Corinthian Echoes: Gaiman, Kiernan, and The Dreaming as Sadomodernist Gothic Memoir

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I very much enjoyed reading this article on Caitlín Kiernan's The Dreaming: it is well written -- indeed, given the extent of theory deployed here, it reads very lightly and the author is to be commended on this lightness of touch; it synthesises its materials effectively and presents an especially compelling penultimate and conclusive section. In particular, the authors assertion in section 3 that reading the comic through trans* theory helps illuminate a shared quality of/investment in notions of 'transitioning' is likely to do much for comic studies and to help bring the comic into queer/trans theory in compelling ways. I am happy to recommend this piece for publication as it currently stands.

If the author would like to undertake any revisions to the essay prior to publication, I would remark that there is a good deal of prefatory material in the opening sections of the essay (as parts 2.1 and 2.2 both present overviews of relevant matter); while this is helpful to any reader unfamiliar with the text/concepts under discussion, it can slow the pace of the argument in the early stages.

Such are the strengths of the final sections of the essay (especially in 2.4 and the conclusion in 3), which hinge on evocative close analysis of the comic book itself and the difficulty of figuring Echo in static images, it might be worthwhile undertaking some of this work earlier -- and generally including more of this throughout the work, as a way of balancing against some of the more discursive material. I wonder if there is more scope for further analysis of the text of The Dreaming, or in the text/image relationship.

There are only a few slips in grammar/formatting I noted, including: accidentally italicised opening parenthetical mark on line 32 (p. 1); line 193, full stop should be outside the parenthetical marker after 'Matthew' (p. 5); line 466 (p. 11) reads 'literally produces' and I wondered if this ought to be 'literally producing'.

I look forward to seeing this work in print.

Author Response

If the author would like to undertake any revisions to the essay prior to publication, I would remark that there is a good deal of prefatory material in the opening sections of the essay (as parts 2.1 and 2.2 both present overviews of relevant matter); while this is helpful to any reader unfamiliar with the text/concepts under discussion, it can slow the pace of the argument in the early stages.

• While this is a good point, much of that prefatory material was introduced during the earlier stages of the draft to provide more context at the request of the editors; it does slow down the development of the argument for readers more familiar with key texts/concepts, but I think this is a necessary compromise so that less familiar readers can grasp the argument as it develops.

Such are the strengths of the final sections of the essay (especially in 2.4 and the conclusion in 3), which hinge on evocative close analysis of the comic book itself and the difficulty of figuring Echo in static images, it might be worthwhile undertaking some of this work earlier -- and generally including more of this throughout the work, as a way of balancing against some of the more discursive material. I wonder if there is more scope for further analysis of the text of The Dreaming, or in the text/image relationship.

Good point - there is surely more scope, and need, for further analyses that do more with the formal characteristics of the comic, but this will have to be pursued in later articles. It would require a much longer paper or a displacement of the general context of Kiernan’s other work provided here, as well as the contrastive inclusion of panel images from early page drafts & panel images as printed.

There are only a few slips in grammar/formatting I noted, including: accidentally italicised opening parenthetical mark on line 32 (p. 1); line 193, full stop should be outside the parenthetical marker after 'Matthew' (p. 5); line 466 (p. 11) reads 'literally produces' and I wondered if this ought to be 'literally producing'.

Thank you – I’ve corrected all of these.

Thank you, again, for your helpful & focused comments!

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting, lively, original, and remarkably coherent argument about why Caitlin Kiernan's work on The Dreaming deserves more attention than it has received.  To be honest, after seeing the reference to Judith Butler in the abstract, I was bracing for a bunch of headache-inducing flights of abstraction and jargon, but you have managed to fully internalize Butler's theories while, evidently, learning from her stylistic excesses and weaknesses.  The wide-ranging analyses of multiple forms of evidence, especially behind-the-scenes pieces of evidence, lend a lot of interest to the essay, and I especially like what you say about Kiernan's autobiographical incorporation of the controversy over Echo's identity within the series itself.  Your application of Halberstam's asterisk to shifting representations of Echo seems like a high point of the essay to me.  You walk readers through a complicated and potentially very disorienting intertextual network in an eminently non-disorienting way.  Likewise, you seamlessly integrate Kiernan's work on The Dreaming with later texts, which strikes me as a smart move.  And, by the end of the article, you deal with almost all of the questions that arose for me as I was reading (such as when you were going to comment on what you think makes Kiernan's writing for The Dreaming so important). 

The biggest suggestion for improvement I can offer is that the "sado" part of your argument could use some more attention.  Throughout the essay you build up effectively to Kiernan's statement, quoted on page 15, about enlarging readers' sympathies and expanding their horizons.  But this seemingly magnanimous project, as some of the readers' comments you've cited (and, most likely, the visual artists' struggles to interpret Echo) indicate, did inflict some real pain.  Perhaps it drove a few readers away entirely, leaving them mired in transphobia rather than inculcating what Kiernan would consider more productive ways of thinking about gender.  I wouldn't recommend adding a lot to the essay--just acknowledging, when you're talking about readers' (and maybe the artists') responses to Kiernan's Echo, that "Kiernan's sadomodernist agenda" (p. 2) involves some tricky balancing work as Kiernan explores gender fluidity in an uncompromising way while simultaneously trying to appeal to cisgender readers' sympathies.  What you say about The Dreaming's assault on comic book norms, such as the stereotype of the "super-body," makes plenty of sense in the context of sadomodernism.  (By the way, did Gaiman himself seem to find Kiernan's additions to and revisions of the Dreaming universe painful?  Your conclusion left me wondering if Kiernan's contributions were "scrubbed" from the franchise because Gaiman felt that Kiernan had gone too far.)   

A few other little comments:

• You could explain the Dreaming and Dream a bit more in the beginning for readers who aren't familiar with the series.  (In general, you do a very nice job of both avoiding unnecessary summary and providing explanations where needed.)
• By the same token, I think it would be helpful to include a short introduction (maybe even just a half-sentence) to Fredric Wertham.
• The note at the very end of section 2.3 should be elaborated on a bit, perhaps by previewing what you say later on about the "super-body," because neither section 2.3 nor 2.4 focuses on how Kiernan "expose[s] the contradictions and conventions of corporate studio comics."  Maybe you could just shift that sentence to later in the essay.  But I think it would be better to elaborate on it where it currently is, perhaps via a new paragraph, in which (perhaps) you contrast Kiernan's relationships with readers and visual artists with more conventional ones in the world of comic books.
• At the bottom of page 6, I think it would enhance the clarity of the sentence to add the words “not transsexuality” (or a synonym, with commas) after "cisheteronormativity" to underscore the contrast you're drawing.

But great job--your essay has excellent potential to do exactly the kind of work you're hoping it will perform in the scholarly world.  

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #2:

The biggest suggestion for improvement I can offer is that the "sado" part of your argument could use some more attention.  Throughout the essay you build up effectively to Kiernan's statement, quoted on page 15, about enlarging readers' sympathies and expanding their horizons.  But this seemingly magnanimous project, as some of the readers' comments you've cited (and, most likely, the visual artists' struggles to interpret Echo) indicate, did inflict some real pain.  Perhaps it drove a few readers away entirely, leaving them mired in transphobia rather than inculcating what Kiernan would consider more productive ways of thinking about gender.  I wouldn't recommend adding a lot to the essay--just acknowledging, when you're talking about readers' (and maybe the artists') responses to Kiernan's Echo, that "Kiernan's sadomodernist agenda" (p. 2) involves some tricky balancing work as Kiernan explores gender fluidity in an uncompromising way while simultaneously trying to appeal to cisgender readers' sympathies.  What you say about The Dreaming's assault on comic book norms, such as the stereotype of the "super-body," makes plenty of sense in the context of sadomodernism.  (By the way, did Gaiman himself seem to find Kiernan's additions to and revisions of the Dreaming universe painful?  Your conclusion left me wondering if Kiernan's contributions were "scrubbed" from the franchise because Gaiman felt that Kiernan had gone too far.)   

Point about the arguably negative consequences of Kiernan’s sadmodernist approach taken, but I think this is already adequately clear from both Weigel’s def. of sadomodernism & the criticisms of the series recorded in the essay itself. My point here is not to belabour this, but to contextualize Kiernan’s approach to the series in the context of her other work & highlight its achievements.

I’m also curious about Gaiman’s later perspective on the series (I’d like to revisit this material some day with more contributions from/criticism on Gaiman) but that’s not essential to my situation of The Dreaming here in terms of Kiernan’s other work. It’s also, I gather, a bit of a delicate subject, given the long friendship between Gaiman & Kiernan & her frustrations with how aspects of the series played out!

A few other little comments:

• You could explain the Dreaming and Dream a bit more in the beginning for readers who aren't familiar with the series.  (In general, you do a very nice job of both avoiding unnecessary summary and providing explanations where needed.)

I’ve added a few explanatory lines to this effect on the first page.

• By the same token, I think it would be helpful to include a short introduction (maybe even just a half-sentence) to Fredric Wertham.

I’ve added this.

• The note at the very end of section 2.3 should be elaborated on a bit, perhaps by previewing what you say later on about the "super-body," because neither section 2.3 nor 2.4 focuses on how Kiernan "expose[s] the contradictions and conventions of corporate studio comics."  Maybe you could just shift that sentence to later in the essay.  But I think it would be better to elaborate on it where it currently is, perhaps via a new paragraph, in which (perhaps) you contrast Kiernan's relationships with readers and visual artists with more conventional ones in the world of comic books.

While this is a good suggestion, realistically I think it goes beyond the paper’s scope of having an introductory discussion of The Dreaming in the context of Kiernan’s work; it would require adding multiple pages/another section to the paper.

• At the bottom of page 6, I think it would enhance the clarity of the sentence to add the words “not transsexuality” (or a synonym, with commas) after "cisheteronormativity" to underscore the contrast you're drawing.

I’ve added this.

But great job--your essay has excellent potential to do exactly the kind of work you're hoping it will perform in the scholarly world.  

Thank you, again, for your helpful & focused comments!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx