We have reached a decision regarding your submission to New
Scholar, "Shaping its imaginable futures – some contemporary
signposts in Australian literature".
Our decision is to: Request Revisions.
Please login to the New Scholar site and you can also see the
comments by Reviewer A, who has chosen to make their comments
available.
My co-editor Michael Austin and I have synthesised the opinions of both
reviewers and request that you take action on each of the following
points by making changes (make sure 'track changes is on so we can
see you have acted on each of these) and uploading the resultant Word
document.
Here are the requested points to address:
1.
Structure: Bring Smith’s theory of ‘an art for the world’ to the
beginning of the essay. Elaborate and expand on how Smith’s theory
relates to the works under consideration in this introductory section.
I’ve done this
a.
Address the question of how Australian literature circulates and
becomes available to anyone outside Australia with reference to Smith’s
theories.
One of these texts has been translated into Indonesian by an
Indonesian publisher.
In some ways this is beyond the scope of the paper (eg Australia does
not yet have Cultural Centres in Asia as Germany, British, French etc
do), but I do describe a shift in gaze and that hopefully that these three
works are being written for readers other than Anglo Australian. It does
however call for a different kind of reading -- one I elaborate on.
b.
Elaborate on key concepts in Smith’s theory including ‘official
media’ (p.3) and ‘late modernism’ (p.2).
‘Late modernism’ is a term now used instead of ‘postmodernism’. This is
explained in footnote 1.
‘Official media’ is not key, it simply is used to distinguish from ‘popular
media’ in the quote I have used.
2.
Content: Address the potential limitations of applying Smith’s
theories of contemporary art to literature. There are fundamental
disciplinary differences between the fields of art, architecture
(Snodgrass and Coyne), and literature that need to be considered.
I’ve addressed this in page 1, para 2 and see also page 4 and page 11.
3.
Address how these contemporary Australian texts are different
from what has come before. The past needs to be addressed if the
author is to make claims that these texts are signposts for the future.
Yes. See page 4, para 2. See also 1a above.
4.
Address the potential contradiction that these texts show both
bildung and aimless wanderer. These seem to be opposing narrative
structures.
All of the way stations exemplify ways of understanding. They are used
in a metaphorical rather that narrative structural sense. I hope this is
clear. You could say that bildung is part of what one acquires through
‘aimless wandering’ – through leaving home, entering another culture.
5.
Address how these texts are distinctively Australian. Consider the
broader trends and issues within Australian Literature.
I want to suggest that what might be regarded as ‘distinctly Australian’
in a nationalistic sense may be becoming blurred or broadened, and
about time too! I’ve linked these texts to new ways of reading vis a vis
Indigenous authored work as suggested by Ravenscroft 2012, although
I differ from her slightly on this. To explain this I bring in hermeneutical
approach. See page 4.
6.
Either make explicit the relationship between Agamben’s concern
with the traumatic, absent or dark history and Smith’s more empirical
surveys of art traditions, or consider removing the references to
Agamben’s theories altogether.
I’ve deleted Agamben. I’ll have to redraft the abstract.
7.
Style: Rewrite paragraphs and sections for flow. Consolidate
fragmentary paragraphs, incorporating endnote material where possible
to minimize endnotes. Discard section breaks. Create an organic flow
between author’s personal perspective as a reader, the Agamben (bear
in mind pt. 6 above) and Smith arguments, the account of the primary
texts, and the Snodgrass/Coyne figures.
I think I’ve achieved this.
8.
Style: Sustain the personal voice and perspective throughout the
entirety of the article for consistency. Remove italics for quotes.
Remove any headers.
I’ve removed headers. I’ve left italics in quotes where they occurred in
the original. The personal voice is more sustained.
9.
See line corrections:
a.
on p.2 the sentence “The third current, The arts of
contemporaneity (concerns/strategies), is even more diverse and global
that the previous two currents” should read “The third current, The arts
of contemporaneity (concerns/strategies), is even more diverse and
global than the previous two currents” √
b.
p1, par 2 - repair fragment: "becoming, by definition, in, of, and
withthe world as well as in, of, and with present time; and, situated
within it. √
c.
p1, par 3 - this account of the author's experience is an effective
"hook"; to create a more compelling introduction, I'd suggest swapping
par's 3 and 4 of the introduction with the current par's 1 and 2. √
d.
p2, pars 5-6 - these par's seem disjointed and could be
consolidated into one. Related to this, the author's voice (established so
vividly in the introduction) becomes somewhat lost amongst the
extensive footnotes and quotations in this part of the article. To create a
more integrated reading and argument, I'd suggest that where possible
these notes be incorporated into the par's, and the quotations reduced.
The examples of artists and works provided here are essential to
establishing and advancing the paper's methodology, so they need not
be relegated to notes. Furthermore, the personal voice brought in at the
start needs to assert its primacy amongst those quoted - particularly
Smith, who is overused here. √
e.
p3, footnote 6 - page citation missing; footnote 9 - author/page
citation missing. √
f.
p4, par 2 - it's unclear whether this is an account of the novel's
scenario, or a broader comment from the author. If it relates to the
novel's setting or milieu, some quotations from the text would be
effective to illustrate this. √ It’s not related
g.
√
p7, par 2 - this long quote should be linked into one, and indented.
h.
p8, par 4 - remove question mark from final sentence. √
We would appreciate it if this could be done by the end of February. If
you cannot do that, please email me directly
(toby.davidson@mq.edu.au) at the end of the month to let me know
when you plan to respond. Please also email me if any of the points
above seem unclear. Remember the degree to which you
address each point is up to you, but they must be addressed.
Congratulations on progressing this far in the reviewing process. If you
address these points to the editors' satisfaction, publication in New
Scholar 3.2 Australian Literature: The Road Ahead will follow.
best wishes,
Toby