Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Age Enfreakment in Nursing Home Drama

Humanities 2025, 14(6), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/h14060117

by Anna Gaidash

Reviewer 1:

Paola Botham

Reviewer 2:

Ann C. Hall

Reviewer 3:

Emily Bryan

Humanities 2025, 14(6), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/h14060117

Submission received: 3 April 2025 / Revised: 28 May 2025 / Accepted: 29 May 2025 / Published: 31 May 2025

(This article belongs to the Section Literature in the Humanities)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article successfully brings together strands from age studies and disability studies to analyse two US plays set in the1970s that feature older characters in nursing homes: the award-winning The Gin Game, by D.L. Coburn, and This is the Peaceful Kingdom, one of Tennessee Williams’ lesser-known final works. The notion of ‘age enfreakment’ provides an original lens through which these tragicomedies can be examined in a diachronic fashion. Thus, while the plays are seen as carrying some of the sensationalist legacy of the nineteenth-century freak shows, they are also said to reflect specific concerns of late-twentieth-century life in the United States. Moreover, the author sketches a contrast with some contemporary American nursing home dramas (from the 2010s), although, unfortunately, this has not been developed.

The theoretical framework deployed, which intersects scholarship on ‘freakery’ (from disability studies) with Haim Hazan’s concept of the ‘non-hybrid’ (from age studies), illuminates interesting elements of both plays and their comparison. However, I believe the article would benefit from further engagement with material from theatre studies on the representation of old age, such as Valerie Barns Lipscomb’s books (2010; 2016) or Weil and Lefkowitz’s article (2019), which includes an analysis of The Gin Game. The author does consider Michael Mangan’s Staging Ageing (2013), albeit omitting the volume’s specific discussion of the care home as dramatic setting. In addition, it is not clear why the selected plays are characterised as examples of ‘transmediality’: lines 452-454 claim that The Gin Game is a narrative that has been “adapted for three media” – is it not, rather, a play later adapted for film and television?

There is scope for explaining certain theoretical or contextual aspects more thoroughly, e.g. Hazan’s “failure of battling” (line 22); the notion of stigma (line 50); the relationship between freakery, trauma and old age in the photographs of Diane Arbus (lines 100-104); the terms ‘Third Age’ and ‘Fourth Age’ (from the outset, before they are utilised); the fact that ‘gin’ is a card game (line 119); Duggan’s main point (line 154); the fact that the term ‘nondescript’ was coined by Barnum himself (line 164); the context of Kart and Beckham’s study (lines 219-220); Mangan’s point (lines 413-414; also, isn’t tragedy a genre rather than a ‘subgenre’?). Regarding the plays, it would be helpful if the premiere year is provided on first mention (lines 27-28) – in the case of Williams’ piece, is 1978 the correct premiere date (even though Hooper states that it was written in 1980) and should the alternative wording in the title (‘peaceful’/’peaceable’) be explained?

Some arguments require more nuance or further evidence, for example:

Can ageing be characterised as “the dominant fear of western civilisation” (line 24)?
Could the claim that the 1970s mark “the social challenges of increased longevity and aging, inextricably linked to the zeitgeist of uncertainty, anxiety, and rage” (lines 28-29) be supported by a source and, perhaps, further discussion? Similarly, on lines 250-252, could further context be provided for Borstelmann’s citation?
Some clauses that start with the word ‘apart’ or ‘although’ do not seem to add a relevant point to the corresponding sentence – or require further development (e.g. lines 43-44; 160; 317; 370-371).
Could some examples be offered of freak shows morphing into avant-garde theatre? (lines 80-81)
Could the claim that sitcoms have replaced freak shows in the twenty-first century be substantiated? (lines 82-83)
Can anybody know what a dramatist intended, unless they have said so? (line 241)
Since Naturalism and the Theatre of the Absurd are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of style, could the claim about Williams’ later work be further explained? (lines 287-288)
Was Williams’ play censored (line 356) or does this refer to its lack of popular success?
More details about Hicks’ eponymous painting (line 362 onwards) would help supporting the point made about Williams’ play.
In the ‘Discussion’ section, invective and silence are described as ‘forms of resistance’ (504-505), yet this positive interpretation is not entirely consistent with the previous analysis of the former.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It would be advisable to proofread the article thoroughly. Some of the words used do not appear to be the most appropriate for the context, e.g. ‘employment’ (line 52), ‘imposed’ (line 65), ‘normals’ (which has not been contextualised within disability studies in line 82), ‘deepen’ (line 119), ‘employ’ (line 158), ‘connection’ (line 187; the phrasing starting on line 186 could also be improved), ‘realism’ (line 240). Sentence structure could be improved on lines 250 and 263-266, some commas are missing throughout, and the use of definite/indefinite articles requires some attention. Finally, several citations from the text do not feature as references (e.g. Davis, Baltes and Smith, Huizinga, Hall, Konzeptgrup, Kanzler, Semonin) and several quotations start with an ellipsis, which should be removed.

Author Response

First of all, thank you.

The article would benefit from further engagement with material from theatre studies on the representation of old age, such as Valerie Barns Lipscomb’s books (2010; 2016) or Weil and Lefkowitz’s article (2019) + (lines 118-120; 224-226), which includes an analysis of The Gin Game. The author does consider Michael Mangan’s Staging Ageing (2013), albeit omitting the volume’s specific discussion of the care home as dramatic setting + (22-23; 112-118). In addition, it is not clear why the selected plays are characterised as examples of ‘transmediality’: lines 452-454 claim that The Gin Game is a narrative that has been “adapted for three media” – is it not, rather, a play later adapted for film and television? + removed the sentence

There is scope for explaining certain theoretical or contextual aspects

Hazan’s “failure of battling” (line 22); + replaced the line to 3.3 and added the context
the notion of stigma (line 50); +
the relationship between freakery, trauma and old age in the photographs of Diane Arbus (lines 100-104); +
the terms ‘Third Age’ and ‘Fourth Age’ (from the outset, before they are utilised); + lines 38-41
the fact that ‘gin’ is a card game (line 119); +
Duggan’s main point (line 154); +
the fact that the term ‘nondescript’ was coined by Barnum himself (line 164); + (a footnote is added after the text)
the context of Kart and Beckham’s study (lines 219-220); + (231-233)
Mangan’s point (lines 413-414; also, isn’t tragedy a genre rather than a ‘subgenre’?). + 425-426
Regarding the plays, it would be helpful if the premiere year is provided on first mention (lines 27-28) – in the case of Williams’ piece, is 1978 the correct premiere date (even though Hooper states that it was written in 1980) +
Should the alternative wording in the title (‘peaceful’/’peaceable’) be explained? Thank you for the important comment. As a non-native English speaker, I did not even notice I had misspelled the title. I changed it, of course. +

Some arguments require more nuance or further evidence, for example:

Can ageing be characterised as “the dominant fear of western civilisation” (line 24)? Replaced with: one of the existential fears of civilization. +
Could the claim that the 1970s mark “the social challenges of increased longevity and aging, inextricably linked to the zeitgeist of uncertainty, anxiety, and rage” (lines 28-29) be supported by a source and, perhaps, further discussion? + Similarly, on lines 250-252, could further context be provided for Borstelmann’s citation? +
Some clauses that start with the word ‘apart’ or ‘although’ do not seem to add a relevant point to the corresponding sentence – or require further development (e.g. lines 43-44 (now 205); 160 (deleted); 317 (now 342); 370-371 (now 394-395)). + improved.
Could some examples be offered of freak shows morphing into avant-garde theatre? (lines 80-81) + removed the line
Could the claim that sitcoms have replaced freak shows in the twenty-first century be substantiated?+ replaced sitcoms with late-night shows (Brottman)
Can anybody know what a dramatist intended, unless they have said so? (line 241; now - 265) + deleted
Since Naturalism and the Theatre of the Absurd are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of style, could the claim about Williams’ later work be further explained? (lines 287-288) + naturalism is removed
Was Williams’ play censored (line 356), or does this refer to its lack of popular success? David Kaplan, the curator of the Provincetown Tennessee Williams Theater Festival of 2022, describes This is the Peaceful Kingdom as “a play that no one else would dare to do.” (https://provincetownindependent.org/arts-minds/2022/09/14/going-all-in-on-tennessee-williams/ ) + Now lines 380-382.
More details about Hicks’ eponymous painting (line 362 onwards) would help supporting the point made about Williams’ play. + Lines 389-397.
In the ‘Discussion’ section, invective and silence are described as ‘forms of resistance’ () (504-505), yet this positive interpretation is not entirely consistent with the previous study of the former. My answer: I see the point. I did not manage, though, to make it sound neutral: Weller from The Gin Game resists out of despair and to preserve his dignity as well – see Weil and Lefkowitz’s analysis (2019, p. 652). To avoid the ambiguous perception, I deleted the word combination in question. +

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It would be advisable to proofread the article thoroughly. Some of the words used do not appear to be the most appropriate for the context, e.g.

‘employment’ (line 52) + replaced with “mention”,
‘imposed’ (line 65) + replaced with “used”,
‘normals’ (which has not been contextualised within disability studies in line 82),
‘deepen’ (line 119)+ replaced with “evolve” (now, the line is 144),
‘employ’ (line 158 – now line 183) + deleted,
‘connection’ + replaced with “Thus” (line 187 – now it is line 212;
the phrasing starting on line 186 (211) could also be improved + ),
‘realism’ (line 240) + deleted.

Sentence structure could be improved on lines 250 and 263-266, some commas are missing throughout, and the use of definite/indefinite articles requires some attention. Finally, several citations from the text do not feature as references (e.g. Davis (I removed David`s reference), Baltes and Smith, Huizinga, Hall, Konzeptgrup (replaced with Ellerbrock at al. on line 363), Kanzler, Semonin + ) and several quotations start with an ellipsis, which should be removed (+).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting, learned, and original essay. I’m not sure if it is the required structure of essays these days or the argument itself, but I found myself asking what the purpose of all this learned materials was. Section 4, lines 502-505, particularly, summarize the paper’s conclusions, but I’m not sure why they are important to our understanding of aging, enfreakment, or the plays. The final section discusses how more recent plays emphasize agency, and I wonder if that is it or not. If not, it seems that might be another paper and could lead to book length study on aging in drama. Anyway, a stronger purpose would be helpful, but the paper is quite interesting, well-researched, and original.

Author Response

Thank you very much.

I revised the manuscript, adding the scholarship on age studies and theatre studies, deleted the transmediality, and clarified the murky positions. I hope these changes forged a strong purpose for the essay.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really appreciated that this essay is opening up conversations about the representation of care facilities/aging/disability and enfreakment and analyzing two plays that have had little scholarly attention. I found the article’s argument that the tragicomic genre, the use of invective and sensationalism contributed to age enfreakment in The Gin Game and The Peaceable Kingdom. At the end of the abstract the author writes: “The transmediality of the selected nursing home tragicomedies sheds light on the legacy of the freak show's sensationalism. While the late 1970s depicted aging through tragicomedy, 21st-century US theatre emphasizes the agency of older characters in comedies, helping to reduce the stigma surrounding late adulthood.” I don’t think that this essay adequately addresses issues of transmediality (besides the Gin Game having play/film adaptation, I don’t think the analysis addresses transmediality). Also, though the essay mentions 21^st century plays that address nursing homes, there isn’t a reading of those plays that warrants their mention in the abstract.

In general, I think this essay could benefit from some development in the following areas: 1.) though the author mentions the crises of the times as reflected in these dramas, it isn’t really clear what that means. In the case of Williams’ play he is referencing a specific incident, but I also think that the writer could point to other larger sweeping changes in American healthcare and culture that made these plays relevant. The mid to late 60’s and 70’s saw the development of medicare and social security, as well as the creation of nursing and convalescent homes to care for the elderly. Both plays are clearly in conversation with these trends. The late 70’s (especially in New York where This Peaceable Kingdom is set) saw a lot of anxiety around rising crime levels in the city and racial tensions that are definitely informing Tennessee Williams’ representation. 2.) The structure of the essay could be improved. I recognize that the author is following the proscribed sections provided by MDPI, but I think that more descriptive section titles would be useful (especially Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion). The standard sections don’t allow the author to lay out the argument as forcefully as they might. For example, in the introduction there should be a brief overview of the two plays under consideration and their contexts, how the author understands enfreakment and its relationship to aging (I would bring in HAZAN earlier in the essay), and how the author proposes to show the theory of enfreakment working in these plays through the topos of the nursing home, the use of invectives and silence, and sensationalism engendered by the tragicomic genre. 3.) There is some awkward phrasing throughout the essay – the author has a strong command of English, but there are some passages that are confusing from the standpoint of terminology or sentence structure. I will point out the ones that I noticed and struggle with, but I would recommend a closer reading, as well. Attentiveness to the sentence structure and overall development of the argument should definitely be a precursor to publication.

I would re-organize the first paragraph for clarity:

Current version:

Age invokes fear through its fluidity and “the failure of battling” (Hazan 2015, p. 54). The fictional representation of older adult characters can take grotesque and freakish forms, reflecting the dominant fear in Western civilization. The legacy of 19th-century American freak shows expresses gerontophobia through their modified performativity onstage in nursing home dramas. The study examines age enfreakment in two US-Amer- ican plays of the late 1970s that tackle institutional care: The Gin Game by D.L. Coburn and This is the Peaceful Kingdom or Good Luck, God by Tennessee Williams. This decade marks the social challenges of increased longevity and aging, inextricably linked to the zeitgeist of uncertainty, anxiety, and rage. I will demonstrate that enfreakment, an act of defining someone as abnormal, in the selected plays builds upon the topos of the nursing home, the use of invective language and silence, and the theatrical script of a tragicomedy.

Suggested Revision:

This study examines age enfreakment in two American plays of the late 1970s that tackle institutional care of the elderly: The Gin Game by D.L. Coburn and This is the Peaceful Kingdom or Good Luck, God by Tennessee Williams. The fictional representation of older adult characters can take grotesque and freakish forms, reflecting a common fear in Western civilization of (?) aging? This fear, gerontophobia, is depicted in nursing home dramas of the 1970s, reflecting the legacy of 19th-century American freak shows. This decade marks the social challenges of increased longevity and aging, inextricably linked to the zeitgeist of uncertainty, anxiety, and rage. I will demonstrate that enfreakment, an act of defining someone as abnormal, in the selected plays builds upon the topos of the nursing home, the use of invective language and silence, and the theatrical script of a tragicomedy.

Ln. 22 – this quotation from Hazan will make more sense later in the essay – it would be useful around the description of non-hybridity. In general though I think the author could use Hazan earlier in the essay.

38-39 this sentence is awkward.

78 confusing use of “sharp”

81-84 the logic of this is unclear. Why do 21^st century sitcoms replace “freak shows” when in the sentence before freak shows had morphed into Avant-Garde theatre?

100 I cannot make sense of the phrase “The akin dichotomy”

104-5 Why does trauma lead to enfreakment in the nursing home dramas? I think this point needs to be developed above more first.

118 – at the first mention of third age it would be helpful to give the readers a quick definition of third and fourth ages (I think this terminology is more common in Europe, so it doesn’t need to be extensive, just a brief line).

125 – the phrase “dramatis personae” seems to be indicating “the characters” or the “roles” – “Dramatis Personae” connotes the “list of characters” whereas I think the author wants to write about multiple characters, parts or roles. In American English we would not use the phrase, “Dramatis Personae” to describe a small group (2, 3,4) characters – that phrase would signal the “list” of all the characters. I haven’t marked this issue in other places, but it does happen elsewhere.

141-142 – see “dramatis personae” and “Invectivity” is an archaic word, is there another way to phrase this? The phrase “the lens of the invectivity of the dramatis personae” is very cumbersome. I think the author is simply trying to say that they will be using close reading techniques to study the way the plays use invectives and silence. And I don’t think the author means “transmediality” in line 142 – should it be tragicomedy?

145 what are “relevant commentaries from the humanities” – that is so broad, I cannot imagine what it is.

158 – “The American playwrights employ the necessity of depicting the trauma of old age onstage using tragicomedy and gallows humor.” – this sentence needs to be rewritten: “Coburn and Williams, in writing tragicomedies, use gallows humor to depict the trauma of old age.”

160-167 “Although Lennard Davis includes nursing homes in the disability industry (2006, p. 240), both dramas disclose the traumatic experience of old age, revealing unhidden ageism along with comedic conventions that exemplify the heritage of freak shows, distinguishing enfreakment from ableism and othering. To support my arguments in the following analysis, I will refer to James Cook Jr.’s study of the non-descript individuals of the 19th- century freak show and Haim Hazan’s anthropological findings on the Third and Fourth Age, demonstrating the freakery of the latter based on his interviews with nursing home residents.”

Several issues here – why is the dependent clause used in the beginning, especially when the subject of the independent clause is not Lennard Davis? “Disclose” should be replaced with “Depict”; the word, “Unhidden” should be replaced with obvious or blatant.

170-180 This section which is set up at the end of the last paragraph needs some rethinking. The reader expects to hear about the topos of the nursing home, but instead there is a long paragraph on Cook and the theory of the non-descript which the author wants to link with the non-hybridity/fourth age of Hazan. I think it takes too long to get to the connection to the nursing home and can the author set aside the ideas of race in Cook’s analysis? Perhaps this really should all go in the section above. I think there might also be profitable ways to think about race and the non-descript, especially in Williams’ play and to point out that he leaves the African American characters unnamed.

219 Who are “the scientists”?

237 who is a Jewish-American patient in palliative care

262 rewrite this sentence – “The Fourth Age, even though not born a freak, joins freakdom as a result of the loss of agency”. The Fourth age cannot be born.

280 should be arc instead of arch?

281 Caps Lock?

283 expression instead of expressivity?

285 stylistically, I would not include the speech prefix “Lucretia” in the quotation. Instead: Lucretia says, “…

287 remove “the” before naturalism

302-305 revise this sentence – remove invectivity and I don’t understand the point about authorities.

Section 3.2 (306)

I think it would be helpful to discuss the fact that Weller’s rage is more frightening than Fonsia’s – there is definitely suggestions of domestic violence in these rage-filled scenes.

331-333 revise the sentence (esp. “Verbal plane”)

345-346 introduction of this sentence is awkward

363 please explain how the Peaceable Kingdom paintings serve as intertext

404 need to make clear this is Williams choice to leave the African American characters unnamed.

Section on Tragicomedy definitely needs more recent theorists on Tragicomedy – Linda Hutcheon, John Orr. Also think about deepening the close reading here by analyzing why Williams would use Fanny Brice’s Baby Snooks show – definitely seems to me like an example of Age Enfreakment.

500

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have comments on language in the suggestions above.

Author Response

Thank you very much.

I don’t think that this essay adequately addresses issues of transmediality (besides the Gin Game having play/film adaptation, I don’t think the analysis addresses transmediality). Agree! Removed.

Also, though the essay mentions 21^st century plays that address nursing homes, there isn’t a reading of those plays that warrants their mention in the abstract. Agree! I removed the mention from the abstract.

1.) though the author mentions the crises of the times as reflected in these dramas, it isn’t really clear what that means. In the case of Williams’ play he is referencing a specific incident, but I also think that the writer could point to other larger sweeping changes in American healthcare and culture that made these plays relevant. The mid to late 60’s and 70’s saw the development of medicare and social security, as well as the creation of nursing and convalescent homes to care for the elderly. Both plays are clearly in conversation with these trends. The late 70’s (especially in New York where This Peaceable Kingdom is set) saw a lot of anxiety around rising crime levels in the city and racial tensions that are definitely informing Tennessee Williams’ representation. + Agree. Added.

2.) The structure of the essay could be improved. I recognize that the author is following the proscribed sections provided by MDPI, but I think that more descriptive section titles would be useful (especially Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion). The standard sections don’t allow the author to lay out the argument as forcefully as they might. For example, in the introduction there should be a brief overview of the two plays under consideration and their contexts, how the author understands enfreakment and its relationship to aging (I would bring in HAZAN earlier in the essay), and how the author proposes to show the theory of enfreakment working in these plays through the topos of the nursing home, the use of invectives and silence, and sensationalism engendered by the tragicomic genre. - my first essay was not considered by the publishing becasue because I did not follow the formal structure requirements. I am grateful for the suggestion, however, I have not changed the structure of the essay.

3.) There is some awkward phrasing throughout the essay – the author has a strong command of English, but there are some passages that are confusing from the standpoint of terminology or sentence structure. I will point out the ones that I noticed and struggle with, but I would recommend a closer reading, as well. Attentiveness to the sentence structure and overall development of the argument should definitely be a precursor to publication. +

Suggested Revision

+ Accepted with gratitude.

Ln. 22 – This quotation from Hazan will make more sense later in the essay – it would be useful around the description of non-hybridity. In general though I think the author could use Hazan earlier in the essay. + lines 38-41

38-39 this sentence is awkward. + replaced with “Initially linked to physical deviation, the concept of freakery expanded to encompass mental and psychological abnormalities.”

78 confusing use of “sharp” + replaced with “particularly intense”

81-84 the logic of this is unclear. Why do 21^st century sitcoms replace “freak shows” when in the sentence before freak shows had morphed into Avant-Garde theatre? + removed the line

100 I cannot make sense of the phrase “The akin dichotomy” + replaced with “a similar dichotomy” (now line 112)

104-5 Why does trauma lead to enfreakment in the nursing home dramas? I think this point needs to be developed above more first. Unfortunately, I cannot see where exactly above it should be developed first. I would be most grateful for clarification.

125 – the phrase “dramatis personae” seems to be indicating “the characters” or the “roles” –connotes the “list of characters” whereas I think the author wants to write about multiple characters, parts or roles. In American English we would not use the phrase, “Dramatis Personae” to describe a small group (2, 3,4) characters – that phrase would signal the “list” of all the characters. I haven’t marked this issue in other places, but it does happen elsewhere. + I replaced “Dramatis Personae” with characters everywhere

And I don’t think the author means “transmediality” in line 142 – should it be tragicomedy? +

145 what are “relevant commentaries from the humanities” – that is so broad, I cannot imagine what it is. + removed

219 Who are “the scientists”? + US-American sociologists and gerontologists

237 who is a Jewish-American patient in palliative care + replaced (now lines 264-265)

262 rewrite this sentence – “The Fourth Age, even though not born a freak, joins freakdom as a result of the loss of agency”. The Fourth age cannot be born. + replaced with “The Fourth Age, culturally constructed, is enfreaked because of the loss of agency.” (line 289)

280 should be arc instead of arch? + replaced (line 307)

281 Caps Lock? + Replaced with “she shouts” (line 308)

283 expression instead of expressivity?+ replaced as suggested (line 310)

285 stylistically, I would not include the speech prefix “Lucretia” in the quotation. Instead: Lucretia says, “… + replaced as suggested (line 311)

287 remove “the” before naturalism + removed together with “naturalism”

302-305 revise this sentence – remove invectivity and I don’t understand the point about authorities. + removed both

Section 3.2 (306)

I think it would be helpful to discuss the fact that Weller’s rage is more frightening than Fonsia’s – there is definitely suggestions of domestic violence in these rage-filled scenes. + replaced with “Weller expresses his anger through verbal insults and curses aimed at the home staff and residents, as well as through physical acts, such as raising his middle finger (Coburn 1977, p. 25). His uncontrolled behavior, ostensibly a form of domestic violence, is also evident in nonverbal actions, such as “sweeping the cards wildly into the air” and “turning the entire table over” (Coburn 1977, p. 39) after regularly losing a game” (lines 356-360).

331-333 revise the sentence (esp. “Verbal plane”) +

345-346 introduction of this sentence is awkward + replaced with “Fonsia, less emotional and more fortunate in the gin game, follows Weller's model of behavior without acquiring any freakish traits” (lines 371-372)

363 please explain how the Peaceable Kingdom paintings serve as intertext. + Lines 389-397.

404 need to make clear this is Williams choice to leave the African American characters unnamed. +

Section on Tragicomedy definitely needs more recent theorists on Tragicomedy – Linda Hutcheon, John Orr (+). Also think about deepening the close reading here by analyzing why Williams would use Fanny Brice’s Baby Snooks show – definitely seems to me like an example of Age Enfreakment. Thank you for the comment but I could not develop it this quickly.

500

Discussion section seems very brief to me – and there is not really a reading of Howe and Abaire’s plays – these either need to be discussed more fully or I think they aren’t really helping the argument. I would like to let the mention of the 21^st century stay in the section: their mention is intended to manifest the continuity of the enfreakment in drama, however, to a much lesser degree than in the dramatic texts of the late 1970s.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved through engagement with further sources and the clarification of some of its key concepts. Although the author has considered all previous recommendations in detail, I believe there are still revisions required for the essay to be ready for publication. I will list these below in sequential order.

Line 21-22: The change in the description is welcome. It would also be advisable to replace 'Western civilization' with 'the West', to avoid this loaded term (on line 33, 'Western civilization' may be replaced with 'Western cultures'; in that same passage, it may be pertinent to mention that Foucault was specifically referring to the retirement home in the cited extract).

Lines 25-28: The reference to Borstelmann is helpful, but the current text and quotation do not convey with clarity the point Borstelmann makes on the cited page (3), namely, that the 1970s were characterised by “a spirit of egalitarianism and inclusiveness”. This point stands in contrast with the two quotations added immediately after (lines 28-30), a contrast that should be acknowledged.

Lines 30-31: The definition of enfreakment offered here is not sufficiently nuanced [apologies for not having noticed this in my first report]. I would suggest using Garland Thomson’s language directly; for instance: 'enfreakment – the process of applying to someone "a single amorphous category of corporeal otherness" (Garland Thomson 1996, p. 10) – in the selected plays…'

Lines 38-41: This insertion is very useful, but it could be better organised. Instead of putting all the additional information in the same sentence, the parallel between freak studies and age studies – represented in this instance by James W. Cook and Haim Hazan, respectively – should be allowed to ‘breathe’ more in this paragraph. Then the discussion of enfreakment should follow in a separate paragraph (paragraph division throughout the essay is a little irregular and should be reviewed).

Lines 41-62: I would recommend deleting the clause 'Apart from […] the Other' (lines 43-44). Also, more importantly, the ambivalence that typifies freak studies – making them distinct from the concepts of othering and ableism – is not sufficiently explored here. This can be addressed by engaging more thoroughly with Michael Chemers’s position in his application of the concept of stigma (see cited book, p. 19, and/or his ‘Freak Studies Manifesto’ from 2005). Similarly, the reference to David Hevey is too partial to be understood and omits the context of his critique (i.e. photography).

Lines 81-93: The first sentence (lines 81-82) needs correcting – is there a word missing? The link to Lipscomb and Marshall (2010) works well, but the subsequent discussion of Lipscomb (2016) moves away from the focus of this paragraph on the relationship between freakery and performance/performativity. It would be productive to examine this relationship more fully, also clarifying the distinction between these two concepts (performance and performativity).

Lines 94-100: I wonder if this paragraph should be moved to the end of this section, as it can preface the analysis of the plays that follows in the next section. Also, there seems to be a word (‘the’) missing on line 95 and the citations should be corrected to ‘Brottman and Brottman 1996’, since the article has two authors.

Lines 115-116: Having now learnt that Diane Arbus’ work is the main object of analysis in Hevey’s chapter about enfreakment, where he is extremely critical of her approach to disability, I believe the introduction here must acknowledge that. The implied connection between Arbus’ photographs of older people (as described in the footnote) and Hevey’s coinage of the term enfreakment is highly relevant, so it should be made explicit.

Lines 128-140: The addition of Mangan and Weil & Lefkowitz, plus Chivers & Kriebernegg, to this section has enriched the analysis. The quotation from Mangan (line 131), however, is not entirely clear. Also, he is a theatre scholar more than an ‘age scholar’ (line 129).

Lines 141-171: Replace ‘protagonists’ (lines 141 and 156) with another formulation (e.g. main characters), since the characters’ relationship could be construed as protagonist versus antagonist? In line163, add the information (maybe as a footnote) that the play is based on a real strike? Replace the word ‘thing’ on line 171?

Lines 172-200: There is room for improvement in this paragraph regarding use of language and grammatical presentation.

Line 390: Can Fonsia’s acquisition of 'obscene vocabulary' also be interpreted as a freakish trait?

Lines 399-401: The quotation is a great addition. However, the previous phrase ('presumably impede the staging of the drama') is confusing, as the play was indeed staged in 2022, albeit with puppets. Stating that the play has been very rarely revived might provide clarification. On line 400, ‘Peaceful’ should be replaced with ‘Peaceable’ for consistency.

Lines 407-417: The added description is very helpful, but it may be longer than necessary. Perhaps the biographical details (lines 409-412) could be deleted? Also, on line 407, is 'simplicity style' the right description or should this be ‘primitive’ or ‘folk’ style?

Lines 455-471: As ‘repel’ is a verb, replace with a noun? On line 456, replace 'African Americans' with 'African American characters'? On line 471, replace 'has become' with 'became'?

‘Discussion’ and ‘Conclusion’ sections: The title of William’s play must be corrected on line 560. I wonder whether these two very short sections should be merged. Also, perhaps the mention of the other two plays the author has analysed (but that fall outside the scope of this article) should come at the end as a possible direction for future research, with a little more detail?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thorough proofreading is still required before publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer X Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in red and in track changes in the resubmitted file.

Comments 1:

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have done as suggested (now, lines 22 and 35-37). “[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 2:

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. Agree. I have revised the sentence: “Thomas Bostelmann’s history of the 1970’s shows the destabilization of hierarchies in this period which led to improvements and regression in equality” (now, lines 25-27). “[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 3: Lines 30-31: The definition of enfreakment offered here is not sufficiently nuanced [apologies for not having noticed this in my first report]. I would suggest using Garland Thomson’s language directly; for instance: 'enfreakment – the process of applying to someone "a single amorphous category of corporeal otherness" (Garland Thomson 1996, p. 10) – in the selected plays…'. +

Response 3: Thank you for the relevant correction. I have added Garland Thomson’s quote (now, lines 32-34). “[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 4: Lines 38-41: This insertion is very useful, but it could be better organised. Instead of putting all the additional information in the same sentence, the parallel between freak studies and age studies – represented in this instance by James W. Cook and Haim Hazan, respectively – should be allowed to ‘breathe’ more in this paragraph. Then the discussion of enfreakment should follow in a separate paragraph (paragraph division throughout the essay is a little irregular and should be reviewed). +

Response 4: I have, accordingly, revised: “Explaining discrimination against older adults, this argument is further developed by freak studies scholar James W. Cook, Jr., who explores discrimination against older adults through various perspectives, including a diachronic view of the 19th-century freak show. Additionally, in the context of social anthropology, Haim Hazan differentiates between the hybridity of the Third Age, which showcases mental and physical health in late adulthood, and the non-hybridity of the Fourth Age, marked by complete dependence and physical deterioration”. (now, lines 39-45) + the discussion of enfreakment starts from a new paragraph (line 46) “[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 5: Lines 41-62: I would recommend deleting the clause 'Apart from […] the Other' (lines 43-44). Also, more importantly, the ambivalence that typifies freak studies – making them distinct from the concepts of othering and ableism – is not sufficiently explored here. This can be addressed by engaging more thoroughly with Michael Chemers’s position in his application of the concept of stigma (see cited book, p. 19, and/or his ‘Freak Studies Manifesto’ from 2005). Similarly, the reference to David Hevey is too partial to be understood and omits the context of his critique (i.e. photography). +

Response 5: Thank you. I have deleted the mentioned clause. In its stead, I addressed the suggested source to elaborate on the subject: “Freak shows are not just a symptom of marginalization; they are a strategic means of managing stigma. Though often exploitative, they allow disabled individuals to control their stigmatization, highlighting disability as a form of social performance” (now, lines 57-61). + I have extended and specified Hevey`s context (now, lines 64-70).

“[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 6: Lines 81-93: The first sentence (lines 81-82) needs correcting – is there a word missing? The link to Lipscomb and Marshall (2010) works well, but the subsequent discussion of Lipscomb (2016) moves away from the focus of this paragraph on the relationship between freakery and performance/performativity. It would be productive to examine this relationship more fully, also clarifying the distinction between these two concepts (performance and performativity). +

Response 6: Agree. I have the possessive pronoun “its” before “connection” (now, line 96). I did my best to highlight the point you mentioned (now, lines 107-115). “[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 7: Lines 94-100: I wonder if this paragraph should be moved to the end of this section, as it can preface the analysis of the plays that follows in the next section. Also, there seems to be a word (‘the’) missing on line 95 and the citations should be corrected to ‘Brottman and Brottman 1996’, since the article has two authors. +

Response 7: I agree with this comment. I have made the changes as suggested (now, lines 140-147). “[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 8: Lines 115-116: Having now learnt that Diane Arbus’ work is the main object of analysis in Hevey’s chapter about enfreakment, where he is extremely critical of her approach to disability, I believe the introduction here must acknowledge that. The implied connection between Arbus’ photographs of older people (as described in the footnote) and Hevey’s coinage of the term enfreakment is highly relevant, so it should be made explicit.+

Response 8: Agree. I appreciate your specification. The sentence is added (lines 134-136). “[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 9: Lines 128-140: The addition of Mangan and Weil & Lefkowitz, plus Chivers & Kriebernegg, to this section has enriched the analysis. The quotation from Mangan (line 131), however, is not entirely clear. Also, he is a theatre scholar more than an ‘age scholar’ (line 129). +

Response 9: Thank you. The suggested correction “theatre scholar” is implemented (now, line 153). Mangan`s quotation is specified (now, lines 155-156). “[updated text is in the resubmitted manuscript]”

Comments 10: Lines 141-171: Replace protagonists’ (lines 141 and 156) with another formulation (e.g. main characters), since the characters’ relationship could be construed as protagonist versus antagonist? In line 163, add the information (maybe as a footnote) that the play is based on a real strike? Replace the word ‘thing’ on line 171? +

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have replaced the formulation as suggested (now, line 166). The footnote is added (line 188). I have modified the clause with the “thing” (hopefully, it works better now) (now, line 196).