Shuffling Softly, Sighing Deeply: A Digital Inquiry into Representations of Older Men and Women in Literature for Different Ages
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I really read this manuscript with a critical mindset, but honestly, I cannot find a lot to be critical about. This is a wonderfully written, well structured paper with an innovative topic and approach, I learned a lot and only hope there will be more papers written like this. And it is not only a fascinating topic, but also such a sound work on the state of the art research, clear questions, a perfectly argued and transparent methodology, and exciting discussion and conclusions. I am leading a research group on "Linking Ages" and would just love to invite the authors to give a lecture to the PhD students that work with me. Terrific work!
Author Response
Point 1: "I am leading a research group on "Linking Ages" and would just love to invite the authors to give a lecture to the PhD students that work with me."
Reply: Thank you so much for your kind words and the invitation. Your project sounds absolutely fascinating; intergenerational dialogues and discourse are at the base of the research project my PhD contributes to. Furthermore, the value of "learning from each other", not only in this field, but in scientific research as a whole, is something that I think is often overlooked. I would be happy to accept your invitation and look into ways in which we can collaborate.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very fine article, original in its approach and of great relevance to the field of age studies. The author could present the results more lucidly. The abstract, for example, is excellent in its clarity, which is lost, at times, in the article. I make some suggestions below for how clarity could be improved.
More specific comments:
l. 27: Could the author provide a reference for this statement? I'd also suggest that there is a distinction between stereotypes about older men and their own voices.
More generally, the first paragraph is difficult to read and could be more focused, e.g. by identifying the stereotypes more explicitly (rather than citing from international public media). Also, the objectives of the article, as described in the latter part of the paragraph, do not consider gender differences, which are considered though in the brief overview prior. The transition feels a bit off and the relation could be clarified, especially in connection with the beginning of the second paragraph.
l. 42: older adults instead of old adults?
l. 45: “reflects” what?
l. 54: (older) age; the same comment applies to the use of “old” throughout the article; I think the current recommendation for inclusive language is to use “older” instead of “old”
l 69-70: “the process for positive aging”, maybe rephrase into “process of developing imaginaries for positive aging” (also see my comment below on positive aging)
l.73-74: stereotype embodiment theory (Becca Levy) strikes me as an important (more important?) reference here
l. 136: suggestion to strike “on”
l. 137-139: the transition between the paragraphs and the contrast that is then presented in the topic sentence could be more clearly phrased (small-scale vs. large-scale studies)
l. 156: suggestion to clarify what “positive representation” means in Mills (2001): diversity in representation or positive representation based on positive stereotypes
l. 167: remove one of the “at the”
l. 171: I wonder if the “short time” argument is helpful (speed, arguably, is not the primary aim/benefit of research methods), the large-corpus argument is more convincing
l. 172: the second argument (pattern detection) could be explained a bit more (why might a typical close reader not see patterns?)
l. 217: suggestion to make two paragraphs (new p. starting with “While…”)
l. 232: the age range for early adulthood (20-39) strikes me as very broad and not entirely appropriate (I don’t think that a 37-year-old would call herself or would be called an early adult); therefore my suggestion is to move away from the neat 19-years categories/frames for adulthood and allows for more flexibility, i.e. early adulthood 20-29 or 20-34
I only skimmed the methods section as this is not more field of expertise and I cannot evaluate its quality. I do suggest though that the selection criteria of the corpus should are clarified and placed in the methods section. It is mentioned in the introduction that only Dutch and Flemish crosswriters were considered, but there is no discussion of the publication dates/range, for example.
l. 271: the mitigating measures sound a bit vague; could this be clarified? (again, I’m not a specialist in DH)
l. 284: suggestion to substitute “empathy” with another term, as there is such a controversial debate around empathy in relation to literature and its use here is rather vague and imprecise; a replacement could reader involvement or reader curiosity or, more neutrally, that readers are more interested in the story.
l.650: active aging is, like successful aging, a contested term that has been criticized. Is “active aging” really what the article is arguing for? Elsewhere (and I think more fitting claim) the article makes a plea for greater diversity and nuance in the representation of older people.
l. 658: suggestion to state again (and more clearly) which approach was used
l.660: I suggest starting a new paragraph here; also I wonder if what is here called “several conclusions” is in fact a concise summary of the main results from the previous analysis (which is what I would place earlier in the conclusion as this strikes me as what a reader would look for after the extremely detailed analysis).
l. 666-667: I’m not sure if I agree with this explanation or interpretation; assistive devices are often associated with shame and using them does not necessarily imply that the shame is overcome (only that the necessity of using assistive devices is more urgent).
I wonder if the conclusion could offer more clarity to the reader about the results of the analysis, maybe by placing the results first, then discussion of limitations, then relevance of the results more generally.
Author Response
Point 1: I'd also suggest that there is a distinction between stereotypes about older men and their own voices.
Reply: Yes, there is indeed an important difference. I've rewritten the sentence to make this distinction clearer and focus more on the naturalization of stereotypes in the absence of counternarratives.
Point 2: Also, the objectives of the article, as described in the latter part of the paragraph, do not consider gender differences, which are considered though in the brief overview prior.
Reply: I've replaced 'people' by 'men and women' to highlight the aspect of gender.
Point 3: The transition feels a bit off and the relation could be clarified, especially in connection with the beginning of the second paragraph.
Reply: I've added a reference to gender in the last sentence to ease the transition into Hearn's plea to consider gender and aging simultaneously which is discussed in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Point 4: older adults instead of old adults?
Reply: Change made.
Point 5: “reflects” what?
Reply: I've slightly edited the sentence to make it clearer that both 'reflect' and 'helps to create' correspond to 'societal values'.
Point 6: (older) age; the same comment applies to the use of “old” throughout the article; I think the current recommendation for inclusive language is to use “older” instead of “old”
Reply: I initially alternated between using 'old' and 'older' to increase readability, but understand that it is more imporant to use inclusive language throughout the article. Changed all mentions of 'old' to 'older', except in when talking about 'deep-old age' (line 59) and in the discussion of attributing life stages to fictional characters ('oldadult' and 'deep old adult').
Point 7: “the process for positive aging”, maybe rephrase into “process of developing imaginaries for positive aging”
Reply: Change made.
Point 8: stereotype embodiment theory (Becca Levy) strikes me as an important (more important?) reference here
Reply: Thank you for pointing out this relevant and highly interesting source. I've rewritten a few sentences to replace the study by Taylor et al. by Levy's theory.
Point 9: suggestion to strike “on”
Reply: Change made.
Point 10: the transition between the paragraphs and the contrast that is then presented in the topic sentence could be more clearly phrased (small-scale vs. large-scale studies)
Reply: Added clarification that the previously discussed studies are small-scaled.
Point 11: suggestion to clarify what “positive representation” means in Mills (2001): diversity in representation or positive representation based on positive stereotypes
Reply: I've rewritten the sentence to clarify that Mills found grandparent figures in children's books to be attributed with postive characteristics.
Point 12: remove one of the “at the”
Reply: Change made.
Point 13: I wonder if the “short time” argument is helpful (speed, arguably, is not the primary aim/benefit of research methods), the large-corpus argument is more convincing
Reply: Rephrased this sentence. The argument that I was trying to make is that when using digital tools to study texts, hypothesis that form during the research can be tested with minimal effort and without having to reread texts with a different lens or focus.
Point 14: the second argument (pattern detection) could be explained a bit more (why might a typical close reader not see patterns?)
Reply: I've added examples of patterns (word frequencies and word co-occurance) which makes it clearer why this does not tend to be open to intuitive inspection.
Point 15: suggestion to make two paragraphs (new p. starting with “While…”)
Reply: Change made.
Point 16: the age range for early adulthood (20-39) strikes me as very broad and not entirely appropriate (I don’t think that a 37-year-old would call herself or would be called an early adult); therefore my suggestion is to move away from the neat 19-years categories/frames for adulthood and allows for more flexibility, i.e. early adulthood 20-29 or 20-34
Reply: While I acknowledge the complexity of defining strict numerical boundaries to life stages, the neat division of adulthood (ranging from 20-100) into four categories was chosen to ensure uniformity and an unbiased distribution of adulthood throughout the research project this article fits into. The division is based on sources from age critics including Lorraine Green, who identifies 'middle adulthood' as ranging from 40 to 60. If I were to define early adulthood as ranging from 20 to 34, this would result in a very narrow life stage to be fitted between early and middle adulthood. Futhermore, the age scheme as presented in this article is a simplified version of the one used in the broader research project, where life stages spanning only 10 years (twenties, thirties, etc) are also considered.
Point 17: I do suggest though that the selection criteria of the corpus should are clarified and placed in the methods section. It is mentioned in the introduction that only Dutch and Flemish crosswriters were considered, but there is no discussion of the publication dates/range, for example.
Reply: I've added more details about the corpus (Dutch / Flemish, published between 1975 and 2021) to the methods section.
Point 18: the mitigating measures sound a bit vague; could this be clarified? (again, I’m not a specialist in DH)
Reply: I've rephrased this part to hopefully clarify the workings of the parser. I appreciate you pointing this out, as I want the article to be clear to non-DH people.
Point 19: suggestion to substitute “empathy” with another term, as there is such a controversial debate around empathy in relation to literature and its use here is rather vague and imprecise; a replacement could reader involvement or reader curiosity or, more neutrally, that readers are more interested in the story.
Reply: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've changed it to 'the reader's involvement with the story'.
Point 20: active aging is, like successful aging, a contested term that has been criticized. Is “active aging” really what the article is arguing for? Elsewhere (and I think more fitting claim) the article makes a plea for greater diversity and nuance in the representation of older people.
Reply: I've edited the first part of this paragraph to indeed put more emphasis on the awareness of more diverse representations of older age. I left in the part about active aging, but more as a future ideal outcome instead of a paradigm this article contributes to.
Point 21: suggestion to state again (and more clearly) which approach was used
Reply: Change made.
Point 22: I suggest starting a new paragraph here; also I wonder if what is here called “several conclusions” is in fact a concise summary of the main results from the previous analysis (which is what I would place earlier in the conclusion as this strikes me as what a reader would look for after the extremely detailed analysis).
Reply: I've split the paragraph where suggested and moved the summary of the analysis to the front of the general conclusion, which is indeed a more logical order.
Point 23: I’m not sure if I agree with this explanation or interpretation; assistive devices are often associated with shame and using them does not necessarily imply that the shame is overcome (only that the necessity of using assistive devices is more urgent).
Reply: I've left out the part on 'negative effect on quality of life' and emphasised the effect on the deteriorating body.
Point 24: I wonder if the conclusion could offer more clarity to the reader about the results of the analysis, maybe by placing the results first, then discussion of limitations, then relevance of the results more generally.
Reply: I've edited the order of the discussion as suggested.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a good essay; very thorough, with a sound bibliographical basis and a good analysis. Still, I would recommend a revision of the abstract since it does not cover everything that is covered in the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind feedback.
Point 1: I would recommend a revision of the abstract since it does not cover everything that is covered in the article.
Reply: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I revised the abstract to add the main findings in differences according to gender, which is indeed one of the main research questions this article tries to answer. I also added a reference to the social network of older adults in adult novels.
