“Experiencing Trauma”: Aesthetical, Sensational and Narratological Issues of Traumatic Representations in Slasher Horror Cinema

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and the authors demonstrate their mastery of the references cited in the first part of the text. The analysis is original and can raise good discussions. However, the excess of citations in the first part does not match the lack of citations in the core of the text, the filmic analyses, as if there were a separation between theory and its applicability. The excess of quotations and references to different authors can also cause paradoxes in the interpretation of the text - there is talk of a specific concept, Derrida's Differánce, but it is not properly developed in the analysis of the films. The same happens with the reference to phenomenology that is soon cited, pari passu, to postmodern theories. I suggest that the authors better define the theoretical line and deepen the ideas, applying them, effectively, in filmic analysis.

Author Response

In the face of the reviews, I will take up the quotations in the structure of the text. I now see the problem of the concentration of quotes and the break with the whole analysis. I will also make clearer the problematic issue of the slasher with the traumatic experience and its emergence.

I agree, firstly with the reviews as a whole, but also more particularly with the opacity of the quotes and the paradoxical use of concepts for lack of explanation. On the whole, I agree on the need to clarify what is at stake in the analysis, and on the need for a clearer definition of the conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is divided into 5 sections, but number 4 (materials and methods) should be omitted as a separate section. Of course, it is fine to explain ‘materials and methods’, but one should do this before close-reading the films. In fact, the author (or authors) already mentions ‘our method of analysis’ (lines 101-106). If this description is too restricted in the eyes of the author, why not extend it a bit here, at the end of the first section, but if it is up to me the bare essentials will do. To be honest, I did not really get all the parts of this much too lengthy fourth section. Why the emphasis that this ‘grounded research is an empirical study’, especially considering the fact that ‘our emotions are the core of our theoretical data’? The latter makes sense, since it is about an ‘active experience’, but why the emphasis on empiricism and data collection? And the references to Buddhist philosophy/theology and the principles of meditation were even more puzzling to me.

Actually, if it comes to method, I was particularly curious to read how this article relates to Clover’s work, for is her study on the slasher not the best-known one on modern horror cinema? Clover is now only mentioned in passing. Maybe that is the reason why I am so unconvinced by the ‘materials and methods’ section. It is not entirely clear how the article is positioned in relation to Clover’s predominantly psychoanalytical framework. I think this text can benefit greatly from making a distinction between Clover’s method of analysis and the author’s one. It does not have to be very lengthy, but a reference to Clover’s work can help to articulate why this method might be more fruitful / relevant.

 Some other things that require attention:

Line 39: The experiential principle of the slasher is based on direct experience … Could this not be a source of confusion? The films examined are based on the ‘narrative representation of trauma’. And ‘the horrific stakes of slasher films are based on a proximity feeling’ (line 48). What then does ‘direct experience’ imply?

            I have no issues with the two films selected. On the contrary, the two films discuss two variants of a similar problem of experience (chaotic vs. meta-reflexive), but nonetheless I would like to read a stronger motivation. Why are these two films, Halloween II and Friday the 13^th: A New Beginning the best choices? Why this particular one in the Halloween franchise? Or why not I Know What You Did Last Summer or any other title? The choices for these two titles seem a bit too arbitrary.

            Section 2 has as a subheading ‘results’. But the analysis of the films has not even started yet. And I think it is helpful to give a brief plot outline at the beginning of the discussion of a film. So, the first sentence of section 2 should give a brief sketch of narrative developments, and then the author can mention Halloween II opens with a cryptic insert … In the case of Friday the 13^th (lines 177 onwards) this is already a bit better. If it is up to me it can be slightly more extensive, because when Joey and Victor are introduced (203-205), I was wondering: who are they? And later (line 223), Pam is introduced as well out of the blue.

            It is mentioned (line 98) that ‘we will try to answer the problem of the construction of trauma as a horrific experience that disrupt the slasher type’. I do not get the term disrupt here. Is such a construction not at the heart of the type? If the term disrupt is valid, then it requires further elaboration.

            Lines 281 and 307 mention the term ‘(the excess of) the Real’, but is that not adopted from Lacan, and thus from a psychoanalytical framework? I do not see how this corresponds with the chosen method. Is this not a case of mixing up methods?

And a general remark: the text is very dense, and that makes it a pretty tough read. Almost every sentence requires full concentration. This is not meant as a critique as such, but addressing the above issues might already help to make it slightly more accessible. Let me give the sentence in which ‘our hypothesis’ (line 70) is addressed. It seems a crucial sentence, but it is a very lengthy and complicated one. Some extra information on narrative intervention and the consequences of mise-en-scène would be welcome.

One remark on references: the alphabetical order with author names starting with a ‘c’ is mixed up. It should be Charmaz, Clarke, Clover, Conrich, Crocq. And Jasper should be Jaspers.

A remark on style guide. Time and again it is mentioned in the text that Halloween II is directed by ZOMBIE, 2009 and Friday by STEIMANN, 1985. Is that required according to the style guide? Does it not suffice that it is only added upon first mention?

Since I think that the clarifications regarding 'methods' are so crucial, I opt for 'major revision' rather than 'minor revision'.

Author Response

I've tried to take into account the problem of sentence formulations by shortening them.

I have defined more explicitly the affiliation of this research with the theories of Carol J. Clover, and reorganised the article around the question of slasher typology embeded with trauma representation's problematic.

I understand and agree with the syntactical problem with the term 'empirical'. I preferred now 'phenomenological', explaining as clearly as possible the use of this term in relation to the method constructed.  This method is more detailed in the introduction, as you pointed out. The 'material and methods' section has been modified to fit in with the new approach.

The results section has been reworked to introduce the sequences analysed and avoid duplicating the "discussion" section. 

An explanation of the choices made for the two films has been rapidly added in introduction.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The new version is much clearer and the proposed discussion is methodologically better tied. The topic is relevant and within the scope of the publication. In a future publication, he suggested that the methodology appears before the analysis so that there could be a better integration of the theory with the critical reading of the works.

Author Response

I'm sorry for the late reply. 

I agree with the addition of the methods section in the introduction. I've also included the names of the parts in relation to the analysis progress. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The author did a fine job in addressing my critical remarks. Could have been more thorough (still think that the fourth section is too lengthy, and had better be mentioned at an earlier stage), but I can agree with the text in its present form. I guess, there will be a copy-editing process after this, so that the typos will be removed (is reproduces, Micheal, This events ... things like that)

Author Response

I'm sorry for the late reply. 

I agree with the addition of the methods section in the introduction and renames of sections. 

I also agree with the edditing correction.