Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a thoughtful and original interpretation of In the Beauty of the Lilies, offering a valuable contribution to the study of religion and literature. The concept of the three layers of religion, institutional, private, and communicative, provides a strong and coherent framework for analysing the novel across generations.

The manuscript is well-researched and demonstrates engagement with relevant theoretical and literary scholarship. The argument is clear and persuasive, and the analysis of characters is detailed and nuanced.

That said, I offer the following suggestions for improvement:

• Clarify the methodological approach: even if the article is not empirical, it would be helpful to briefly state the analytical strategy (e.g., literary and cultural analysis grounded in sociological theory).

• Revise for clarity and readability: the writing is strong, but at times overly complex. Simplifying sentence structure and reducing verbosity would improve accessibility.

• Strengthen transitions between sections: some shifts - especially between generational narratives - could benefit from clearer linking passages to maintain cohesion.

• Define key terms early on: concepts like “private religion” and “communicative religion” are central to the analysis and would benefit from brief, clear definitions near the beginning.

With these revisions, the article has strong potential for publication and makes an insightful contribution to contemporary debates about religion, culture, and modernity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a high level of academic English and an extensive vocabulary. However, the prose is occasionally dense and overly elaborate, with complex sentence structures that may obscure the clarity of the argument. I recommend a careful copy-edit to improve flow, sentence clarity, and conciseness.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comment 1:

Clarify the methodological approach: even if the article is not empirical, it would be helpful to briefly state the analytical strategy (e.g., literary and cultural analysis grounded in sociological theory).

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have clarified the methodological approach in the abstract (page 1, lines 5–6) by adding the phrase “and through literary and cultural analysis grounded in sociological theory.”

This addition makes explicit the analytical strategy underlying the essay.

Comment 2:

Revise for clarity and readability: the writing is strong, but at times overly complex. Simplifying sentence structure and reducing verbosity would improve accessibility.

Response 2:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. I have revised one of the longer, more complex sentences on page 3 (the last paragraph) by dividing it into two simpler sentences to enhance clarity and readability. The revised version now reads more directly while preserving the original meaning.

Comment 3:

Strengthen transitions between sections: some shifts—especially between generational narratives—could benefit from clearer linking passages to maintain cohesion.

Response 3:

I appreciate this thoughtful comment. To strengthen transitions, I have ensured that the first paragraph of each generational section explicitly connects to the preceding generation. Additionally, I added “Essie’s” to the heading of the third-generation section (page 15) to clarify the sequence and relationship between the generational narratives.

Comment 4:

Define key terms early on: concepts like “private religion” and “communicative religion” are central to the analysis and would benefit from brief, clear definitions near the beginning.

Response 4:

Thank you for this helpful comment. I have added clear definitions of these key terms at the end of the second paragraph (page 2). The revised text now defines private religion as “an inward and experiential faith grounded in personal consciousness,” and communicative religion as “the mediation of transcendence through cultural and media forms that sustain faith in new ways.” This clarification helps orient readers to the essay’s core conceptual framework.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Through its reading of Updike's novel, this article successfully undermines binary constructions of the religious and the secular by reframing a supposed disappearance of religion as a metamorphosis. It rejects the secularization thesis by showing both literature and film as sites of religious experience.

The case for metamorphosis is achieved not in broad strokes, but by linking the protagonists' journeys to trends observed in contemporary America (e.g, Clarence's loss of faith in 1910/Christianity's absences from major social struggles of the time). The argument is well supported with reference to other works by Updike, which articulate Updike's layered understanding of the religious, as well as select theories of the (Besecke, Taylor, etc.). While theoretical background is limited in the article, the author's exploration of a "communicative " layer of religion is a compelling framework. The discussion of Teddy's "ministry" as mailman echoes relational understandings of the religious by Buber and Levinas. The analysis of Essie's narcissism as psychologized spirituality is a fascinating take that shows longing for transcendence as an expression of the religious. The author shows how longing reaches its peak in Clark's search for transcendence, which he finds in a NRM.

The one area where I would have liked more discussion is the early claim that Updike brings religion back to its "primal ground" in the novel. The article seemed to build toward this, moving from institutional to personal and communicative forms. I wonder what the author means by "primal" in connection with religion. I also wonder whether Updike does in fact depict religion's transformation into more "enduring forms of grace" (see abstract). The versions of the religious described are subtler, to be sure, but no more stable or fulfilling than institutional religion. 

On the whole, this is a valuable contribution to discourse on religion in contemporary fiction. 

Author Response

Comment 1:

The one area where I would have liked more discussion is the early claim that Updike brings religion back to its “primal ground” in the novel. The article seemed to build toward this, moving from institutional to personal and communicative forms. I wonder what the author means by “primal” in connection with religion. I also wonder whether Updike does in fact depict religion’s transformation into more “enduring forms of grace” (see abstract). The versions of the religious described are subtler, to be sure, but no more stable or fulfilling than institutional religion.

 

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this insightful comment. Therefore, I have clarified the meaning of “primal” and revised the use of “enduring” in the manuscript.

The term primal now explicitly refers to the original and inward form of religion, which for Updike arises from within human consciousness and spiritual intuition rather than from institutional structures. This clarification underscores that Updike’s notion of religion returns to its human, experiential ground rather than any fixed or orthodox foundation.

In response to the reviewer’s concern about the phrase “enduring forms of grace,” I have adjusted the expression in the abstract (page 1) from “enduring” to “more pervasive forms of grace” to better capture the diffuse and continuous presence of grace in Updike’s vision, rather than implying permanence or stability. In addition, I have deleted “enduring” on page 11 at the last sentence of paragraph 2, where it previously appeared in the discussion of communicative religion, to maintain consistency with this clarification.