Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A fantastic insight into an important topic with many, well-chosen examples from literature. It was delightful & fruitful to read this article; there are only minor remarks from my side:

l. 20: change the font size of [1]; add spatium - the references technically do bot work right now; nothing happens when clicking on them

ll. 106-107: namely (appears 2 times); please decide for a synonym

l. 124: Just as Gregor in Kafka's The Metamorphosis (add Kafka's)

ll. 128-129: could you please give more infos on the actors?

ll. 135-148: figures would be great

l. 144: change the font size of [2]; add spatium

l. 183: add spatium before [3]

l. 217: change the font size of [4]; add spatium

l. 220: change the font size of [5]; add spatium

ll. 229-230: change the font size of [6] and [7]; add spatia

l. 387: change the font size of [8]; add spatium - the content of n. 8 would be fine in the main text!

l. 414: change the font size of [9]; add spatium

l. 426: change the font size of [10]; add spatium

l. 450: change the font size of [11]; add spatium

I could not find Ferrari 2025 in the bibliography. Please add her publ.

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback! I have made the revisions below and hope they will better the essay. 

Comment 1: 106-107: namely (appears 2 times); please decide for a synonym.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the sentence structure and made it less redundant. 

Comment 2: 124: Just as Gregor in Kafka's The Metamorphosis (add Kafka's)
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out! I have added the information.

Comment 3: 128-129: could you please give more infos on the actors? 
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out! I have added a footnote to give more information on the actors. 

Comment 4: 135-148: figures would be great
Response 4: Thank you for sharing this comment! I have added a figure (Fig. 1) so that the analysis is more visual. 

Comment 5: I could not find Ferrari 2025 in the bibliography. Please add her publ.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out! I have added Ferrari 2025 to the bibliography.

Other comments: change the font size of [1] - [11] and add spatia.
Response 6: Thank you for sharing this feedback! I will ask the editor to look into this.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a thorough and insightful critical analysis of Li Jianjun’s play The Metamorphosis (Bianxingiji, 2021). It is proficiently written in English and follows a coherent structure. The manuscript offers an enlightening explanation and warning about the ways in which package delivery riders have been turned into a form of economic and cultural capital by the middle classes in post socialist China. It examines the formal and thematic strategies the play uses to raise awareness of the precarity experienced by package delivery riders, while also avoiding appropriating the riders' voices. The author masterfully supports their claims by relying on the criticism written not only by well-known western scholars, but also, most importantly, on Chinese academics and sources, which demonstrates the author´s solid knowledge on the Chinese context and cultural production. For all these reasons, I think the manuscript should be accepted for its publication.  

Author Response

Hi! Thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful feedback, and I really appreciate your comments. Please let me know if there are any further revisions that I can make. Thank you again and Happy Thanksgiving!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The essay “The Impossibility of Representation” uses Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital to discuss matters of representation in Li Jianjun’s play The Metamorphosis. Because of the particular social and economic contexts represented in the play, the writer’s analysis focuses on “postsocialist China” and the pressures faced by certain underclass laborers (i.e., delivery riders).   The essay describes the particularities of the play’s dramaturgy and its relationship to forms of 21st century electronic representation and commodification. It then demonstrates that the play questions if and how such representations are possible or valid, expanding on Brecht’s theory of alienation. 

 

The essay is clearly written, organized in a lucid and deliberate manner, and makes valid analytical points based on its scholarly apparatus.  The opening is particularly well conceived and I found the focus on representation and commodification to be perceptive. 

Two minor corrections from a proofreading standpoint:

106-107: this sentence uses "namely" twice in a row.

125-127: the ending phrase "while trying to make a living" has an unclear referent.

 

Author Response

Hi! Thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful feedback, and I truly appreciate your comments. I have made the following revisions to make the essay clearer:

Comment 1: 106-107: this sentence uses "namely" twice in a row.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out! I have revised the sentence structure so that it's less redundant. 

Comment 2: 125-127: the ending phrase "while trying to make a living" has an unclear referent.
Response 2: Thank you for sharing this comment! I revised the sentence into “As his family loses any financial support, they start considering getting rid of Geligaoer, who has now become a burden, while seeking jobs to earn money and make a living.” so that it’s clearer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relationship between the play and the initial discussion of delivery drivers and research into their livelihoods is not clear - the author should state a much stronger thesis which the essay will demonstrate. The transition at line 224 (beginning Section 2 Representing Delivery Riders: Competition Over Cultural Capital) does not flow smoothly from the previous discussion of the play. Research into the lives and precarious nature of the employment of delivery drivers is scant in this section, and is heavily dependent on the work of only a few authors (Sun, Hillenbrand) - more information here is necessary the better to contextualise the play. Further, the author's assumption that "middle-class" scholars, playwrights, etc, are fundamentally unable to comprehend the reality of the delivery drivers' lives is essentialising and dismissive of individuals' capacities for empathetic engagement - the author offers no proof to support this assertion. I'm not persuaded that Bourdieu's theoretical engagement with 'cultural capital' helps further the argument. In fact, this essay seems to contain two, nearly-exclusive sub-essays: one, on the play and its very interesting features; and the other on the issues and problems in Sun's research. The argument doesn't stitch these two together sufficiently effectively to demonstrate its goals. Most of the problem comes from the inclusion of Section 2, when the most interesting aspect of the papers emerges in Section 3 (Beyond Alienation: The Impossibility of Representation), which focuses (correctly) on the play itself and its analysis. The Conclusion, too, is too slight to demonstrate to the reader what the "big picture" is, and what key comments on art, political engagement, and social critique through theatre the paper aims for. After reading through this paper, what key idea would the author like to reader to have? Please ask the author to focus more extensively on the analysis of the play, which is by far the strongest aspect of the paper, and minimise the discussion of Sun's work and controversy which opens the paper. 

Author Response

Hi! Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback, which is very helpful to push my argument further. I have made the following revisions to make my thesis stronger while stitching together the two parts (the social and the aesthetic) of my essays:

Comment 1: The relationship between the play and the initial discussion of delivery drivers and research into their livelihoods is not clear - the author should state a much stronger thesis which the essay will demonstrate.
Response 1: Thank you so much for pointing this out! I totally agree with your comment. I added a paragraph that draws on George Lukács’s idea of “society as a concrete totality” to illustrate the connection between the debate and the play. This paragraph is between the introduction of the play and my theoretical mapping.

Comment 2: I'm not persuaded that Bourdieu's theoretical engagement with 'cultural capital' helps further the argument. In fact, this essay seems to contain two, nearly-exclusive sub-essays: one, on the play and its very interesting features; and the other on the issues and problems in Sun's research. The argument doesn't stitch these two together sufficiently effectively to demonstrate its goals. Most of the problem comes from the inclusion of Section 2, when the most interesting aspect of the papers emerges in Section 3 (Beyond Alienation: The Impossibility of Representation), which focuses (correctly) on the play itself and its analysis. 
Response 2:
Thank you so much for pointing this out! I totally agree that there needed to be stronger connections between Sections 2 and 3. I think the paragraph I mentioned in Response 1 and inserted in the introduction (between the introduction of the play and my theoretical mapping) might be able to resolve this issue. At the same time, I added my justification of applying Bourdieu's idea of “cultural capital” in contemporary China in the paragraph starting with “Under this framework, I use three complementary theoretical lenses ...” I hope this makes sense and clarifies my use of Bourdieu's theory!

Comment 3: The transition at line 224 (beginning Section 2 Representing Delivery Riders: Competition Over Cultural Capital) does not flow smoothly from the previous discussion of the play.
Response 3: Thank you for sharing this feedback! Toward the end of Section I, I noted that “In the following sections, I read this narrative of the artificiality of storytelling by situating it in the ongoing discussions in the recent decade in China, in which scholars, journalists, and filmmakers pay increasing attention to the delivery riders.” I think this might give a smoother flow to the second section. Please let me know if I could make further revisions to make the flow smoother. 

Comment 4: Research into the lives and precarious nature of the employment of delivery drivers is scant in this section, and is heavily dependent on the work of only a few authors (Sun, Hillenbrand) - more information here is necessary the better to contextualise the play.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out, with which I totally agree. I added more scholarly sources that examine the different aspects of delivery riders’ living and working conditions at the beginning of the second section, so that the play is better contextualized.

Comment 5: Further, the author's assumption that "middle-class" scholars, playwrights, etc, are fundamentally unable to comprehend the reality of the delivery drivers' lives is essentialising and dismissive of individuals' capacities for empathetic engagement - the author offers no proof to support this assertion.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I totally agree with your opinion. I added a paragraph in the second section, between “Such transitional labor performed by delivery riders must be considered within ...” and “This competition over the symbolic and economic capital ....” This paragraph both acknowledges the middle-class authors’ capacities for empathetic engagement and explains why reading the debate between Sun Ping and Renwu as a competition over cultural capital is more productive.

Comment 6: The Conclusion, too, is too slight to demonstrate to the reader what the "big picture" is, and what key comments on art, political engagement, and social critique through theatre the paper aims for. After reading through this paper, what key idea would the author like to reader to have?
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out! I totally agree that my previous conclusion was weak. I integrated George Lukács’s idea of “society as a concrete totality” in the conclusion to highlight the stakes of my essay. I also pointed out that the impossibility is the key to accessing the realities of postsocialist China, which is the key idea that I hope the readers to have.

Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. I look forward to hearing about your thoughts!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the suggestions and comments from the first round. The changes and additions to the submission are acceptable, and the article is now stronger.