“I Was Born!”: Personal Experience Narratives and Tree-Ring Marker Years

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Philosophies Submission:

“I Was Born!: Personal Experience Narratives and Tree Ring Marker Years”

 

We thank all three reviewers for their great suggestions for revision. We have made the following changes to the second draft of our essay:

 

1. A consistent effort to move beyond the human throughout the essay. This includes explicitly acknowledging and foregrounding tree agency in the essay’s introduction and moving forward our discussion of critical plant studies and our contribution to this field of study. The revised version of the essay is much more explicit about identifying our contribution to tree ring reinterpretation projects—what we call “material dating”—as beginning with the personal experiences of trees.

 

2. More clearly signaled our indebtedness to and relationship with Indigenous-led projects that reinterpret tree rings. These include the grassroots campaign to add new signage and media to the “Tree Cookie” display in the Royal Ontario Museum and the tree cross-section that educators use as a learning aid in Western University’s Indigenous Learning Space. We also make clear the ways in which Indigenous scholarship influences our approach, most notably Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies.

 

3. Added a terminal date to our revised tree ring timeline in the final section of the essay.

 

4. Added context to explain our writing style. Reviewer 1 suggested that we reformat the essay to follow typical scientific writing guidelines—introduction, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusion—and leading with theory first, and then story. We resist this format for two reasons. First, we take seriously Smith’s decolonial projects of storytelling, connecting, and networking, and want to write in the most inclusive way possible. We believe that, by replicating our own developing conversation, we can include as wide an audience as possible into our project. Second, our expertise in narrative and storytelling demands that we always consider story first and theory as a tool by which to interpret primary texts. Our disciplinary background encourages us to always conceive as theory as existing to illuminate stories, not the other way around.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a sympathetic study but there are some important shortcomings that need to be reviewed. The historical context of tree cookies is valuable and the critical review of this history is well presented. However, both the voices of the tree and authentic indigenous voices are missing. The article focuses on human stories instead. Further research could be helpful here. Please have a look at the following: The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben, The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abram, Dwellings: A Spiritual History of the World by Linda Hogan and Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer. These texts demonstrate how plants and trees can be given a voice. In order to reach your research objective you will need to move beyond a human centred approach. Also, your article is not consistent in style. The introduction and conclusion are written in a more formal style but the main body of the text is personal and more informal. The two styles need to be integrated better. Moreover, there is an abundant use of terminology and neologisms. To make your text more accessible to a wider audience you will need to review this as well. Again, your aims and objectives are interesting and apt but the execution needs to be improved.

Author Response

Philosophies Submission:

“I Was Born!: Personal Experience Narratives and Tree Ring Marker Years”

 

We thank all three reviewers for their great suggestions for revision. We have made the following changes to the second draft of our essay:

 

1. A consistent effort to move beyond the human throughout the essay. This includes explicitly acknowledging and foregrounding tree agency in the essay’s introduction and moving forward our discussion of critical plant studies and our contribution to this field of study. The revised version of the essay is much more explicit about identifying our contribution to tree ring reinterpretation projects—what we call “material dating”—as beginning with the personal experiences of trees.

 

2. More clearly signaled our indebtedness to and relationship with Indigenous-led projects that reinterpret tree rings. These include the grassroots campaign to add new signage and media to the “Tree Cookie” display in the Royal Ontario Museum and the tree cross-section that educators use as a learning aid in Western University’s Indigenous Learning Space. We also make clear the ways in which Indigenous scholarship influences our approach, most notably Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies.

 

3. Added a terminal date to our revised tree ring timeline in the final section of the essay.

 

4. Added context to explain our writing style. Reviewer 1 suggested that we reformat the essay to follow typical scientific writing guidelines—introduction, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusion—and leading with theory first, and then story. We resist this format for two reasons. First, we take seriously Smith’s decolonial projects of storytelling, connecting, and networking, and want to write in the most inclusive way possible. We believe that, by replicating our own developing conversation, we can include as wide an audience as possible into our project. Second, our expertise in narrative and storytelling demands that we always consider story first and theory as a tool by which to interpret primary texts. Our disciplinary background encourages us to always conceive as theory as existing to illuminate stories, not the other way around.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really enjoyed reading your paper and don't have any major suggestions for improvements. The only thing I would add is another last date for the death of the tree which should have been a major event in its life (even if not experienced consciously) and which was probably a violent act that could be connected to extractivism or other forms of human exceptionalism. It would be a more adequate ending than Smokey the Bear.

Also I wondered why you did not include Peter Wohlleben's  "The Hidden Life of Trees" in your bibliography. It might be a valuable reference. 

There are two small errors: There is a full stop missing in line 126 and there is something mixed up in one of the words in line 588. Also I would get rid of Figure 4, the data is not complex enough to require visualization. 

Author Response

Philosophies Submission:

“I Was Born!: Personal Experience Narratives and Tree Ring Marker Years”

 

We thank all three reviewers for their great suggestions for revision. We have made the following changes to the second draft of our essay:

 

1. A consistent effort to move beyond the human throughout the essay. This includes explicitly acknowledging and foregrounding tree agency in the essay’s introduction and moving forward our discussion of critical plant studies and our contribution to this field of study. The revised version of the essay is much more explicit about identifying our contribution to tree ring reinterpretation projects—what we call “material dating”—as beginning with the personal experiences of trees.

 

2. More clearly signaled our indebtedness to and relationship with Indigenous-led projects that reinterpret tree rings. These include the grassroots campaign to add new signage and media to the “Tree Cookie” display in the Royal Ontario Museum and the tree cross-section that educators use as a learning aid in Western University’s Indigenous Learning Space. We also make clear the ways in which Indigenous scholarship influences our approach, most notably Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies.

 

3. Added a terminal date to our revised tree ring timeline in the final section of the essay.

 

4. Added context to explain our writing style. Reviewer 1 suggested that we reformat the essay to follow typical scientific writing guidelines—introduction, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusion—and leading with theory first, and then story. We resist this format for two reasons. First, we take seriously Smith’s decolonial projects of storytelling, connecting, and networking, and want to write in the most inclusive way possible. We believe that, by replicating our own developing conversation, we can include as wide an audience as possible into our project. Second, our expertise in narrative and storytelling demands that we always consider story first and theory as a tool by which to interpret primary texts. Our disciplinary background encourages us to always conceive as theory as existing to illuminate stories, not the other way around.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find review comments on version 2 attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are delighted by Reviewer I’s full approval of our second draft of the essay. We are also grateful for Reviewer II’s insightful suggestions for minor revisions. In addition to making syntactical and grammatical corrections, we have made the following clarifications in the third draft of our essay:

1. Our use of the term tree “body” refers to but one cross-section of the organism.
2. Tree personal experience narratives are narrated by trees and co-authored by a specific tree and its human interpreter(s).
3. A tree PEN tells but one story, and that different cross-sections from the same tree may call attention to different events.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for doing a thorough review of your paper. You have made major improvements on multiple fronts. Well done.

Author Response

We are delighted by Reviewer I’s full approval of our second draft of the essay. We are also grateful for Reviewer II’s insightful suggestions for minor revisions. In addition to making syntactical and grammatical corrections, we have made the following clarifications in the third draft of our essay:

1. Our use of the term tree “body” refers to but one cross-section of the organism.
2. Tree personal experience narratives are narrated by trees and co-authored by a specific tree and its human interpreter(s).
3. A tree PEN tells but one story, and that different cross-sections from the same tree may call attention to different events.