Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was such a fantastic, informative read! Truthfully, I want it published so I can assign it to my own students! All of my suggestions below are relatively minor, and I try to offer explanations and suggestions for each. The biggest "issue" here is that the main argument occasionally gets lost in description. (This is likely due to the impressive breadth of your discussion!) Below, please note areas where additional, gentle signposting would help secure the bridges between your various case studies and cohere them back into your thesis. I've highlighted the five most pressing suggestions, four regarding signposting and one regarding ensuring the correct author receives credit for their work.

• Line 13: Consider clarifying what "a reality of monsters" means in this context. The language is just vague enough to be somewhat confusing. Do you mean something closer to "the validity of real monsters"? Something else?
• Line 23: Contextualize this reference. Forth's article is primarily concerned with its case study in dugongs, so in order to expand that to account for a wider swath of creatures as you're doing here, it would be more persuasive to offer a specific quote from them about cryptids in general.
• Lines 25-6: Remove "the" from "the monstrous beings and spirits." It isn't necessary and the sentence is stronger without it.
• Line 27: Contextualize this reference, too. Is there a specific quote that would allow this author to speak for themselves?
• Line 49: Minor stylistic note, but switching "encouraging" to "encouraged" would help this clause match the grammar of the others in this sequence.
• Line 50: Consider expanding the note here about "marketing the monster images," as marketing isn't explicitly mentioned until this sentence. (Consider adding a direct quote from Cheng, for example, if you'd like to shift the focus from the previously-mentioned broad public interest in the images of medical anomalies to a more specific focus on their commercial uses.) This is especially important because the following paragraph (lines 52-78) repeats this same template of not discussing marketing at all until a quick comment in its final sentence. Marketing/merchandising "monstrosity" is a fascinating point that needs more treatment between these two paragraphs.
• Lines 113-14: Remove the quotation marks from the book title, leaving only the italics.
• Line 177: Remove the second comma; it separates the subject ("pamphleteers") from the predicate ("began presenting").
• Lines 211-17: While this instance of animal representation and its manipulation via "symbolism" is as fascinating as it is grotesque, this area would benefit from just a bit more connection to your main argument about monsters. How does describing the hanged cat in 1554 expand your argument about monstrous births and their representation at that time? Even a single sentence would help bring this home. (It absolutely belongs here; it just needs a bit more massaging to anchor it more firmly into your thesis. You could more deliberately connect animal symbolism to partly-animal monster symbolism, for example.)
• Line 230: Swap "wild" for "wildly."
• Lines 227-32: Consider including a direct quote or reference in this area. It wades into tricky terrain where gender and immigration (and race) are concerned, and forecloses on greater, worthy analysis by offering audience responses as fact. (Did the vulva represent beauty, or did contemporary audiences perceive the vulva as representing it? Was Italy untroubled by "outsiders," or did audiences perceive it as such?) Tweaking this area to account for perception would help settle some of the bigger, flatter claims about sex and immigration here in a way that's simultaneously less problematic and more productive.
• Line 253: Rephrase "horse with human face monster" for clarity. (Missing word, perhaps?)
• Lines 191-278: The "Birth of Other Monsters" section is wonderfully descriptive, but loses sight of the main argument compared to the other sections. Signposting your argument throughout, or at least at the end of this section, would be helpful in maintaining the forward momentum of your thesis in this area of the manuscript.
• Line 372: Swap "sleept" with "slept."
• Line 374: Consider clarifying "This demon suddenly heard words from the Gospel of John." Did the human witnesses also allegedly hear it, or did they witness the demon claiming to hear it? Something else?
• Lines 377-78: Add a date range for the series to offer context and show where Goya's work falls in the timeline of your study.
• Lines 389-90: Add a date for the painting; see above note. (Also, be sure to swap the quotation marks for italics per this journal's house style.)
• Lines 407-08: Double-check your reference here. Forth is quoting Stephanie S. Turner, who should be properly attributed in your references list.
• Line 426: Consider adding a few words here that refer back to your main argument. Beyond that these manufactured monsters "impressed the public," I think you can sync this back into your main argument by noting that these creatures influenced that public's willingness to believe that monsters could be real--an earlier point you make in this manuscript.
• Lines 400-527: The "Taxidermy and the Monstrous" section would benefit from additional signposting of your main argument, especially because it serves as your manuscript's conclusion. There's a line early on (401-02) that gently links birth defects to monster genesis, but this link should be hit harder in this area (preferably at the end) to help reiterate how manufactured monsters connect to allegedly-birthed ones. This would really take the whole argument home and strengthen your ethos as the writer right through to the finish.

As I said, I sincerely enjoyed this draft and I look forward to seeing it in more formal print very soon!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

To be clear, very little needs to be done to improve the quality of English here: It's just that my two options were "Needs no improvements" and "Needs improvements." The reasonably few areas where I flagged typos or grammar errors are noted above with suggestions.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

We thank the reviewer for the encouragement of our work with this manuscript. We also thank all the suggestions to improve the manuscript. Changes or additions to the manuscript are in blue color.

Line 13: The reviewer is right; we added a short phrase to support the “validity” of monsters.

Line 23: We have changed that paragraph/citation.

Line 25-6: This has been done.

Line 27: We have expanded this citation as requested by the reviewer.

Line 49: This has been corrected.

Line 50 (now 57): We added another paragraph.

Line 113-114: Quotation marks have been removed.

Line 177: Comma has been removed.

Line 191-278 (Now 200): The "Birth of Other Monsters," a few connecting sentences have been added.

Line 211-17 (now 221): A short sentence was added for clarification.  

Line 227-32: (now 241): The paragraph has been clarified to better explain the interpretation of the monster of Bologna.

Line 230 (now 241): This has been corrected.

Line 372 (now 382): This has been done.

Lines 377-78 (now 391): Context of Goya’s work and his representation of the medieval lore of monsters in witchcraft has been added.

Lines 389-90 (now 407): Dates have been added for the painting and Caprichos.

Line 253 (now 263): This has been clarified.

Line 374 (now 384): This has been rephrased.

Line 407 (now 432): Forth citation has been corrected, added Turner as well.

Line 426 (now 440): We added the reviewer’s suggestion.  

Line 400 (now 426): We added the reviewer’s suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is informative and places the reports of monstrous births in historical context. However, the examples in the last two pages, on Goya’s Caprichos, sailors’ accounts of sea monsters, taxidermied creations, Chupacabras, and the Feejee mermaid, are from the nineteenth centuries, and extend beyond the article's topic of monstrous births in early modern Europe. They should be omitted from the article and the list of works cited.

Citations need page numbers.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lines 53-57: Incomplete sentence; omit comma in second sentence:  

In the early modern period is the multiplicity of sources that touched upon the subject. The diversity of voices that invoke monsters makes the study of their visual representations and textual descriptions, a very complex and multifaceted phenomenon.

Lines 77-78—reword: “compelling [convincing?] them of the reality of monsters” 

Lines 194-95: reword: “These pamphlets were published at a time when the reformers were questioning Catholic beliefs”

Line 201—omit “have”

Lines 226-27 “Thus, the monster showed that Italy was divided and blind”

Line 230  reword “luxuriate and behave wild”

Line 253 reword “horse with human face monster”

Line 369  reword: “stories resulted of beautiful young women”  “Both views resulted in narratives of beautiful young women…”

Line 372—“slept with her”

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

We thank the reviewer for all the suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Regarding the time-period: We understand the reviewer concern. We wanted to have one time-period identified and expand from that period (Early Modern). We think the repercussions of such topic are fascinating and are still present in later periods. For that reason, we have adjusted the title and added a few clarifications in the manuscript to follow the other reviewer suggestions as well. Regarding Goya’s caprichos and paintings, some of his works brilliantly represent the “monstrous” in witchcraft medieval lore, we have clarified that in the manuscript.

Changes and additions to the manuscript are in blue color. All the references in the list have page numbers.

Lines 53 (now 63): This has been fixed.

Line 77 (now 88): This has been fixed.

Line 194 (now 207): This has been fixed.

Line 201 (214): This has been fixed.

Line 226 (now 240): This has been fixed.

Line 230 (now 243): This has been fixed.

Line 253 (now 264): This has been fixed.

Line 369 (now 381): This has been fixed.

Line 372 (now 383): This has been fixed.  

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The scope of the article is clear from the title, and the article focuses on significant differences in the religious and political interpretation of "monsters" from medieval Europe to nineteenth century New England. 

I would still request page numbers for references unless they are not customary for this journal. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all the time invested on the manuscript.

We have added the page numbers to citations.