Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this interesting examination of the shift from worker literature to more professionalized, "intellectual" writing in the early post-Mao era. The author's focus on three major figures associated with Shanghai Literature in the early 1980s is an effective way to trace the contours of the rapidly changing literary terrain. The article raises some interesting questions about what it identifies as the paradox of the rising tide of aesthetic elitism at the expense of worker literature, despite the latter's continued promotion in official ideology. I recommend the article for publication. 

I do think the article could address a few basic questions to more clearly connect its discussion to the broader context. I thought it was strange that Mao's Talks at Yan'an were only mentioned once (228), and that socialist realism only seemed to come up a couple times in passing. But aren't these the foundational principles of worker literature in the period of high socialism? Lines 189-91, for instance, mention that "industry-themed literature during the socialist period rarely captured the lived experiences of individual workers." But this should be a foregone conclusion given the strictures of socialist realism at the time, which Mao says should be more concentrated, more intense, and closer to the ideal than actual everyday life. Mao's idea of the writer tempering oneself by living amongst the workers doesn't seem to come into play, but it seems like that should be highly relevant context for the discussion as well. I realize the article's focus is after this period, but I think this important background could be addressed more upfront.    

Similarly, the questions raised in lines 308-311 seem like they could be contextualized a bit more. Why did young literary figures deviate from the legacy of socialist worker literature? Part of the answer is surely in the much-discussed shortcomings of the period's socialist realism, resulting in the major efforts to reconcile Marxism and humanism (i.e. the humanism debates, the novel 人啊，人！, the factory-based novel 沉重的翅膀, etc.), and the effort to excavate the materialist basis for realist literature in emotional experience and everyday life, rather than only those elements that exclusively build toward a socialist ideal.    

One final question I have relates to the amateur/professional dichotomy that the author emphasizes toward the end of the article. From the author's presentation, it seems as if Cai Xiang, et al, were simply workers who gravitated toward the literary world, and then were displaced in the late-'80s by professional academics. But isn't Cai Xiang a professor in Shanghai? And according to Baidu Baike, he graduated from 上海师范大学 in 1980, which would definitely make him an "intellectual." Some clarification about this type of background would be helpful.   

The English in this article is generally good, but it needs another round of proofreading for typos, etc. A few I noticed are: (252) the word "literally" should be changed to "the equivalent of" (a literal translation would be "Zhang Three")

(332) "his" should change to "her" (Ru Zhijuan was Wang Anyi's mother)

(381) add "s" to 1980

(588-592) grammar of this sentence needs to be fixed

(605) change "from" to "to"

(687, 692) delete the "s" from the word "capital"

(733-34) why Italicized?

Also, there are some block quotes (like the first paragraph) that need to be properly indicated.

Once again, I enjoyed reading this article and recommend it for publication.

Author Response

I am grateful to you for your careful reading and constructive feedback on my article. My responses to their comments are provided below.

Comment 1: “I do think the article could address a few basic questions to more clearly connect its discussion to the broader context. I thought it was strange that Mao's Talks at Yan'an were only mentioned once (228), and that socialist realism only seemed to come up a couple times in passing. But aren't these the foundational principles of worker literature in the period of high socialism? Lines 189-91, for instance, mention that "industry-themed literature during the socialist period rarely captured the lived experiences of individual workers." But this should be a foregone conclusion given the strictures of socialist realism at the time, which Mao says should be more concentrated, more intense, and closer to the ideal than actual everyday life. Mao's idea of the writer tempering oneself by living amongst the workers doesn't seem to come into play, but it seems like that should be highly relevant context for the discussion as well. I realize the article's focus is after this period, but I think this important background could be addressed more upfront”

Response 1: Additional explanation has been provided to show that the problem of socialist realist literature was not merely an oversight, but also actively prescribed by Mao. See lines 192-198

Line 423-425 also analyzes how worker writers’ return to the factory during the Cultural Revolution was also a response to Mao’s Talks.

Comment 2: “Similarly, the questions raised in lines 308-311 seem like they could be contextualized a bit more. Why did young literary figures deviate from the legacy of socialist worker literature? Part of the answer is surely in the much-discussed shortcomings of the period's socialist realism, resulting in the major efforts to reconcile Marxism and humanism (i.e. the humanism debates, the novel 人啊，人！, the factory-based novel 沉重的翅膀, etc.), and the effort to excavate the materialist basis for realist literature in emotional experience and everyday life, rather than only those elements that exclusively build toward a socialist ideal.”

Response 2: This argument in literary studies is also added as a backdrop in lines 314-320. The author also points out that a socio-economic approach is adopted in this article to address this issue.

Comment 3: “One final question I have relates to the amateur/professional dichotomy that the author emphasizes toward the end of the article. From the author's presentation, it seems as if Cai Xiang, et al, were simply workers who gravitated toward the literary world, and then were displaced in the late-'80s by professional academics. But isn't Cai Xiang a professor in Shanghai? And according to Baidu Baike, he graduated from 上海师范大学 in 1980, which would definitely make him an "intellectual." Some clarification about this type of background would be helpful”

Response 3: This point was originally explained in footnote 10 of the manuscript. To maintain the flow of the main text, it was not included there. I have revised the footnote to make the explanation clearer.

Comment 4: “The English in this article is generally good, but it needs another round of proofreading for typos, etc[…] Also, there are some block quotes (like the first paragraph) that need to be properly indicated”

Response 4: I have cleared the typos and format errors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article applied Pierre Bourdieu's theory of sociology, his concepts of "literary field", "economic, cultural, and symbolic capital" to analyze the worker writers and "writers from factory" around the literary journal Shanghai Literature(上海文学) in China between 1978 and 1989. It is creative in its methodology, theme, materials and may contribute to the study of contemporary Chinese literature in the English reading academia. On the whole I agree with the author on the main point of view that the "shifting" of identity of the worker writers reflects in depth the structural antagonism existing between manual and mental labor. The article has many more merits to detail, like when introducing Cai Xiang, life in Caoyang New Village, the first village to house model workers and progressive producers (工人新村) after 1949, was genuinely and vividly described. All these enhances the authenticity of the discourse and argument of the article.

One of my main concerns is the use of the term "post-socialist" in this article. The term is "Orientalizing", reflecting a west-centered approach. My suggestion is to reconsider the use of this term in this article.

Another question is in the first paragraph, in the "Introduction" part. The first paragraph must be a citation, as "me"(Wu Liang,吴亮) appeared as the first person narration. This should be a citation, if not, then 吴亮 should be the author of this article. Anyway this should be clarified.

 

Author Response

I am grateful to you for your careful reading and constructive feedback on my article. My responses to their comments are provided below.

Comment 1: “One of my main concerns is the use of the term "post-socialist" in this article. The term is "Orientalizing", reflecting a west-centered approach. My suggestion is to reconsider the use of this term in this article.”

Response 1: This is a very good point. I originally used “post-socialism” to facilitate comparison with the socialist era and system. However, I understand the concern that the term can carry a West-centered perspective. To address this, I have replaced “post-socialism” with “early reform era” or “the 1980s” and “socialist era” with “high socialist era” to clarify my argumentation.

Comment 2 “Another question is in the first paragraph, in the ‘Introduction’ part. The first paragraph must be a citation, as "me"(Wu Liang,吴亮) appeared as the first person narration. This should be a citation, if not, then 吴亮 should be the author of this article. Anyway this should be clarified.”

Response 2: The block quote has been properly indicated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is very clearly written and makes many interesting points. There are a few minor points of clarification, many of which I think are tied to the formatting of the document.

For example, it is unclear if the beginning of the introduction is the author writing in the first-person, or quoting. This should be clarified.

Later, (for example lines 262 and 282) there are what appear to be block quotes without proper indentations or quotes, so it is unclear. Again, I think this is simply a formatting issue.

I cannot comment on the accuracy of the Chinese characters, but from my knowledge of Japanese they appear to be correct.

It's not entirely clear to me why certain words or phrases are bolded. This seems to be for emphasis, but the practice is inconsistent.

The Wu quote at 460 is a good example of the formatting issue. It seems to be a block quote, but it is not indented. Likewise, I'm not sure why it is italicized, and it has an closing mark but no opening mark.

Author Response

Comment: “There are a few minor points of clarification, many of which I think are tied to the formatting of the document.

For example, it is unclear if the beginning of the introduction is the author writing in the first-person, or quoting. This should be clarified.

Later, (for example lines 262 and 282) there are what appear to be block quotes without proper indentations or quotes, so it is unclear. Again, I think this is simply a formatting issue.

I cannot comment on the accuracy of the Chinese characters, but from my knowledge of Japanese they appear to be correct.

It's not entirely clear to me why certain words or phrases are bolded. This seems to be for emphasis, but the practice is inconsistent.

The Wu quote at 460 is a good example of the formatting issue. It seems to be a block quote, but it is not indented. Likewise, I'm not sure why it is italicized, and it has an closing mark but no opening mark.”

Response: I have corrected and cleared the typos, format errors such as block quotes, and double-checked the Chinese characters.