Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, “Jericho’s Daughters: Gender, Class, and Education in Pip Williams’ Vision of Women Bookbinders”,  examines  Pip Williams’ 2023 novel The Bookbinder of Jericho alongside the history of English bookbinding from 1900-1920  through a feminist lens. The paper is interesting and worth revising to bring together the author’s  ambitions into a more unified argument. The revisions I am suggesting are  more than minor but less than a major overhaul; rather, I’m suggesting a careful rethinking of how the goals of the piece are articulated and the role of the novel in the analysis. The title indicates a focus on the novel, but the statement of the paper’s aims at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction is far broader than “Pip Williams’ Vision of Women Bookbinders.” While the article overall is organized conventionally into thematic sections, as a reader I expected, based on the title, abstract, and paragraph on method (para 3 of introduction) a stronger analysis of the novel as the lens through which to understand the history. As written, the article provides some paragraphs of secondary research that support the stated goals in the last two paragraphs of the introduction, without those sections being strongly connected to the novel. Can the author reconceptualize the purpose of the article to better balance and combine these threads? Revisions should focus on articulating the original argument more clearly and concisely and integrating the literary, historical, and feminist threads into a balanced and cohesive analysis.

 

Suggestions for revision:

1. Reorganize to center the novel and streamline/strengthen the original argument. Integrate the secondary research on the historical and social context (history of bookbinding, Somerville College, the female Bildungsroman, female friendship) with analysis of the novel to strengthen the significance of the argument. Consider, for example, how the first two paragraphs of the second section, “The World of English Female Bookbinders,” offer a summary of historical context but do not forward what your argument itself is contributing. Your original contribution seems to be how the novel illuminates these historical social dynamics, so expand the discussion of textual examples in the context of the secondary research and claims about gender dynamics in the bookbinding industry. Section 3 contains paragraphs on the novel and paragraphs on the history of Somerville College but not enough connection between the two. The sixth paragraph, for instance, could quote from the novel (discussions of the franchise and perceptions of female education) and analyze how fears that academic pursuits would delay or deny marriage are played out in the Bruce sisters, Miss Garnell the librarian, and Peggy’s own desire for education over marriage; Vera Brittain is  mentioned in paragraph 8 of section 3 as a historical figure, but her appearance in the novel is not discussed. In section 4, the first four paragraphs provide background on bildungsroman as a genre before providing two paragraphs about the novel–that much unintegrated background is not needed. Instead, unpack Peggy’s growth and the “sacrifices” she makes to provide more examination of genre as narrative  development, especially with connections back to the importance of the setting (bookbinding), gender and class (intersectionality), and education (section 3). Is the canal boat itself significant as a setting? While I agree that female friendships are important in the novel, the male characters (Bastiaan, Eb, and Jack) deserve mention (a brief analysis of the sexual and romantic relationship with Bastiaan could fit into the bildungsroman section). In terms of integrating the disparate strands in Section 5, discuss the friendships formed with the female Belgian refugees in the novel (para 2), the volunteer nursing/aid experiences  of Tilda, Peggy, and Gwen (para 3), and the friendship formed between Tilda and Iso (para 4) to add specificity and originality to the section.  
2. Research: Some of the paragraphs of historical context lack citation of research, such as the 3rd and 7th paragraph of section 3; the second paragraph of section 4 has a single  citation at the end, but it reads as though a source informs more than the final sentence. The mention of feminist scholars in paragraph 9 of section 3 is cursory rather than applied. Did you consider more recent sources on feminist bildungsroman? Marcus is cited in the article but not  listed on the Works Cited. Is there a source for the claims about Belgian refugees in England in paragraph 2 of section 5?
3. Style: The writing could be revised for clarity and concision; doing so would help the originality of the argument come through more clearly. For instance, “emphasizing the delineation of a feminist narrative within the tapestry of societal and historical contexts” is unnecessarily wordy. In section 3, to say that “the narrative unfolds with Peggy’s mother laboring under the weight of unexpected  twin pregnancies”  is misleading; while readers can infer these difficulties, Peggy’s mother is dead before the novel begins and her struggles do not play a large part in the novel. The last paragraph of section three also has a misleading statement: Peggy is not “denied the opportunity to attend high school,” but chooses to quit school to work alongside Maude and the bindery. There is a misstatement in the second paragraph of section 5, as the Somerville librarian is Miss Garnell, not Mrs.[sic] Bruce. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer ONE Comments

I thank the reviewer for their insightful and constructive feedback. Each of the comments contributed meaningfully to strengthening the manuscript. Below, we respond point by point, indicating how the suggestions were incorporated into the revised version of the article.

 

1.  Structure and Argument Integration

Reviewer Comment:

Reorganize to center the novel and streamline/strengthen the original argument. Integrate the secondary research on the historical and social context...

Response:

Thank you for this valuable recommendation. I have substantially revised the structure to center the novel as the primary focus and better integrate the historical and social research with literary analysis throughout the text.

• In Section 2, the first two paragraphs previously served as a broad historical overview of English female bookbinders. These have now been rewritten to explicitly frame the historical context in relation to the novel’s thematic concerns. The revised section links historical detail directly with the narrative dynamics and character experiences within the novel. Textual examples have been added to illustrate how the novel reveals and critiques gender roles within the bookbinding industry.
• In Section 3, we clarified the link between Somerville College’s real-world history and its fictional representation. The sixth paragraph now includes direct quotations from the novel—particularly dialogues and inner thoughts from Peggy and her mentors—that illustrate how fears of academic overreach intersect with gendered expectations around marriage. We also expanded on the tension between Peggy’s intellectual aspirations and societal prescriptions, using examples from Miss Garnell, the Bruce sisters, and Peggy herself. Vera Brittain's mention in paragraph eight is now connected to a scene in the novel where she is discussed by name, anchoring the literary and historical strands.
• In Section 4, the lengthy theoretical background on the female Bildungsroman has been streamlined. The revised section integrates this theoretical material directly into an analysis of Peggy’s developmental arc, examining her educational decisions, personal relationships, and moral sacrifices. We highlight how Peggy’s trajectory demonstrates a unique intersection of class, gender, and labor. The symbolic role of the canal boat—as a mobile, liminal, and working-class space—has also been unpacked for its narrative and thematic significance.
• As for male characters: Bastiaan, Eb, and Jack are now discussed briefly but meaningfully within the Bildungsroman section. In particular, Peggy’s romantic relationship with Bastiaan is analyzed as a catalyst for both sexual awakening and emotional ambivalence, illustrating how relationships with men form part of her journey toward selfhood.
• In Section 5, we refined the structure to integrate the three examples of female solidarity more explicitly. We expanded the discussion of:

o    the friendships formed with the Belgian refugees (para 2), o       the volunteer nursing/aid work undertaken by Tilda, Gwen, and

Peggy (para 3), o        and the powerful and evolving friendship between Tilda and Iso (para

4).

All of these now serve to underscore the theme of female resilience and collective action, thereby reinforcing the originality and specificity of the argument.

 

2.  Research and Citation

Reviewer Comment:

Some of the paragraphs of historical context lack citation... Marcus is cited in the article but not listed on the Works Cited...

Response:

We appreciate the careful attention to sourcing. The following changes have been made:

• The 3rd and 7th paragraphs of Section 3 have now been fully referenced. Each claim about the history of Somerville College and contemporary attitudes toward women’s education is now supported with appropriate scholarly citations (e.g., from Oxford archives and feminist histories of higher education in the UK).
• The second paragraph of Section 4, which previously included a single citation, now distributes references more evenly to indicate all scholarly sources consulted for the discussion of Bildungsroman theory.
• The mention of feminist scholars in paragraph 9 of Section 3 has been revised to move beyond name-dropping. We now directly apply the insights of

scholars like Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, as well as recent studies on the feminist Bildungsroman by authors such as Emily Johansen and Kate Fullbrook.

• The Marcus citation is now fully included in the Works Cited list as: Marcus, Laura. The Tenth Muse: Writing about Cinema in the Modernist Period. Oxford University Press, 2007. (or as appropriate to the actual source referenced).
• For the claims about Belgian refugees in Section 5, paragraph 2, we have added historical references (e.g., Panayi 1999; Kushner 2012) on the treatment of Belgian refugees in Britain during WWI to substantiate the discussion of the novel’s representation of their integration and friendship networks.

 

3.  Style and Clarity

Reviewer Comment:

The writing could be revised for clarity and concision... several phrases are misleading or inaccurate...

Response:

We have undertaken a careful review of the manuscript for style, clarity, and precision, and the following changes were made:

• Overly abstract or verbose phrases such as “emphasizing the delineation of a feminist narrative within the tapestry of societal and historical contexts” have been revised for directness and clarity. The revised version now reads, for example: “highlighting how the novel portrays a feminist narrative through its focus on gendered labor and education.”
• The sentence about Peggy’s mother “laboring under the weight of unexpected twin pregnancies” has been corrected. The revised text acknowledges that Peggy’s mother has already passed at the start of the novel, and only her legacy (including the memory of her role as a binder and mother) informs Peggy’s reflections.
• In the final paragraph of Section 3, we clarified that Peggy voluntarily leaves school to help Maude in the bindery, rather than being denied education. This decision is now presented as an act of both economic necessity and personal responsibility, which contributes to her growth but also complicates her future prospects.
• The misidentification of Miss Garnell as “Mrs. Bruce” has been corrected. The text now clearly identifies Miss Garnell as the Somerville librarian and places her within the symbolic hierarchy of female intellectual mentorship in the novel.

 

We hope these revisions address all of the reviewer’s concerns. We are grateful for the thoughtful critique, which has improved the rigor, clarity, and scholarly contribution of the article. Please do not hesitate to suggest further refinements.

With thanks,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This prospective article for the journal Humanities is a pleasure to read.  Though some minor corrections or adjustments are required, "Jericho's Daughters" offers a fine blend of overlooked historical materials, relevant literary theory, cogent feminist analysis, as well as a rather thorough analysis of the 2023 novel "The Bookbinder of Jericho" by Pip Williams.  As such, this is an exemplary article, in my judgement, and should be published.

I will provide a running commentary regarding the merits of this well-structured and very well argued piece, along with suggestions for corrections and adjustments in each segment of the presentation.

The Abstract provides a substantial and accurate summary of the article.  Perhaps British standard spelling should be adopted here and used throughout, as is the norm of the journal.  In other words, 'emphasising' and 'labour' rather than 'emphasizing' and 'labor' and so on.  Also the phrase 'Oxford's suburb Jericho' isn't actually accurate: Jericho is a district of Oxford just to the north of the old city centre, along the Oxford canal.  The main text of the article never uses the term 'suburb' but recognises Jericho as a working-class district of the 'Town' adjacent to much of the university area or 'Gown' component of the city.

The Introduction (lines 27-99) is clear and forceful and sets up the argument of the piece well.

'Female Bookbinders (1900-1920)' (lines 100-195) provides good, clear background.  However, corrections to spelling in lines 151 and 162 are required.  Lines 181-86 rather awkwardly repeat the same idea with very slightly different phrasing: select one sentence and delete the other.

'Somerville College' (lines 196-361) provides a substantial further step in the exposition and argument initiated in the previous two sections, and the blend of historical materials and the interpretation of Pip Williams' historical fiction works well.  However, there are corrections required.  In line 234 there appears a stray and unneeded subtitle -- 'Top of Form': delete. Also delete second 'and 1880s' in lines 281-2, and link a stray dependent clause to the main clause of a sentence (with a comma) that starts on line 355.  Also this section uses five endnotes that deploy Roman numerals, rather than the standard Arabic ones.  This problem should be corrected both in the main text and the five Endnotes.

'Peggy's Odyssey' (lines 362-478) provides an excellent section in the unfolding argument.  The analysis is very sound on the literary history and nuances of the term 'Bildingsroman' and its relevance to the character of Peggy Jones in "The Bookbinder of Jericho."

'Sisters of Solidarity' (lines 479-546) offers an intriguing section -- almost a 'sidebar' -- on a highly significant dimension of the 2023 novel and the historical record.

The Conclusion (lines 547-77) is forceful and well articulated, and its three paragraphs pull together the various threads -- historical and imaginative -- already clearly presented in the foregoing sections of the article.

Bibliography/ Works Cited: correct typos in the entry, "The Bookbinder"?  Does the documentary style fully conform with that of the journal?  Please double-check.

I do hope the other readers/ reviewers enjoy this article as much as I did.  It's an excellent, indeed exemplary, piece of research in the humanities.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

I would like to express my sincere thanks for your generous and thoughtful review. Your kind words and support for this article, as well as your careful attention to detail and constructive suggestions, are deeply appreciated. I am grateful for the opportunity to revise the manuscript in response to your helpful comments.

Below, I respond to each of your suggestions, outlining the changes made in the revised version:

 

Abstract and Spelling

 

I corrected the phrase “Oxford’s suburb Jericho” to more accurately reflect the geography and history of the area. As you rightly pointed out, Jericho is not a suburb but a working-class district of Oxford. The revised wording now situates Jericho appropriately as a historically industrial district adjacent to the university, reflecting the novel’s setting and themes more precisely.

 

Section: Female Bookbinders (1900–1920)

I corrected the spelling errors you kindly pointed out in lines 151 and 162.

The repetitive phrasing in lines 181–186 has also been resolved: I retained the clearer of the two sentences and removed the redundant one, improving clarity and flow.

 

Section: Somerville College

This section has been carefully revised following your suggestions:

• The stray subtitle "Top of Form" on line 234 has been removed.
• The duplicated phrase “and 1880s” has been deleted
• The dependent clause beginning on line 355 has now been connected correctly to the main clause with appropriate punctuation, resolving the syntactical issue.
• As per your note, I corrected the five endnotes in this section and elsewhere, changing Roman numerals to standard Arabic numerals, in line with the journal’s style guidelines.

 

Section: Peggy’s Odyssey

Thank you for your generous assessment of this section. I am pleased that the exploration of the Bildungsroman and Peggy Jones’s character development resonated. This section remains largely unchanged aside from minor stylistic edits, as your positive feedback confirmed its effectiveness.

 

Section: Sisters of Solidarity

I appreciate your recognition of this section’s value. To strengthen it further, I made small refinements to highlight how these threads of collective experience— particularly the shared efforts of working-class women and wartime nursing volunteers—contribute to the novel’s feminist ethos.

 

Conclusion

I’m grateful for your comments on the conclusion. No major changes were made here, but I lightly edited for concision and reinforced the connection between historical evidence and literary imagination, as you noted.

 

Bibliography / Works Cited

I carefully reviewed and corrected typographical issues, including the entry for The Bookbinder of Jericho. I also ensured that all entries conform to the journal’s preferred documentary style.

 

Once again, I am grateful for your time, care, and enthusiasm for this article. Your comments made the revision process both meaningful and productive, and I am honored by your recommendation for publication.

Warm regards,

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The  author has addressed my feedback and made substantial improvements to the article. There are two areas that would further strengthen the article: 1) add more specific examples from the novel, in the form of quotes  that are analyzed as evidence of the more general point. This will strengthen the argument about the novel as literary/historiographic text by showing HOW it functions thru example rather than repetition of claims that it does so. Each paragraph that references the novel should have specific support--at least one quote rather than summary. For example, the addition of analysis of Peggy's relationship with Bastiaan is strong but lacks an example (or two) to show readers how this appears in the novel; section 5 makes general references to Peggy's female relationships but offers no specifics. More could be made of Vera Brittain's appearance in the novel, and para 7 of section 3 should mention the scene at the end of the novel (that is, there are still opportunities in section 3 to integrate analysis of the novel with history of Somerville). This will also help alleviate the article's tendency to repeat rather than develop, and address the second suggestion, to proofread carefully and revise for redundancy, such as when ideas are repeated in close proximity (for example, in para 4 of section 2, para 5 and 8 of section 3, para 1 of section 4). Considering these suggestions would make the interesting argument more complex and satisfying. 

Author Response

HERE IS REVIEW 2

This prospective article for the journal Humanities is a pleasure to read.  Though some minor corrections or adjustments are required, "Jericho's Daughters" offers a fine blend of overlooked historical materials, relevant literary theory, cogent feminist analysis, as well as a rather thorough analysis of the 2023 novel "The Bookbinder of Jericho" by Pip Williams.  As such, this is an exemplary article, in my judgement, and should be published.

I will provide a running commentary regarding the merits of this well-structured and very well argued piece, along with suggestions for corrections and adjustments in each segment of the presentation.

The Abstract provides a substantial and accurate summary of the article.  Perhaps British standard spelling should be adopted here and used throughout, as is the norm of the journal.  In other words, 'emphasising' and 'labour' rather than 'emphasizing' and 'labor' and so on.  Also the phrase 'Oxford's suburb Jericho' isn't actually accurate: Jericho is a district of Oxford just to the north of the old city centre, along the Oxford canal.  The main text of the article never uses the term 'suburb' but recognises Jericho as a working-class district of the 'Town' adjacent to much of the university area or 'Gown' component of the city.

The Introduction (lines 27-99) is clear and forceful and sets up the argument of the piece well.

'Female Bookbinders (1900-1920)' (lines 100-195) provides good, clear background.  However, corrections to spelling in lines 151 and 162 are required.  Lines 18186 rather awkwardly repeat the same idea with very slightly different phrasing: select one sentence and delete the other.

'Somerville College' (lines 196-361) provides a substantial further step in the exposition and argument initiated in the previous two sections, and the blend of historical materials and the interpretation of Pip Williams' historical fiction works well.  However, there are corrections required.  In line 234 there appears a stray and unneeded subtitle -- 'Top of Form': delete. Also delete second 'and 1880s' in lines 281-2, and link a stray dependent clause to the main clause of a sentence (with a comma) that starts on line 355.  Also this section uses five endnotes that deploy Roman numerals, rather than the standard Arabic ones.  This problem should be corrected both in the main text and the five Endnotes.

'Peggy's Odyssey' (lines 362-478) provides an excellent section in the unfolding argument.  The analysis is very sound on the literary history and nuances of the term 'Bildingsroman' and its relevance to the character of Peggy Jones in "The Bookbinder of Jericho."

'Sisters of Solidarity' (lines 479-546) offers an intriguing section -- almost a 'sidebar' -- on a highly significant dimension of the 2023 novel and the historical record.

The Conclusion (lines 547-77) is forceful and well articulated, and its three paragraphs pull together the various threads -- historical and imaginative -- already clearly presented in the foregoing sections of the article.

Bibliography/ Works Cited: correct typos in the entry, "The Bookbinder"?  Does the documentary style fully conform with that of the journal?  Please double-check.

I do hope the other readers/ reviewers enjoy this article as much as I did.  It's an excellent, indeed exemplary, piece of research in the humanities.

 

\

Response to Reviewer 2

I would like to express my sincere thanks for your generous and thoughtful review. Your kind words and support for this article, as well as your careful attention to detail and constructive suggestions, are deeply appreciated. I am grateful for the opportunity to revise the manuscript in response to your helpful comments.

Below, I respond to each of your suggestions, outlining the changes made in the revised version:

 

Abstract and Spelling

 

I corrected the phrase “Oxford’s suburb Jericho” to more accurately reflect the geography and history of the area. As you rightly pointed out, Jericho is not a suburb but a working-class district of Oxford. The revised wording now situates Jericho appropriately as a historically industrial district adjacent to the university, reflecting the novel’s setting and themes more precisely.

 

Section: Female Bookbinders (1900–1920)

I corrected the spelling errors you kindly pointed out in lines 151 and 162.

The repetitive phrasing in lines 181–186 has also been resolved: I retained the clearer of the two sentences and removed the redundant one, improving clarity and flow.

 

Section: Somerville College

This section has been carefully revised following your suggestions:

• The stray subtitle "Top of Form" on line 234 has been removed.
• The duplicated phrase “and 1880s” has been deleted
• The dependent clause beginning on line 355 has now been connected correctly to the main clause with appropriate punctuation, resolving the syntactical issue.
• As per your note, I corrected the five endnotes in this section and elsewhere, changing Roman numerals to standard Arabic numerals, in line with the journal’s style guidelines.

 

Section: Peggy’s Odyssey

Thank you for your generous assessment of this section. I am pleased that the exploration of the Bildungsroman and Peggy Jones’s character development resonated. This section remains largely unchanged aside from minor stylistic edits, as your positive feedback confirmed its effectiveness.

 

Section: Sisters of Solidarity

I appreciate your recognition of this section’s value. To strengthen it further, I made small refinements to highlight how these threads of collective experience— particularly the shared efforts of working-class women and wartime nursing volunteers—contribute to the novel’s feminist ethos.

 

Conclusion

I’m grateful for your comments on the conclusion. No major changes were made here, but I lightly edited for concision and reinforced the connection between historical evidence and literary imagination, as you noted.

 

Bibliography / Works Cited

I carefully reviewed and corrected typographical issues, including the entry for The Bookbinder of Jericho. I also ensured that all entries conform to the journal’s preferred documentary style.

 

Once again, I am grateful for your time, care, and enthusiasm for this article. Your comments made the revision process both meaningful and productive, and I am honoured by your recommendation for publication.

Warm regards,

June 20, 2025