Philip Huynh’s The Forbidden Purple City: New Canadian Refugee Narratives and the Borders of the Socio-Political Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting topic, your argument is clear in general, but a few improvements should be noted: have a better introduction, explaining the nativity-territory-citizenship in the context of the trilogy; provide some brief summary of this work and its themes for those who have not read this collection. It is best to situate your argument in the postcolonial context more, use Bhabha more as well as other critics (some are just mentioned). Again, position your argument in the context as you offer your argument. The conclusion is too short and needs elaboration; also, proofread closely please. 

The ideas are interesting and worthy of attention but it is hard to pinpoint the exact thesis - this is what I have included in the comments; the introduction should contextualize the argument in a more coherent way and pull from some additional critical sources to explain the "refugee" writing/genre; perhaps it'd be useful to provide a bit more of an overview about this type of writing for those who are not as familiar with the topic of nation-state discourse. It might be useful to include a brief summary of the s.s. collection that is being analyzed. The paper raises some good points, it is relevant and useful, it appears to be original, the language is clear and easy to follow, the academic sources used are acceptable, minor proofing is needed, also, both the introduction and conclusion (too short and broad) should be expanded as noted. 

minor errors 

Author Response

DEAR COLLEAGUE:

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions made on the manuscript. Please find below my responses:

Interesting topic, your argument is clear in general, but a few improvements should be noted: have a better introduction, explaining the nativity-territory-citizenship in the context of the trilogy; provide some brief summary of this work and its themes for those who have not read this collection. It is best to situate your argument in the postcolonial context more, use Bhabha more as well as other critics (some are just mentioned). Again, position your argument in the context as you offer your argument. The conclusion is too short and needs elaboration; also, proofread closely please. 

I have intended to simplify the opening section to make it neater and less ambitious, probably. I have intended to draw more from the start on the diaspora/critical Refugee Studies parallelism in context. A brief summary of the collection is included in the opening context of section 3, together with references to Huynh and his only book. Finally, I have elaborated a bit further the concluding remarks, where I have also checked the language problems found.

The ideas are interesting and worthy of attention but it is hard to pinpoint the exact thesis - this is what I have included in the comments; the introduction should contextualize the argument in a more coherent way and pull from some additional critical sources to explain the "refugee" writing/genre; perhaps it'd be useful to provide a bit more of an overview about this type of writing for those who are not as familiar with the topic of nation-state discourse. It might be useful to include a brief summary of the s.s. collection that is being analyzed. The paper raises some good points, it is relevant and useful, it appears to be original, the language is clear and easy to follow, the academic sources used are acceptable, minor proofing is needed, also, both the introduction and conclusion (too short and broad) should be expanded as noted. 

I have tried to simplify the opening section, by eliminating some confusing terms, as indicated. A short summary of the collection is given before the analysis of the stories, placing a little emphasis on the structural axes of the narratives.

Comments on the Quality of English Language minor errors.

I have checked the errors.

PS.: the manuscript uploaded incorporates most of the changes suggested (Reviewer1: highlighted; Reviewer 2: highlighted).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting and well written text contextualising the refugee/immigrant stories by a Vietnamese-Canadian author. I generally have no serious remarks concerning the text. I can offer two suggestions:

1/ Sometimes the paragraphs are very short, consisting of 2-3 sentences. I think they could be expanded or, perhaps, fused with others.

2/ In my opinion Conclusions should be developed. The theoretical framework mentioned at the beginning and alluded to at times in the body of the text should be revisited in the end. How does the Canadian political framework inform the analyses of the short stories? In what way do Agamben's ideas of Homo sacer and others work here? I think the Author should at least wrap up the text with a sound concluding section. This seems to be the weakest point of the text.

Author Response

DEAR COLLEAGUE:

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions made on the manuscript. Please find below my responses:

This is a very interesting and well written text contextualising the refugee/immigrant stories by a Vietnamese-Canadian author. I generally have no serious remarks concerning the text. I can offer two suggestions:

1/ Sometimes the paragraphs are very short, consisting of 2-3 sentences. I think they could be expanded or, perhaps, fused with others.

I have intended to revise the length of the shortest paragraphs. In most of the cases, I have joined them to the previous / following one, inasmuch as the idea presented permits.

2/ In my opinion Conclusions should be developed. The theoretical framework mentioned at the beginning and alluded to at times in the body of the text should be revisited in the end. How does the Canadian political framework inform the analyses of the short stories? In what way do Agamben's ideas of Homo sacer and others work here? I think the Author should at least wrap up the text with a sound concluding section. This seems to be the weakest point of the text.

I have tried to elaborate further the section, taking into account that the extension limit cannot be overlooked.

PS.: the manuscript uploaded incorporates most of the changes suggested (Reviewer1: highlighted; Reviewer 2: highlighted).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the writer(s) have done a nice job revising the paper and addressing the reviewers' suggestions. I recommend it for acceptance.