I changed it to proto-feminism as requested and explained in the introduction why I made that change. I still kept the word feminism in the few places where I am referring SGS’s Elizabeth as it is a contemporary text.
• The next point I strongly disagree with. Although there was one line that I rephrased since the argument was backward, my entire thesis is that Austen is forward-thinking, and it is SGS’s text that is less progressive than Austen’s text. There are countless places where I argue that Austen features progressive ideas of gender politics, subliminal messages of resistance to slavery, and imperialistic attitudes. I reference scholars such as Edward Said and Helena Kelly to support my point.
• I added a paragraph analysing Lady Catherine’s use of the word ‘slave’ as requested. I used Said as a reference point for support.
• I could not find any self-conscious language, but if you would kindly point them out, I would be happy to rectify any language that distracts from my argument.
• I deleted the “conclusion” header as requested.