Jane Austen’s Persuasion: Finding Companionate Marriage through Sickness and Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

This is a much improved reading of Persuasion through the lens of disability. The movement from "sickness" to the language of embodiment for Anne/Wentworth is a much more persuasive approach to the argument. It also fits within this context of Mitchell/Snyder and the period-relevant views toward women of the period. Great job. 

Author Response

Thanks for the original feedback. I have made some changes throughout to clarify some of my points.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

See attached Word document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor amendments as listed under 'specific points'

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed advice and for the suggestions to add depth. I have incorporated your advice, with some of it being more in-depth footnotes that explain the choices I made and areas for additional scholarship.  

I have changed he mention of the Elliots and the aristocracy to ensure it points out their role as gentry throughout.  

I have added footnotes addressing Captain Harville’s illness and added another footnote the addresses Benwick and Fanny Harville as another potential path that Anne and Wentworth could have taken. I revised the Mrs. Smith section to add a brief discussion of Bath as a site of recovery and restoration.  

I added a footnote stressing my focus on interpretation of the text and not on Austen’s life. 

I made all of the line-by-line suggestions (I will not go through all of them here). 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This essay attempts to offer a reading of aesthetic and functional impairments in Jane Austen's Persuasion. I was very interested in this sort of reading and encourage the author to familiarize themself with more theoretical frameworks from both disability studies more broadly and scholars working in disability studies specifically as it relates to late eighteenth-century British and Romantic literature.

Citing Relevant Sources Eighteenth-Century and Romantic Studies/Disability Studies

The essay attempts to offer a reading through the lens of disability studies without citing major studies in the theoretical field of disability studies, including Lennard Davis's Enforcing Normalcy, Robert McRuer's Crip Theory,  and Tobin Siebers's Disability Theory. The essay has the same issue when it comes to disability studies scholarship in the late eighteenth-century and Romantic periods (both of whom claim Austen's work).

To start, the author should read Emily Stanback's The Wordsworth Circle and the Aesthetics of Disability. Likewise, Jason Farr's Novel Bodies: Disability and Sexuality in Eighteenth-Century British Literature gives a solid overview of relevant essays, historicizes disability and impairment during the period, and has a short final chapter on Austen.

The essay needs to establish the scholarly context of disability and Austen studies up front, then show how this essay explores something that previous work hasn't done. The section discussing Anne's "loss of bloom" would benefit from Essaka Joshua's essay on eighteenth-century understandings of disability in The Cambridge Companion to the Literature and Disability, which distinguishes between aesthetic and functional forms of impairment.

Introducing, Sourcing, and Defining Terminology

The essay begins using terms specific to identity and disability studies without defining those terms for readers who may be interested in/familiar with Austen's work but less familiar with the author's theoretical lens. Defining terms like impairment (and adding a brief section up front that gives an overview of disability versus impairment as concepts from a good source like Lennard Davis or Tobin Siebers as mentioned above) is especially important when writing about Austen since there is a sizeable Austen fanbase outside academia who may want to read an essay like this but be unable to unless the essay imagines them as part of the audience and writes in a way that includes them. For example, on page 1, that author writes that "Anne is nearly disembodied." What does this mean? How is the author using embodiment here and from which theoretical perspective? As written, it sounds like "embodied" is used as shorthand for "able-bodied."

Later, the author writes that is may be "helpful to consider Persuasion
through a disability lens" without defining what that is or means. With a better awareness of existing discussion in disability studies, this could be sharpened into a strong thesis. Again, this essay needs to show an awareness that disability is a framework imposed externally (by those without impairment) and/or a discourse, then build into the reading.

Once the author has a better understanding of disability studies as a tool, they should rework the essay within whichever framework they feel best fits what the novel has to say and send it out at that time.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback.

I added a footnote addressing the concept of normality that Davis discusses in Enforcing Normalcy. I intentionally used Thompson here because her concept of the normate shows the malleability of normality rather than Davis who is explaining how the concept was created. I also felt like Thompson's normate is a current term that could more easily translate to the past, as it suggests that normal has shifted depending on social situations whereas Davis is arguing about the creation of normal in the 18th and 19th centuries. 

I added some of Farr's work to the sections on "overcoming" narratives and on hypochondria. I also added some of Joshua’s work in the footnotes and in the section on Anne’s loss of bloom. 

I have removed this "nearly disembodied" phrasing which hopefully clarifies this point. Also, I added a footnote explaining why I chose the word impairment rather than disability. As for embodiment theoretical perspectives, I am not sure what you mean by this. I tried to add more disability theory to clarify these points. 

I hope the addition of Davis, Farr, and Joshua’s work will clarify the idea of disability as an external framework. My thesis points out that embodiment here is functioning as a metaphor (an interpretation) of experience rather than lived experience.  

I have restructured the paraphrase that “helpful” to consider Persuasion through disability paragraph, adding Farr and clarifying that this paragraph is more about "overcoming" narratives 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My thanks to the author for sharing their work. I have a number of comments below which will help clarify the position. There would need to be substantial changes to the article for it to stand the test of time on Austen. Looking at Persuasion through a disability lens is a fabulous idea, but the approach needed far more specificity. If Austen is making a critique of ableist social norms, then the paper should emphasize this. I also think that the idea of "love sickness" as a disability should be revisited. It seems that feelings of regret, longing, uncertainty, and anger are not signs of an impairment--rather, they are a part of the great emotional range of human expression. Just some thoughts for consideration: 

Here are my close read comments as well: 

Comments for Review:

Abstract: 

Typo in line 11: Does the author mean "Anne and Frederick"?

Article: 

The introductory paragraph could use a bit of unpacking. It moves from "pleasure and pain" which is experiential and affective, to disability. There needs to be an additional discussion of how pleasure and pain are rendered, and how that can lead to the embodied experiences of these characters. Then, move onto the theoretical frame of disability. 

"Disability as prosthesis" (line 35) needs to be explained further. 

Typo in line 39: "Wentworth" is meant, I believe. 

The connection between disability and heternormativity (paragraph 3) could use further development. If lovesickness as a disability is "resolved" to conclude with the novel's happy end, what then does that say about enforcing ableist, heteronormative values? 

W/C: "normate" and typo: "nineteenth-century" (65, 67-8)

Inconsistencies with textual citation location. 

The discussion of Anne's "loss of bloom" may not be the best approach for thinking about disability. The "loss of bloom" that happens to every person, has sexist and patriarchal targeted implications on women. Anne is "ancient" at the age of 27 (I believe--the same age as Charlotte Lucas in P&P). If you were to think of Anne as it connects to disability, I would consider how she perpetually stresses her own "ability" as a caretaker and nurse to her sister and family. Anne always feels that she has to be "useful", compensating for the fact that her singleness-as-disability is seen as taboo (patriarchal and sexist as it is). 

The paragraph beginning at line 204 needs to make the connection between embodiment through affect (how they feel and understand that feeling) and disability. Being hurt and angry at someone's refusal should not be considered a disability-- it seems like those emotional experiences fall within the frame of human emotional experience. 

I'm struggling with the sentence "Anne's bloom can easily be restored through the admiration of Wentworth." (335-6). It problematically reinforces patriarchal stereotypes and I would argue is a bit more complex. Anne is not just suffering from her decision but the frustration with her own self to be so easily persuaded by family and friends to refuse the man she loves (we see this idea in Emma, with similar outcomes). It's more than just Wentworth that is helping her "return to a 'former self'". 

Remove second person voice--line 434

The concluding discussion in lines 449-451 reinforces the idea that the characters' disabilities were "disabling" their relationship. It problematically reinforces the idea that in order for a person to be married, they must conform to ableist, heteronormative structures. If the purpose is to dig a bit deeper and critique this conclusion, then it should be done here. 

Lines 473-475 would need to be revised. It doesn't seem appropriate to indicate that Louisa's fall is a good thing, removing her as a threat to Anne. It's a great deal more complex than this. 

Author Response

First, I want to note that I have largely reframed the entire essay and made edits throughout, so the line edits suggested here are not specifically addressed. As for comments about the argument, I have reframed the introduction and explanation of what I mean by prosthesis, which I hope will make this more clear. Additionally, I haver reduced the phrasing of heternormativity and instead focused more on the expectations of society in Austen’s era. I have added some more recent Austen and disability scholarship. Since the feedback suggested focusing on Anne’s loss of bloom and Louisa’s fall, I have focused more clearly on those points and cut a lot of materials that muddied those points. I tried to avoid the “disabling relationship” concept and focused instead on how Anne and Wentworth really experience a quasi-disaiblity, one that is easily resolved, to make it clear that I am not suggested they are considered disabled.

Reviewer 2 Report

I find this article superficial and unconvincing. I am not persuaded that the author understands the theoretical concepts relied upon in the argument. It is an overly schematic approach to a novel which is sophisticated, subtle and ambiguous in many ways, and it provides no new insights. A summary sentence at lines 467-468 reads, '... the character and narrative development in Persuasion function metonymically to reinforce that idea of a heteronormative companionate marriage.' That is a very reductive view of Austen's work. One thing that is missing is a consideration of Austen's idiosyncratic voice, at once ironic and romantic, and without which her plots and people would hold no interest for readers more than 200 years after her death.

Detailed comments follow.

Line 25: 'the novel explores loss in ways that other Austen novels do not': this may be superficially true, but all the novels explore loss to some extent and Sense and Sensibility and Mansfield Park are both pervaded by loss. I suggest the author might benefit from reading some of the essays in a recent special issue of Romanticism, 'Jane Austen: Mortal Immortal' (Volume 29, no. 2), many of which deal with loss, death and displacement. The author cites John Wiltshire's excellent 1992 book Jane Austen and the Body several times. Wiltshire's more recent The Hidden Jane Austen, as well as his essay in the special issue, 'Family Resemblance: Displacement and Loss in Jane Austen's Novels', would provide the author not only with 'material' to support a line of argument, but an example of reading Austen with subtlety and understanding.

Line 28: 'Disability functions metonymically': I don't know what the author's definition of 'disability' is, but I find it puzzling that the word can be applied equally to Anne Elliot's 'loss of bloom' and to Frederick Wentworth's 'anger', neither of which appear to prevent the characters from functioning adequately in their lives. This is a basic premise in the essay but is never properly established. Indeed, at line 49, the word 'disease' is used as if it is synonymous with 'disability'. If the author wishes to conflate these two concepts, it needs to be explained and set out clearly. 

Lines 47-49: 'disability functions in the novels as a prosthesis, a metaphor for marking characters as unhappy or mistreated.' It is not a metaphor. The characters are unhappy or mistreated and their physical and mental states results from that. This is the engine of the narrative, not a mere add-in. The concept of 'prosthesis' is not really explained in any convincing way, any more than the concept of 'disability' as used in this essay.

Line 58: The author claims to 'highlight ... the satirical nature of her work'. There is very little evidence that the author understands Austen's satire and the way it operates. It is mentioned only in passing.

Line 62-63: Austen's 'stories have perpetuated more than a century of support for heteronormative standards for romance'. Austen did not invent the marriage plot. The conflict between marrying for money and status and marrying for love was already well established when Shakespeare was writing his plays two centuries before Austen. The literature and folk music of her time is full of references to this enduring conflict. Perhaps the author is referring to the fact that her novels have come to be regarded in some areas of popular culture as a paradigm for the romance narrative. I would suggest this reductive way of reading Austen is what should be critiqued, rather than her support for 'heteronormative romance'.

Line 75: The author talks of 'the aristocracy' but this is a term with many shades of meaning, all of which Austen (and her contemporary readers) were fully aware of, and most of which the author seems not to appreciate. For one thing, Lady Catherine de Bourgh is a member of the nobility in her own right, not merely the widow or wife of a knight like Lady Russell, and therefore is not to be referred to as 'Lady de Bourgh' but as 'Lady Catherine'. These subtleties are essential knowledge if the author is to discuss class with any authority. Another example is in endnote lx, which explains that Anne's father will be referred to as 'Sir Elliot' - this form would never be used of either a knight or a baronet - he would always be 'Sir Walter'. 

Line 79: Persuasion is not the only one of Austen's novels in which illness strikes major characters. Marianne in Sense and Sensibility and, less dramatically, Fanny in Mansfield Park are both in worse health at times than Anne ever is.

Line 233: 'the little fever of admiration' is excited by Wentworth - he does not 'experience' it. The Musgrove sisters are subject to the 'little fever', not Wentworth.

Line 246: The hazelnut is indeed a metaphor. Austen uses metaphor very sparingly and this is an example.

Lines 270-276: I think there is a kernel of an interesting point here about 'head injuries' although I don't think it works in this form. Firstly, why is Louisa's injury 'physical and permanent' 'because she is a young woman'? This is a non sequitur. Also, when Wentworth exclaims, 'Is there no one to help me?' the answer is yes, there is, and it is Anne Elliot. This incident is another step in his renewed appreciation of her. 

Line 324-327: The notion of 'beholding' is nice and well expressed in the last line of this paragraph.

Lines 329ff: How does the fact that the restoration of Anne's 'bloom' represents her recovery square with Sir Walter's shallow and false admiration of appearances? It seems that the author conflates 'appearance' with 'bloom' in too simple a way. The concept of 'bloom' is an interesting 18th/19th century one which might require some more unpacking. I suspect it means more than physical appearance and applies also to mental and emotional health.

The language is often clumsy and lacks clarity. Sentences such as 'Austen uses a metaphor of loss of bloom as an impairment to represent the physical effects of losing love and falling prey to authority figures' (Lines 184-186) have very little rhetorical force and combine a simplistic reading with poorly understood theoretical concepts. 

Line 386: 'Wentworth has a physical reaction to being seen by Anne, which is a first.' This colloquialism is jarring here.

Author Response

First, I want to note that I feel as if my work certainly was worthy of criticism and that there are many fair and valid criticisms in this review, suggesting that I lack the intelligence to understand theoretical concepts was an unfair and, frankly, unnecessary comment that does not help in developing my work or scholarship in general. That being said, let me address the criticisms of the work that I addressed.   

I clarified the overall argument to show how disability is used to give certain characters insight and how the female characters suffer more from disability than others. I reframed the introduction to make it less a comparison between this work and other Austen work, but rather to highlight how Persuasion in particular focuses on embodiment. I also included Wilshire’s more recent work throughout the text.

I clarified what I meant by disability and also reframed the idea of Anne and Wentworth’s experiences more as impairments and quasi-disabilities compared to the other characters who experience real disability and therefore serve as prosthesis to help Anne and Wentworth gain knowledge.

I clarified more what Austen was satirizing, or rather what type of relationship she was promoting throughout.

I removed most of this language that suggested heteronormativity and instead tried to focus more on social standards of her time.

I clarified aspects of aristocracy and fixed typos where I did not use Sir Walter or Lady Catherine.

I removed the “fever of admiration” line.

I have clarified what the role of Louisa’s injury and pointed out that it is not permanent, but also stressed that this a physical manifestation of a man’s behavior.

I tried to clarify bloom and its restoration as a manifestation of Anne’s relationship with Wentworth.