“This Is How/You’ll End”: Holocaust Poems as War Ephemera

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author writes with sensitivity and nuance on the four chosen poets, as well as wider debates on Holocaust memory and representation. The weak points of the submission are rather to do with framing. The introduction takes too long to come into focus (i.e. to tell the reader exactly what the essay will do) and there is not a full enough conclusion. Importantly, it is hard to detect a really clear and consistent line of argument regarding the relationship between the poems as works of literature and physical objects. 

The submission is generally very well written. There are just a couple of minor errors present, and some problems with the placement of images. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I've made all the necessary revisions and cleared the revised version personally with the editors of the special issue, Chris Kemshall and Catriona Pennell. 

Thank you,

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting — and difficult — piece to assess. It is not scholarship as such—it doesn’t really advance an original argument or attempt to make a particular case based on evidence. Rather, it venerates the efforts of Holocaust victims to express themselves in poetry and details some of the ways in which their works survived, that is, were rescued or hidden by others and made available to a wider audience. The close readings of the poems themselves are fairly brief, and the descriptions of the contexts in which were composed and circulated are likewise fairly cursory. What is placed front and centre are the stories of the individuals (though even here little actual evidence is presented, most likely because so little is known).

Overall, the essay invokes Holocaust poetry as a testimony to the human spirit, and to humanity itself. It’s not analytical but rather itself poetic—allusive and designed to move the reader.

I don’t think this piece would be ‘work’ in a specialist volume on Holocaust literature. It lacks context, historical references, broader discussions about the place of camp poetry in Holocaust literature (how particular poems come to be canonised etc), and any in-depth analysis of the works themselves. It is also a little ‘uncritical’, in that it mainly aims to pay homage to, even idealise, people who wrote in the most difficult circumstances. Its conclusions are uplifting but not necessarily entirely grounded.

However, for a more generalist reader it does give a useful introduction to Holocaust poetry. It also says something useful about Holocaust poetry as war ephemera, and the generalist reader will find the stories of how these poems survived fascinating. The piece is also beautifully written …

In terms of ‘improvements’, there could be a more rigorous approach, with greater engagement with the wider field of Holocaust literature (beyond Adorno) and more analysis of the poems. However, to be honest, I think this might actually undermine what is essentially a knowledgable and moving reflection on the work of a handful of poets who wrote in the knowledge of their own imminent deaths.

Line 44: Might need to add a footnote to explain who Miklós Lorsi was, for less expert readers? 

Line 50: Radnóti‘s poem not Panas’?

Line 145: ‘I disagree with Shallcross—there is nothing “accidental” about the survival of these’. Perhaps misunderstands what is meant by accidental here? It is not that it didn’t require great efforts on the parts of poets, families, and, later, archives etc to preserve these poems. It’s that some survived while others didn’t (or some were found and others weren’t).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I've made all the necessary revisions and personally cleared the revised version with the special issue editors, Chris Kemshall and Catriona Pennell. 

Thank you,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has effectively addressed the concerns raised in my first review. 

There are some minor errors remaining. The text needs to be checked through closely again.