“So Beautiful That Mortal… Eyes Can’t Take It”: How Postmodernism Shows Us the Function of the Beautiful in the Landscape of the Traumatic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have chosen an intriguing topic - the co-existence of beauty and trauma in Hiroshima, The Things They Carried and Infinite Jest - and you are evidently enthusiastic about this subject. You also include some nice insights about Hiroshima in particular. As it stands, however, the article is too diffuse and underdeveloped in its argument. Use your introduction to set out your argument and sections more clearly and state your original scholarly intervention. It would also be helpful if you could offer your particular definition of "postmodernism", especially in relation to Hersey's text which pre-dates the period from which postmodernist literature is usually understood to begin. "Beauty" is a subjective concept in need of further definition here, too.

You could also move away from extensive use of your initial historical case study (Jake Larson), which is handled in a rather descriptive way and later becomes distracting, and engage more closely with what Hersey and O'Brien are doing by including more close textual analysis.

Exploring three main texts is perhaps too much in an essay of this length, so think about how you want to use the Infinite Jest material, especially when your discussion is about war trauma. You could also add more scholarly sources to your Bibliography and be ready to critique them further.

I would like to see a stronger and more compelling argument overall. At the moment, the essay is rather piecemeal and fragmented, not helped by the vague subheadings (e.g. "John: Hiroshima" - what does a subheading like this mean?) and you need to integrate your sections more smoothly e.g. on p.6 where you shift abruptly from "There is a god. (13:45)" to "Tim O'Brien, in his famous work..." I do see promise here but the essay needs quite substantial rethinking and revising. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

You write well in places but the style of the essay is uneven. The footnotes - some of which do not seem entirely relevant (I would suggest that you can be more sparing with footnotes when revising) - are expressed in an overly colloquial way. For instance, "in my brain" or "I thought the connection was cool" or "in case this footnote wasn't hair-pulling enough". That style seems fine for a personal essay or more journalistic work but out of place, even a bit unprofessional, in an academic article. This version also needs further editing for presentation: recognised referencing system, overlong quotations (which should be indented), abbreviations, spelling and typographical errors, and overuse of italicisation.

Author Response

Comment 1: “Use your introduction to set out your argument and sections more clearly and state your original scholarly intervention”

Response 1:Several new paragraphs have been added to the introduction to address these claims, bolster the existing material, and make the following sections and terms more clear. 

Comment 2: “It would also be helpful if you could offer your particular definition of ‘postmodernism’, especially in relation to Hersey's text which pre-dates the period from which postmodernist literature is usually understood to begin. "Beauty" is a subjective concept in need of further definition here, too”

Response 2: All instances of Hiroshima being shoehorned in as a postmodern text have been changed, qualifying his work as “proto-postmodern” to avoid dating issues. Beauty and the beautiful are left with the existing definition supplied before, with the hope being that the improved discussion regarding how they function in postmodern and traumatic texts will be the clear focus. 

Comment 3: “think about how you want to use the Infinite Jest material, especially when your discussion is about war trauma. You could also add more scholarly sources to your Bibliography and be ready to critique them further”.

Response 3: Several new paragraphs have been added to the Infinite Jest section, mostly delving deeper into the theoretical aspects of trauma that more modern trauma theorists have posited. The hope here is that by utilizing contemporary ideas about theory I can ground the discussion of Wallace’s work as a paragon of trauma theory’s reach and dexterity as a modern and dynamic form of literary criticism. Several instances are now present in the paper qualifying Infinite Jest as a work that does not pertain to war but that is still relevant to the overarching conversation surrounding the intersection of beauty, trauma, and postmodernism, helping to establish a more clear line from Hiroshima and The Things They Carried to Wallace. 

Comment 4: “I would like to see a stronger and more compelling argument overall. At the moment, the essay is rather piecemeal and fragmented, not helped by the vague subheadings (e.g. ‘John: Hiroshima’ - what does a subheading like this mean?) and you need to integrate your sections more smoothly e.g. on p.6 where you shift abruptly from ‘There is a god. (13:45)" to "Tim O'Brien, in his famous work...’”

Response 4: Section headers have been fixed, revamped, and made more descriptive. All sections have been given transition sentences to facilitate the shifts in my discussion. The particular abrupt sentence mentioned has also been fixed. The argument has evolved to incorporate a stronger focus on the intersection of trauma and beauty, and it has been made more clear that this intersection is a place of failing narrativization of trauma. This has been fixed in the abstract as well as the work itself. 

Comment 5: “You write well in places but the style of the essay is uneven. The footnotes - some of which do not seem entirely relevant (I would suggest that you can be more sparing with footnotes when revising) - are expressed in an overly colloquial way. For instance, "in my brain" or "I thought the connection was cool" or "in case this footnote wasn't hair-pulling enough". That style seems fine for a personal essay or more journalistic work but out of place, even a bit unprofessional, in an academic article. This version also needs further editing for presentation: recognised referencing system, overlong quotations (which should be indented), abbreviations, spelling and typographical errors, and overuse of italicisation.”

Response 5: Footnotes have been removed, cut, or otherwise stripped of colloquialisms. The rest of the colloquialisms have been removed from the body of the work. Abbreviations (except for etc. and (q.v.)) have been removed or fixed. The overlong quotations have been indented but are still, likely, too long—I wasn’t entirely sure what to keep and what to remove with them. I found one spelling error, "imaging” when I meant “imagining”, and this has been fixed. I also changed Odalisk to Odalisque just in case, though Odalisk is recognized as a correct (albeit alternative) spelling of the noun form in a few different dictionaries. The main reason I had it as Odalisk in the original version is because this is the English form used by Wallace in Infinite Jest. In any case, every instance has been changed to the accepted “Odalisque”. I am unsure exactly how to fix the referencing system, nor do I believe I have control over the typographical choices made. Italicization has been removed in nearly all instances. 

I would like to thank you for your engagement with this paper, and for taking the time to point out numerous different areas to focus on for improvement. Although I did not limit the number of primary sources, I believe that building up the contemporary discussion in several areas allows the paper to feel far less wanting. I believe that the argument has become more grounded, the language more professional, and the paper in-toto more in line with what is expected from scholarly intervention. I did end up keeping the Larson storyline, but again, I am hoping that with a more clear argument and set of academic works being investigated the general idea is maintained throughout the work well enough to not be too offset by a discussion of his stories. Again, thank you for your suggestions and report, your comments have helped the development of this work tremendously. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a theoretically promising essay with a clear purpose and structure. However, I have two main concerns. The first one is that although interesting and original for trauma studies, the concept beauty is not sufficiently theorized or delineated. The examples provided from the very well written close-readings sometimes could be discussed in the framework of resilience, and others through the concept of the sublime. In other words, beauty sees here a shaky term.

The second issue is that the statements you are making are inherently political, but no attempt to place them in contemporary dialogue is made. I understand that you are discussing past traumatization, but I would be remiss if didn't mention that for migration and climate crises the concept of beauty in relation to traumatization is problematic. Why are these texts the best examples of what you are trying to say? How does Foster-Wallace fit in with the other ones? In light of this, the kind of trauma that you refer to must be perhaps further qualified. Following this, my question to you is whether Caruth's is the best text to rely on; I'm saying this because her writing has been heavily criticised and so much has been more recently written on trauma and resilience.

Author Response

Comment 1: “The first one is that although interesting and original for trauma studies, the concept beauty is not sufficiently theorized or delineated. The examples provided from the very well written close-readings sometimes could be discussed in the framework of resilience, and others through the concept of the sublime. In other words, beauty sees here a shaky term.”

Response 1: Beauty and the beautiful are left with the existing definition supplied before, with the hope being that the improved discussion regarding how they function in postmodern and traumatic texts will be the clear focus. A new paragraph about beauty has been added to do precisely this, bringing in ideas from theorists such as van der Kolk and van der Hart to help elucidate the point being made. The concept of the sublime (as touched on / used by LaCapra) is brought into the paper, so hopefully this clears any question of my use of “beauty” referencing either resilience or the sublime. 

Comment 2: “The second issue is that the statements you are making are inherently political, but no attempt to place them in contemporary dialogue is made. I understand that you are discussing past traumatization, but I would be remiss if didn't mention that for migration and climate crises the concept of beauty in relation to traumatization is problematic.”

Response 2: I ultimately failed to incorporate a modern discussion of contemporary environmental / migration politics and how something like “the beautiful” seems to not quite fit—however, I did add numerous discussions throughout the paper involving the impossibility of the beautiful and the traumatic coexisting in a traumatic retelling, which may subtly address your desires here. In any case, I feel that an extended discussion of the implications of my writing on the modern day environmental / migration trauma that we see occurring is a topic that warrants its own full length paper and discussion.

Comment 3: “Why are these texts the best examples of what you are trying to say? How does Foster-Wallace fit in with the other ones?”

Response 3: Numerous new paragraphs were added to address the former question, with multiple new paragraphs and special attention given to the Foster Wallace section of my paper. The Wallace section now not only contains a bolstered first paragraph, but several subsequent paragraphs moving into discussions from contemporary trauma theorists that work to reinforce the relevance and intrigue of Wallace’s work in Infinite Jest—particularly for trauma theorists. New sections throughout the paper now mention that Infinite Jest is not a war trauma book but still deeply connected to the overarching argument of the paper, thereby strengthening the claim that this text is the best example of what I’m trying to say. 

Comment 4: “In light of this, the kind of trauma that you refer to must be perhaps further qualified”

Response 4: As mentioned in Response 3, new sections have been added that clarify Infinite Jest’s position as a non-war trauma book, but there is also now an entire paragraph at the end of the introduction discussing what kind of trauma this paper refers to. 

Comment 5: “Following this, my question to you is whether Caruth's is the best text to rely on; I'm saying this because her writing has been heavily criticised and so much has been more recently written on trauma and resilience.”

Response 5: An array of contemporary theorists have now been incorporated into the paper, writing in support of and in response to Caruth’s work. Although the foundation of the piece is still Caruth’s theory and writings, these new conversations offer several different avenues of exploration in my topic and focus, and help make the work far less myopic. 

 

Thank you for your response to and engagement with my work. I do wish I could have provided a link from what I’ve written to such a contemporary, ubiquitous set of traumatic experiences as migration and environmental devastation / the climate crisis, and I do find your thinking here to be imperative in a discussion of trauma, but I think that an extension is simply beyond what is possible in the space allotted for my work here. Such an argument would need to be fully fleshed out—investigated with an extremely delicate and close eye—and I knew I could not do it justice here. You have certainly given me plenty to think about in that regard moving forward, and I thank you as much for that as for pointing out areas needing improvement within the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the article has an interesting focus -- the juxtaposition of real-life horror and its aesthetic representation (i.e. beauty) -- it fails to offer a perspective that is well-grounded and fresh. The author's abstract presents this work as an example of interdisciplinary research in trauma studies, and it identifies one of those disciplines as psychology. However, the sources that the author brings to bear on the analysis are scant and dated. The author relies on Freud, Lacan, and the modern trauma theorist Cathy Caruth. All are important figures in the field of trauma theory, especially literary trauma theory, but they are foundational figures: not representatives of current research relating to trauma and the narration of that trauma. Relying on Freud's and Lacan's theories is tantamount to discussing physiology and disease by primarily referencing medical texts a century or more in the past. Contemporary psychologists and (particularly) neuropsychologists have shed considerable light on the correlations between trauma and the narration of that trauma. Regarding Caruth, she well deserves admiration as a pioneer in the field of literary trauma theory, but she, too, has been overly reliant on out-of-date notions regarding the articulation of personal and cultural trauma. Indeed, she has been criticized by the psychological community for oversimplifying and at times outright misrepresenting Freud's theories (especially). Modern-day theorists (like Bessel Van der Kolk, Onno van der Hart, Alexander McFarlane, Jennifer Vasterling, Eiana Newman, Susan Roth, and others) have revolutionized our understanding of the effects of trauma and how those effects may result in various narrative techniques. This article would benefit by incorporating contemporary understandings of trauma and trauma narratives into the analyses of the given texts (Hersey and O'Brien). The final two sections of the article -- "David: Infinite Jest" and "An Inconclusive Conclusion" -- are largely free of psychological underpinning, and yet their foci seem ideally suited to the interdisciplinary approach the author aspires to (according to the abstract). I point especially to lines 430-443, which are wholly untethered from studies in psychology. In fact, these last sections may be offering fertile ground for references to up-to-date research in trauma studies. One last (but important) quibble: The author seems to imply that authors (like O'Brien) consciously chose narrative techniques associated with postmodernism because they were ideally suited to narrating traumatic episodes (see lines 226-229). It is quite possible that the opposite is true: that because the writers experienced trauma, they had no choice but to narrate the events in a way that we have come to call "postmodern." That is, postmodern narrative techniques are an effect of trauma (not a convenient and artful way to describe the experience). I would point to the work of Anne Whitehead, Marian MacCurdy, Laura Di Prete, and others. All in all, my conclusion is that the author's topic is intriguing, but their analysis would benefit from the reading of contemporary trauma theorists, especially in the fields of psychoanalysis and neuropsychology.

Author Response

Comment 1: “The author's abstract presents this work as an example of interdisciplinary research in trauma studies, and it identifies one of those disciplines as psychology. However, the sources that the author brings to bear on the analysis are scant and dated. The author relies on Freud, Lacan, and the modern trauma theorist Cathy Caruth. All are important figures in the field of trauma theory, especially literary trauma theory, but they are foundational figures: not representatives of current research relating to trauma and the narration of that trauma. Relying on Freud's and Lacan's theories is tantamount to discussing physiology and disease by primarily referencing medical texts a century or more in the past. Contemporary psychologists and (particularly) neuropsychologists have shed considerable light on the correlations between trauma and the narration of that trauma.” 

Response 1: Abstract has been revised and fixed to deemphasize this works standing an interdisciplinary research effort; contemporary research and theorists in the field of trauma studies have been added in multiple new paragraphs, hoping to bring analysis that is neither scant nor dated, nor analogous to discussing physiology and only referencing centuries old medical texts; multiple instances of narrative / narrativization and trauma discussed within the framework provided by contemporary theorists.

 

Comment 2: “Regarding Caruth, she well deserves admiration as a pioneer in the field of literary trauma theory, but she, too, has been overly reliant on out-of-date notions regarding the articulation of personal and cultural trauma. Indeed, she has been criticized by the psychological community for oversimplifying and at times outright misrepresenting Freud's theories (especially). Modern-day theorists (like Bessel Van der Kolk, Onno van der Hart, Alexander McFarlane, Jennifer Vasterling, Eiana Newman, Susan Roth, and others) have revolutionized our understanding of the effects of trauma and how those effects may result in various narrative techniques. This article would benefit by incorporating contemporary understandings of trauma and trauma narratives into the analyses of the given texts (Hersey and O'Brien).” 

Response 2: Several of these names, inter alia, were added to the body of the work in numerous different paragraphs, hoping to incorporate a more nuanced and updated (and, of course, more inclusive) set of perspectives and ideas. Both van der Kolk and van der Hart are now referenced, particularly their ideas pertaining to gaps in narrative memory. Particular attention was paid to Hersey and Wallace’s texts, however, as these two sections (particularly the latter) seemed to benefit the most from the additions and conversations of the modern theorists. 

 

Comment 3: “The final two sections of the article -- "David: Infinite Jest" and "An Inconclusive Conclusion" -- are largely free of psychological underpinning, and yet their foci seem ideally suited to the interdisciplinary approach the author aspires to (according to the abstract). I point especially to lines 430-443, which are wholly untethered from studies in psychology. In fact, these last sections may be offering fertile ground for references to up-to-date research in trauma studies.”

Response 3: Both of these sections have been updated and expanded, with the Wallace section (now under a new header) receiving paragraphs worth of new and needed contemporary voices to expand and solidify the argument being made in this paper. The Wallace section benefited tremendously from such bolstering.

 

Comment 4: “One last (but important) quibble: The author seems to imply that authors (like O'Brien) consciously chose narrative techniques associated with postmodernism because they were ideally suited to narrating traumatic episodes (see lines 226-229). It is quite possible that the opposite is true: that because the writers experienced trauma, they had no choice but to narrate the events in a way that we have come to call "postmodern." That is, postmodern narrative techniques are an effect of trauma (not a convenient and artful way to describe the experience)”

Response 4: I found this point to be extremely interesting and wanted to get it into the work as much as possible—as such, instances of this idea can be found on numerous occasions throughout the revised version. I had a difficult time finding the right words for this idea and drawing it out entirely—I wondered if quoting from a peer review is kosher / how one would go about that. In any case, I make a distinct effort to place this within the article, though I am unsure if I was successful in doing so in a cogent, cohesive way. 

 

Thank you for your comments, suggestions, and specific interventions—your work has proved integral in making this article far more grounded and articulate than it was initially. Including new theorists was an excellent way to reconsider my argument and its strength, though the work remains linked with the work of Lacan, Freud, and especially Caruth. I hope that in adding these new voices I am able to show that Caruth is not the only voice worth listening to in the field of trauma studies, nor are her ideas to be considered gospel—though I am aware that I do not directly address the critics of Caruth. Again, I am hoping that the synthesis of other voices in my paper makes it clear that other contemporary voices are invaluable in the field, thereby allowing me to spend my time looking at what they’re saying instead of defending Caruth and her theories. Again, thank you for your time and effort working with my paper, and I hope the revisions made adequately address the majority of the shortcomings / issues you found with the initial version!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is great to know that you found my initial report useful and I can really see a shift in this revised version of your article. Your Bibliography is enriched by new sources and you draw on them to very good effect. Your sections also work much more coherently now. This erudite and ambitious article is now in a much better place for publication although there are still some small tweaks to make to push it over the finish line. They are stylistic and presentational and I address them in the 'English language' section below.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Your writing is altogether more appropriate and professional now. There are, however, a few small changes needed:

1) "one... they" (p.7 - "even if one is to see the beautiful... the possibility remains that they will find" - and passim): the two pronouns do not agree with one another and generate confusion. This issue is simply corrected to the use of "one... one" instead.  

2) Spelling: e.g. "solider" for "soldier" in footnote 1 (p.2); "populous" - should be "populace" - on p.4. Please do a final spell check.

3) "Larson" works better than "Mr. Larson" or "Jake"

4) Introduce van der Kolk and van der Hart properly in the main text

5) Referencing: let me explain what I mean here as you expressed some confusion in your response to my report. You do not seem to use a recognized system of referencing (MLA, Chicago, etc) and it is difficult to connect your in-text references with what is actually in the Bibliography. To give an example, in footnote 4 on p.5, you mention "Norton" but there is no "Norton" in the Bibliography. Can you move to an author-date system so that the reader can easily refer to the longer citation in the Bibliography? The references in the main text need to match up with what is in the Bibliography to be intelligible to the reader.

6) Please cite your Sartre source(s) in the Bibliography.

7) Some of your word choices seem a little awry e.g. "lucrative" (p.7 and passim) and "stochastic"/"stochastically" (e.g. pp.7, 10). "Homely" for Medusa? (p.11) - I think "terrifying" might be a better word! On this subject, isn't beauty also a distinctly gendered concept in the case of the Odalisque and Medusa?

8) Some footnotes still seem a bit redundant e.g. footnotes 5 - the reader does not need a definition of "pastiche", rather a sense of what is being pastiched - and 7 (a chapter title) and 12 (definition of "cliff" from the OED). These footnotes are unnecessary.

9) By contrast, a definition of "story-truth" and "happening-truth" would be useful for any readers of your article unfamiliar with O'Brien's specific terminology.

10) Staying with O'Brien, "autofiction" would a helpful term on p.11 when you explore his postmodern experimentation with the limits of fiction. This term is conspicuously missing in your discussion and would definitely strengthen it further.

Author Response

Comment 1) "one... they" (p.7 - "even if one is to see the beautiful... the possibility remains that they will find" - and passim): the two pronouns do not agree with one another and generate confusion. This issue is simply corrected to the use of "one... one" instead.  

Response 1: Fixed.

 

Comment 2) Spelling: e.g. "solider" for "soldier" in footnote 1 (p.2); "populous" - should be "populace" - on p.4. Please do a final spell check.

Response 2: Fixed both of these instances, as well as some other small grammatical mistakes. 

 

Comment 3) "Larson" works better than "Mr. Larson" or "Jake" 

Response 3: All instances of “Mr. Larson” or “Jake” changed to “Larson”. 

 

Comment 4) Introduce van der Kolk and van der Hart properly in the main text

Reponse 4: See lines 135-136 for more proper introductions to van der Kolk and van der Hart. 

 

Comment 5) Referencing: let me explain what I mean here as you expressed some confusion in your response to my report. You do not seem to use a recognized system of referencing (MLA, Chicago, etc) and it is difficult to connect your in-text references with what is actually in the Bibliography. To give an example, in footnote 4 on p.5, you mention "Norton" but there is no "Norton" in the Bibliography. Can you move to an author-date system so that the reader can easily refer to the longer citation in the Bibliography? The references in the main text need to match up with what is in the Bibliography to be intelligible to the reader.

Response 5: All in text citations have been transitioned to (Author-Date, Page) where possible. When no author is given, the entry used in the Bibliography is cited (see footnote 5 on page 9, for example). Pastiche entries in the Bibliography were removed, as well as the cliff definition. 

 

Comment 6) Please cite your Sartre source(s) in the Bibliography.

Response 6: Both added to bibliography. 

 

Comment 7) Some of your word choices seem a little awry e.g. "lucrative" (p.7 and passim) and "stochastic"/"stochastically" (e.g. pp.7, 10). "Homely" for Medusa? (p.11) - I think "terrifying" might be a better word! On this subject, isn't beauty also a distinctly gendered concept in the case of the Odalisque and Medusa?

Response 7: “Lucrative” changed to “favorable” and “beneficial”. “Stochastic” changed to “arbitrary” in one instance—another was left alone. “Homely” swapped for “terrifying”. The note on beauty being a distinctly gendered concept in this case is fascinating as well, though I was unsure of segueing into this conversation effectively here. It is worth considerable attention, but I think would require a paper more grounded in gender in order to sufficiently delve into.

 

Comment 8) Some footnotes still seem a bit redundant e.g. footnotes 5 - the reader does not need a definition of "pastiche", rather a sense of what is being pastiched - and 7 (a chapter title) and 12 (definition of "cliff" from the OED). These footnotes are unnecessary.

Response 8: Footnotes 5, 7, and 12 removed. 

 

9) By contrast, a definition of "story-truth" and "happening-truth" would be useful for any readers of your article unfamiliar with O'Brien's specific terminology.

Response 9: What is now footnote 6 gives an explanation of story-truth and happening-truth. 

 

10) Staying with O'Brien, "autofiction" would a helpful term on p.11 when you explore his postmodern experimentation with the limits of fiction. This term is conspicuously missing in your discussion and would definitely strengthen it further.

Response 10: Autofiction added into the conversation on p.11. 

Thank you for yet another round of helpful, insightful comments on this article. Your considerations and attention to detail have been indispensable throughout this process, and I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to work with this piece as thoroughly as you have. Hopefully this version makes that final push over the line!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a much improved draft from the previous version. The author has expanded their research to include contemporary psychologists and trauma theorists; and they have intelligently and successfully linked their work to pioneers in the field of trauma studies (from Freud to Lacan to Caruth to the present). What is more, the author has provided appropriate nuance when discussing the complex subject of trauma representation via narration. Given these substantial (and impressive) revisions, I would recommend publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your help throughout this process! I am glad that the revised version, with expanded conversations incorporating modern theorists and closer looks at their respective theories, has proven substantial enough for your approval. All the best!