Zenchiku’s Mekari: Staging Ambiguous and Hollow Worlds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fascinating essay that could easily be a scholarly monograph for the ideas with which it wrestles. In one sense that is also a backhanded compliment, as the author engages many ideas and topics, some of which are more fully engaged with than others.

Some specific notes:

Line 61 - after virtually every Japanese word and name also given its kanji, "monomane" is left simply in romaji. No big deal, but consistency would be welcome here. If names and terms are given in English and kanji, please do so for all names and terms. (This is nit-picking, but if you are careful with the details the reader will trust you with the big picture elements).

I feel like the abstract promises a little more than the actual article delivers. The ideas mentioned in the abstract are all present, but not all of them are the point of the piece or proven conclusively through arguments.

While I love that the translation of "Mekari" is included (and what an excellent translation it is!) and any new translation of a hertofore untranslated work into English is always welcome, given that the article focuses on the musicology and not the text per se, would it not be as valuable to include much more on the score and sound of the piece in the text? Don't cut the translation, but incorporate the music of the piece to a greater extent, otherwise it feels less related to the text.

Author Response

To Reviewer 1:

Thank you very much for your review and the kind comments. I will address each comment:

Comment 1: 'Line 61 - after virtually every Japanese word and name also given its kanji, "monomane" is left simply in romaji.'

Reply 1: 'monomane' is given in kanji on line 34, so it is not repeated. However, using the 'Jp.' indication prior to the word 'monomane' seems like it might be misinterpreted as indicating a first use, so I have removed it. Hopefully this will be a parenthetical cue to recall the monomane's previous use rather than seemingly like the first use of the word.

Comment 2: 'I feel like the abstract promises a little more than the actual article delivers.'

Reply 2: I have removed the second-to-last sentence of the abstract, since the idea of Zenchiku's work as a model for contemporary art is not explored in the paper.

Comment 3: 'While I love that the translation of "Mekari" is included (and what an excellent translation it is!) and any new translation of a hertofore untranslated work into English is always welcome, given that the article focuses on the musicology and not the text per se, would it not be as valuable to include much more on the score and sound of the piece in the text? Don't cut the translation, but incorporate the music of the piece to a greater extent, otherwise it feels less related to the text.'

Reply 3: I thank the reviewer for their kind comments about the translation, and agree that adding information about the music would be helpful in relation to the musicological focus of the main text. However, I think that any such revision would have to be a second appendix: Since there is limited musical information in the Japanese script itself, adding music information would change it from a translation of the script to a new kind of document. Complicating this is the fact that no commercial recording or video of Mekari is available for easy reference, and though I do have my detailed notes from when I last watched a video of a live performance at the archives of the National Nō Theatre, I would hesitate to write an entire appendix based on notes from several years ago without refreshing my knowledge. In other words, while I could do this (and maybe should?), it would constitute a major – not minor – revision (addition, really, rather than revision), and is not possible in the short time frame available for revision. The revised appendix manuscript thus does not include any additional musical notes at this time (but I would be willing to further revise if Reviewer 1 were to strongly feel that it would be worth doing and the time frame given for revisions was extended by several weeks).

Thank you again for your close reading, and your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was a very engaging and enjoyable read. The use of queer theory / queer musicology to explore a nō by Zenchiku initially struck me as rather strange, but the quality of the thinking and the explanations for the time shifts in disciplinary emphasis really made the piece hang together. I am sure that there will be some readers who doubt the efficacy of such a methodological turn, but I think it offers new insights and will make people think. I have little to suggest in terms of improvements, though I do sometimes wonder whether queer musicology is being used to uncover allegory or make claims for a queer reading of Zenchiku/his play, or both. It feels like it is trying to do both as I read through the analysis, but the preceding section on methodology does not quite go that far. A sentence or two explaining what is being claimed would be helpful. I also just wanted to check the assertion on page 6 that in music terms Zenchiku tends "to return to the opening slower ōnori rhythms". I think this needs a bit of clarification. Ōnori can be fast a well as slow, and there is a risk of misinterpretation here on behalf of the reader. 

Author Response

To Reviewer 2:

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestion. I will reply to each suggestion for change below.

Comment 1: 'I do sometimes wonder whether queer musicology is being used to uncover allegory or make claims for a queer reading of Zenchiku/his play, or both. It feels like it is trying to do both as I read through the analysis, but the preceding section on methodology does not quite go that far. A sentence or two explaining what is being claimed would be helpful.'

Reply 1: Two sentences have been added at the end of section III to clarify the claims being made in the paper.

Comment 2: ' I also just wanted to check the assertion on page 6 that in music terms Zenchiku tends "to return to the opening slower ōnori rhythms". I think this needs a bit of clarification.'

Reply 2: I have removed the word ōnori from the two places it occurs and replace it with the adjective 'slow' since, as you imply, it is the slowness which is crucial to the argument, and little is gained by introducing the technical term.

 

Thank you again.