Movement and the Watery Imaginary in the Contemporary North American Feminist Poetic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This Is an excellent article:  a well-pitched discussion on the imaginary of water as movement in the feminist poetics of South Korean poet Kim Hyesoon whose work is translated by Korean American poet Don Mei Choi, and Lebanese American poet Etel Adnan.  In  explicating a queer transnational hydrofeminist imaginary it aligns with Glissant’s Poetics of Relation as well as referencing relevant ecofeminists and critics like Stacey Alaimo, Anne Finch, Donna Haraway. The author argues that these transnational feminist poets are  working through a water imaginary that embraces contradictions,  partiality of identity, a relaxed fluidity of control, and extend to non human movement – in these ways mirroring the unpredictable multi-directionality of water.  Although this is an expansive theoretical framework, the claims of transculturalism, mobility, and their poetic response to climate change, are mapped out fittingly using critical terminology relevant to concepts of relationality. These explicate the components of the  ‘watery’ feminist poetics: e.g. intergenerational knowledge, discourses of memory and a translation praxis, especially in relation to translations of Kim’s work by Don Mee Choi.

The synthesis between textual analysis and critical discourse shows an effective application of theory in exploring this new reach of the poetic imagination. A consciousness of grammatical distinctiveness, of spatiality and neologism in Kim’s work,  and of textual form -- layout and typography in Adnan’s –  evidences  their experimental poetics.  This productive comparison between the two poets might be developed further especially in relation to the translations of Kim’s work from the Korean, one source of its cultural and linguistic hybridity by contrast to Adnan's. As more space seems to be devoted to Kim’s poetry this linguistic complexity might be cited as justification.

The author’s control over the material is also evident  in the  organisation:  there are subdivisions with content that corresponds appropriately to the subtitles, and providing  transitions between the different  stages, through focusing on flows of  movement/ control  in the poetry or experimentation with poetic form, such as the abyss  or repetition. The conclusion  sustains and amalgamates the argument: by pointing     towards the potential of  a water imaginary to open up to alternative thinking and expression.

In aligning the blue  humanities with transnational feminist experimental poetics, this project argues a twofold point.  The first considers how movement and its hybrid capacities present in contemporary North American feminist poetics serve as a conduit for liberation across space and time. In this sense, a poem should be viewed as a dynamic temporal cybernetic system, a vessel, full of energy, simultaneously 15 pulsing with the changing movements and constrictions of everyday life. IDENTIFY OR ADD THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE TWOFOLD  POINT

One reservation  I have is that the  intensive working through of the watery imaginary and intricate  analysis of movement, leaves little space for more conventional comments  about  other  topics the authors address and their everyday concerns --  their thematics rather than their poetics, or even to ask if such comments are  appropriate? I was left wondering, e.g. how their work maps a response to issues of climate change (as indicated p. 1,  l. 42), where reference to catastrophes like flooding,  melting of polar ice caps, tsunamis etc might be made.  Would Kim’s last poem quoted p. 12 be considered such a response?.  What else do they write about relevant to their life and times that sits within or without this framework? Adnan’s witnessing of the Lebanese Civil War provides one explanation for her intergenerational hydrofeminism, is there anything equivalent to be said of Kim, apart from the US napalm bombing of South Korea? For readers unfamiliar with their work it might be worth briefly mentioning their critical reception and other preoccupations that arise from their respective socio-political-cultural backgrounds (further to the introduction on p.4) , especially as Kim is grounded  in South Korea, whereas Adnan seems a cosmopolitan, mobile,  transnational  writer

Specific points of grammar and style:

1. 1, l. 3 of abstract does author mean uninhabitable planet here? This would make more sense. P. 2, l.85  Pronoun/verb agreement needed in ‘Poetics are queer in that it moves unpredictably'; p. 5,  l. 259\;  agreement of verb/subject  was not were; p. 8 l. 415,  punctuation:  commas after met and glue; p. 9l. 445 dangling participle,  ‘Written on French, Adnan’, suggest change to  ‘Writing’? ; p. 10 l. 291,  comma splice  after mirror- semi colon?; l. 516 stop needed after (6); l. 534 ‘is’  after canal should be ‘are to agree with  subject; p. 11, l. 537 – arrive not arrives; and perhaps delete’ it’ and add semi colon after ‘present’.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for this very helpful feedback. I have addressed the issues in the abstract, deleting the twofold point and better elucidating the relationship between the poets and the watery imaginary. 

"One reservation  I have is that the  intensive working through of the watery imaginary and intricate  analysis of movement, leaves little space for more conventional comments  about  other  topics the authors address and their everyday concerns --  their thematics rather than their poetics, or even to ask if such comments are  appropriate? I was left wondering, e.g. how their work maps a response to issues of climate change (as indicated p. 1,  l. 42), where reference to catastrophes like flooding,  melting of polar ice caps, tsunamis etc might be made.  Would Kim’s last poem quoted p. 12 be considered such a response?.  What else do they write about relevant to their life and times that sits within or without this framework? "

I found these questions very helpful. I tried to address these issues and emphasized the thematic natural elements of both poets' work on page 3. I also added more biographical elements to that paragraph in order to draw more parallels between their personal lives and the transgressive political and cultural work they illustrate through their poetics. I also deleted some of the introductory theory in order for the paper to feel less top heavy.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments are attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed report. I have used your suggestion in the abstract and reframed the paper as a new understanding of American Poetics through various theoretical discourses, using Adnan and Kim as examples. I also defined queer more clearly on page 2:

“Queer as being about the self that is at odds with everything around it and has to invent, and create, and find a place to speak, and to thrive and to live”(1:27).

I also added connecting transitions between sections in order to make the format less jarring. I also added some more information around the word pulgasal for clarity, I appreciate your elucidation within that context. 

I deleted theoretical information in the first three pages as well to make the paper feel less top heavy.

I also corrected most if not all of your line comments.

"I have one question: The author acknowledges that Etel is a painter—is there any relationship between the “watery imaginary” in her poetry and the inks and oils she uses for painting? There may be more to say about Etel’s poetry in that regard, thinking about a kind of watery movement in her poetry mediated by how paint moves on a canvas."

This is a wonderful question and I added some more information about Adnan's movement toward painting in the biographical paragraph on page 3. Thank you for this thought, it is something I would like to explore further. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fascinating article. It could be clearer, especially for those without prior knowledge of the theoretical contexts, about how ideas about the watery imaginary have arisen, what is at stake here, and what they mean in different contexts, including at the set up of hydrofeminism. The long introduction is richly descriptive and metaphorical but it’s not always quite clear what exists beyond metaphor (at the end, and occasionally in the main body, environmental concerns arise; conversely, there are some readings not engaged with water). How precisely is intergenerational inheritance accessed through the watery imaginary? The abstraction could be made more concrete. The readings of the poems that follow are excellent.

Specific edits:

5- “this” has not been defined.

10: “finds its support”: not clear what this means.

13: only one of the “twofold” aspects is detailed.

28: should be “parallels”.

85: “Poetics are queer in that it”  - either “they” or “these poetics”.

111: “definition and determination is” – are.

112: “man made”: avoid, especially in the feminist context.

144: “porosly” = porously

155: syntax of the quotation is not integrated into the whole sentence.

259: “memory of these women were” – was

282: korean – Korean

415-6: syntax is difficult to follow here.

423: “manmade” again, now one word.

435: “highlight” should be highlights (or translations).

491: “it is a doubling” – comma splice here.

568: savage: use quotation marks?

Author Response

Thank you so much for this report. I've fixed all of your line notes which I found extremely helpful. 

Your question "How precisely is intergenerational inheritance accessed through the watery imaginary? The abstraction could be made more concrete." 

This guided my thinking less abstractly about this section and I added a few introductory sentences to the intergenerational knowledge section in order to address that  question. 

"The watery imaginary accesses intergenerational knowledge through its ability to move knowledge anachronistically." I hope that idea elucidates a bit of the abstraction in that paragraph.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to explore new meanings and understandings from hybridity, through textual analysis of transnational feminist poets and translations of their works. Specifically the concept of movement and the various associations of the water imagery are the focuses of discussion and analysis in this paper. In the abstract, however, it is states that two main points are being put forward - one being the consideration of movement and its hybrid capacities - but the second one is not mentioned. It is not clear whether the second point falls beyond the discussion of this paper, or is simply not included in this discussion. 

Referring to the content of the paper, while the section headings give an indication of the main gist of each section, there does not seem to have an organic coherence among the sections, and presents a fragmented impressionistic reading of the body of work. If the presentation format and style is meant to be part of the argument, it should be stated clearly at the beginning or ending of the paper. At it is now, the article gives the impression of a set of reading notes.

Author Response

Thank you for your report. It was extremely helpful in the revision process.

"Referring to the content of the paper, while the section headings give an indication of the main gist of each section, there does not seem to have an organic coherence among the sections, and presents a fragmented impressionistic reading of the body of work. If the presentation format and style is meant to be part of the argument, it should be stated clearly at the beginning or ending of the paper. At it is now, the article gives the impression of a set of reading notes."

I tried to make the sections less fragmentary by adding introductory and concluding sentences to each section that tied them together. I also trimmed down the first two pages and focused on how the sections were modes of production that the watery imaginary moved through. I also changed the abstract and removed the two points section, thank you for flagging that issue. 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

What an exciting and thoroughly enjoyable article/set of arguments! I find the author's  points and observations to be rich, closely-argued, original. I am especially appreciative of a discussion and reasoning that goes beyond the binary model -- and here, finds evidence of non-binary poetic structures and metaphors. 

Here are just a few of the tantalizing and edgy insights and phrases:

--hydrofeminist imagery

-- "Like water, poetics access the imagination to fuse the impossible with 88 
the austerily reliable" (88-89)

-- translation itself is movement, "alchemy" (453)

-- fathered figurations (161)

-- memory "moves" (211)

-- as does repetition (403)

-- "'formless form'" (353)

-- very evocative use of "abyss," "holes," "porous body and earth" (604)

The prose is lovely, the discussion accomplished, the close readings persuasive. 

I found only one small typo: I think there should be a hyphen between "man" and "made" (line122)

 

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful report. I was concerned that some of my abstractions and wording would not be concrete enough, but I am delighted that you enjoyed the prose, thank you for the line notes.

I hope to go "beyond the binary model" in future papers as well. I am pleased that you found that the paper "finds evidence of non-binary poetic structures and metaphors" as that was my purpose. Thank you for your time and effort.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version.  It is clear that the points in my previous review report have been clearly and carefully addressed, The article now is clear, well organised, and well structured.