Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and interesting analysis of Didion's last two novels in the context of Didion's career, reception, and larger feminist themes. It integrates a wealth of scholarly referents, providing context to the novel and to this approach. This is both a strength and a weakness, in that the originality of this essay's argument should be made more prominent; that is, some minor revisions to better differentiate this essay's position from previous work would clarify its contribution to the scholarly conversation. Similarly, some sections reference other scholars and contemporary critics at the expense of offering close reading of the text; more analysis of quotations from the novels would support the subclaims through example and emphasize the author's unique interpretation of evidence. Develop the support for the argument about the two novels through more primary textual analysis and clarify ties to the focus on feminism. This is especially noticeable in section two and three; the balance of research and textual analysis is best in section four and five.

The organization is logical; the writing is professional with a few typographical and grammatical errors that can be cleaned up in a careful proofreading.

I enjoyed reading this article; it demonstrates careful scholarship and an interesting angle on an important American writer. 

Author Response

#1

This is a well-written and interesting analysis of Didion's last two novels in the context of Didion's career, reception, and larger feminist themes. It integrates a wealth of scholarly referents, providing context to the novel and to this approach. This is both a strength and a weakness, in that the originality of this essay's argument should be made more prominent; that is, some minor revisions to better differentiate this essay's position from previous work would clarify its contribution to the scholarly conversation. Similarly, some sections reference other scholars and contemporary critics at the expense of offering close reading of the text; more analysis of quotations from the novels would support the subclaims through example and emphasize the author's unique interpretation of evidence. Develop the support for the argument about the two novels through more primary textual analysis and clarify ties to the focus on feminism. This is especially noticeable in section two and three; the balance of research and textual analysis is best in section four and five.

I agreed with the reviewer.  I made changes throughout the Abstract, Introduction and Sections 2 and 3, and Conclusion to separate my argument from previous critics, connecting more directly to feminine resistance.  I cut a long paragraph in Section 3 (beginning line 182) that was more of an overview of critical response rather than my direct engagement with her writing.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well-structured and academically robust, the article is the work of a mature researcher. It examines two novels by Joan Didion, namely, Democracy (1984) and The Last Thing He Wanted (1996), as examples of her woman-centred fiction concerned with investigating White, educated women in mid-century US society. The analysis lucidly examines how their lives are impacted by American imperialism and on the resilience of women who resist the harm inflicted by patriarchy. To this end, the article draws on a wide spectrum of relevant studies of Didion’s fiction and represents a relevant a contribution to the study of her work.

Small typos and details need to be addressed:

• Line 12: protoganists –> protagonists
• Lines 29-30: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 42: Ross Douthat (2022)’s –> Ross Douthat’s (2022)
• Line 43: 21st century fans –> 21st-century fans
• Lines 45-46: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 52: iconoclast Sylvia Plath –> iconoclast, Sylvia Plath
• Lines 56-57: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 75: that adds weight –> which adds weight
• Line 85: El Salvador” –> please check whether these closing quotations marks are correct.
• Line 100: focused instead –> focused instead on
• Line 114: collapse[e] –> please check whether this is correct
• Line 115: purposes…these novels –> purposes…. these novels
• Line 154: please ensure punctuation is correct in this line
• Line 170: divorce – who has become –> divorce who has become
• Line 220: for example, –> For example,
• Lines 232-233: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 242: counterculture…departs –> counterculture… departs
• Line 244: form her more –> from her more
• Line 259: journalist –> journalists
• Line 290: -an ethical –> - an ethical
• Line 301: Elena. Since –> Elena, since
• Lines 402-403: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 414: 20th century novelists –> 20th-century novelists
• Line 436: got -…You got horses –> got - … You got horses
• Line 497: please ensure punctuation is correct.
• Lines 503-505: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 512: done is often enough –> done it often enough
• Lines 545-546: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 559: that claim the lives –> which claim the lives
• Lines 576-577 should be part of line 575.

Author Response

#2

Small typos and details need to be addressed:

• Line 12: protoganists –> protagonists
• Lines 29-30: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 42: Ross Douthat (2022)’s –> Ross Douthat’s (2022)
• Line 43: 21st century fans –> 21st-century fans
• Lines 45-46: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 52: iconoclast Sylvia Plath –> iconoclast, Sylvia Plath
• Lines 56-57: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 75: that adds weight –> which adds weight
• Line 85: El Salvador” –> please check whether these closing quotations marks are correct.
• Line 100: focused instead –> focused instead on
• Line 114: collapse[e] –> please check whether this is correct
• Line 115: purposes…these novels –> purposes…. these novels
• Line 154: please ensure punctuation is correct in this line
• Line 170: divorce – who has become –> divorce who has become
• Line 220: for example, –> For example,
• Lines 232-233: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 242: counterculture…departs –> counterculture… departs
• Line 244: form her more –> from her more
• Line 259: journalist –> journalists
• Line 290: -an ethical –> - an ethical
• Line 301: Elena. Since –> Elena, since
• Lines 402-403: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 414: 20th century novelists –> 20th-century novelists
• Line 436: got -…You got horses –> got - … You got horses
• Line 497: please ensure punctuation is correct.
• Lines 503-505: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 512: done is often enough –> done it often enough
• Lines 545-546: please provide page number of quotation.
• Line 559: that claim the lives –> which claim the lives
• Lines 576-577 should be part of line 575.

Author: Corrected

I asked the Editor about my lack of page numbers with online sources; she said that those changes did not need to be made.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this prospective article on Joan Didion, and I must say I learned from it.  For a journal referee/ reviewer, those two clauses themselves proffer strong recommendation to publish.  I will provide some specific commentary below, as well as fifteen or so areas for stylistic and grammatical corrections.  However, in summary, this is an excellent, well-constructed, highly topical, and sharply argued piece of research in contemporary American fiction and cultural politics.  After minor corrections, I would recommend publication.

The Abstract and Keywords (lines 4-21) provide clear, articulate and concise guides to the article.  Please note that the author uses American spellings throughout:  skepticism, sketching, center, favor, recognize, maneuvers, and so on.  The editors may want to consider British standard spelling, as seems to be the case for other submissions I've reviewed for the journal Humanities.

The Introduction (lines 23-78) is excellent and very well focused.  In line 72 the word 'deliberate' should read 'deliberately'.

The second section called 'Sketching Political Landscapes' (lines 79-205) is good, clear and well argued.  There are, though, a number of typographical errors.  There is a misplaced or a missing quotation mark in line 85, as well as a misplaced possessive case marker in line 86.  In line 121, 'Inez's trust-fund prince father' is a very awkward phrase and needs to be re-phrased.  In line 137, please delete 'in' and insert 'the'.  In line 154, please use the correct verbal form: 'recognizes'.   In line 155, the plural 'Americans' is required.  In line 194, delete the second usage of the word 'of'.

The third segment 'Writing Women Who Write Women' (lines 206-322) is excellent, well argued and significantly central to the case being made.  However, three corrections are needed: use 'from' in line 244, not 'form'; use the plural 'journalists' in line 259; and remove an unneeded full stop in line 301.

The fourth section 'Resisting the Undertow of Careless Men' (lines 323-419) is a well-argued segment and fits nicely within the unfolding structure of the piece.  However, three corrections are needed: 'their marriages to respectable powerbrokers' is much better phrasing required in line 377; use 'able' for 'unable' in line 385; and please retrieve the bit of missing text or broken sentence for lines 409-10.

The fifth segment 'But Not My Daughter' (lines 420-533) is a good section, nicely presented.  However, there is a typographical error in the quotation found in line 512.

The Conclusions (lines 534-68) are clear, warranted, and well argued.  They all follow on precisely and persuasively from the foregoing segments.

The References (page 13-14) use the Author-Date style of documentation, which I understand is the preferred 'house style' of the journal.  It is fairly well and consistently used, though I do note that there are a few problems or miscues in the use of inverted commas for referencing articles.  Please proofread carefully.

Author Response

#3

The Abstract and Keywords (lines 4-21) provide clear, articulate and concise guides to the article.  Please note that the author uses American spellings throughout:  skepticism, sketching, center, favor, recognize, maneuvers, and so on.  The editors may want to consider British standard spelling, as seems to be the case for other submissions I've reviewed for the journal Humanities.

Author:  On checking with Editor, I kept my US spelling that I use consistently.

The Introduction (lines 23-78) is excellent and very well focused.  In line 72 the word 'deliberate' should read 'deliberately'.

The second section called 'Sketching Political Landscapes' (lines 79-205) is good, clear and well argued.  There are, though, a number of typographical errors.  There is a misplaced or a missing quotation mark in line 85, as well as a misplaced possessive case marker in line 86.  In line 121, 'Inez's trust-fund prince father' is a very awkward phrase and needs to be re-phrased.  In line 137, please delete 'in' and insert 'the'.  In line 154, please use the correct verbal form: 'recognizes'.   In line 155, the plural 'Americans' is required.  In line 194, delete the second usage of the word 'of'.

The third segment 'Writing Women Who Write Women' (lines 206-322) is excellent, well argued and significantly central to the case being made.  However, three corrections are needed: use 'from' in line 244, not 'form'; use the plural 'journalists' in line 259; and remove an unneeded full stop in line 301.

The fourth section 'Resisting the Undertow of Careless Men' (lines 323-419) is a well-argued segment and fits nicely within the unfolding structure of the piece.  However, three corrections are needed: 'their marriages to respectable powerbrokers' is much better phrasing required in line 377; use 'able' for 'unable' in line 385; and please retrieve the bit of missing text or broken sentence for lines 409-10.

The fifth segment 'But Not My Daughter' (lines 420-533) is a good section, nicely presented.  However, there is a typographical error in the quotation found in line 512.

The Conclusions (lines 534-68) are clear, warranted, and well argued.  They all follow on precisely and persuasively from the foregoing segments.

The References (page 13-14) use the Author-Date style of documentation, which I understand is the preferred 'house style' of the journal.  It is fairly well and consistently used, though I do note that there are a few problems or miscues in the use of inverted commas for referencing articles.  Please proofread carefully.

Author: Corrected and Reviewed as directed.