The article positions itself primarily within the realm of childhood studies, with the majority of theoretical sources being important ones on constructions of the child, both broadly and in relation to American culture. This is the focus of the second section. I have a couple suggestions for improving this section and thus the article as a whole.

Most importantly, this section is quite long and involved, and the discussion of the various incarnations of Pet Sematary are put on hold. The author might consider streamlining this section, focusing with greater clarity on American childhood studies and the relevance to the author's analysis and the original terms of "uncanny play" and "Save the Child discourse" (possible historical and theoretical references include Fass, Mintz, and Bernstein). Some of the argumentation in this section, focusing on the paradoxical desire of parents to "save" but also "kill" their children, seems to me unnecessarily convoluted, with rather abrupt shifts between a primarily psychoanalytical framework (Freud, Edelman) and a cultural studies approach (to signage). The combination is interesting but better links between paragraphs and of course ideas might be worth spending some time on. The reading of the Child-at-Play signs (l 129 and elsewhere) is strong, but could also be condensed somewhat in this section. I personally like how it works as a touchstone in the article.

Section 6, the conclusion, clearly makes the point that cultural representations of children are governed by adult (and cultural?) anxieties about parenting and family. Might this point also be made earlier in the theoretical background? This might also help you deal with the novel and its two adaptations somewhat more systematically than you now do. It is not entirely clear to me whether you want to make a point that the particular original and later adaptations mobilize or encapslate historically-specific concerns about parenting and childhood and culture. Right now, the different versions sort of run together in the article. Dealing with this earlier might also help you incorporate a discussion of the media more firmly in the text. Hutcheon on adaptation seems to hang somewhat loose at the moment, and does not add much (though the discussion of the unscene works very well!). Also, I am not entirely sure that you need to spend so much time on the The Romantic Child--Kincaid's later points seem more relevant.

The article is invested in theory, but none of this shows in the abstract. I think it should.

A couple small points.

l 31-32: you cannot make the claim that traffic deaths did not decline much unless you have comparative figures. This is an off-putting generalization in the first paragraph.

l 64: agreement error

l82-83: unclear

l. 148: Probably a new paragraph needed here.

l. 285-86: Link needed between paragraphs.

. 314 etc. Discussion of kite flying interesting, but perhaps noteworthy that this is a small child flying without adult supervision or involvement? This point might help you make the link to the changing parental (esp female) roles at the time.

l 356 on. Could this analysis, or parts, be moved forward?

Last, try to develop the "uncanny play" idea a bit more than you do, and the article will become even stronger. I enjoyed reading it!

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed feedback and suggested revisions. I found your comments on point and helpful. Below, please find details on how I responded to them.

Most importantly, this section [2] is quite long and involved, and the discussion of the various incarnations of Pet Sematary are put on hold. The author might consider streamlining this section, focusing with greater clarity on American childhood studies and the relevance to the author's analysis and the original terms of "uncanny play" and "Save the Child discourse" (possible historical and theoretical references include Fass, Mintz, and Bernstein). Some of the argumentation in this section, focusing on the paradoxical desire of parents to "save" but also "kill" their children, seems to me unnecessarily convoluted, with rather abrupt shifts between a primarily psychoanalytical framework (Freud, Edelman) and a cultural studies approach (to signage). The combination is interesting but better links between paragraphs and of course ideas might be worth spending some time on. The reading of the Child-at-Play signs (l 129 and elsewhere) is strong but could also be condensed somewhat in this section. I personally like how it works as a touchstone in the article. – Thank you. I cut this section down quite a bit. Specifically, I cut the Child-at-Play signs stuff as well as much of Kincaid’s Romantic child. I also tightened up the other paragraphs, focusing less on deconstructing the language of the concepts and more on how these bits have fed into the Save the Child discourse theory. Additionally, thank you for the recommended readings. Fass and Mintz are new to be, but their work proved useful, so I incorporated some of their ideas into my article.

It is not entirely clear to me whether you want to make a point that the particular original and later adaptations mobilize or encapslate historically-specific concerns about parenting and childhood and culture. Right now, the different versions sort of run together in the article. Dealing with this earlier might also help you incorporate a discussion of the media more firmly in the text. – Good point. I touch on this briefly in the latter half, but neglect to mention it earlier, so I worked it into the first few sections as well. Specifically, I expanded my thesis.

Also, I am not entirely sure that you need to spend so much time on the The Romantic Child--Kincaid's later points seem more relevant. – I cut this section down considerably and only kept the points that seem to speak to my argument.

The article is invested in theory, but none of this shows in the abstract. I think it should. – Good point. I added this to the abstract.

l 31-32: you cannot make the claim that traffic deaths did not decline much unless you have comparative figures. This is an off-putting generalization in the first paragraph. – I agree, and upon reflection, I don’t think this claim contributes anything to my argument, so I removed it entirely.

l 64: agreement error – fixed

l82-83: unclear – I think I clarified this a bit better.

l 102-105 explaining this discourse can be clarified or expanded. How is this different from the paradox of parental desire you discuss, or is it the same? More clarity (but fewer words!) on the child as an a priori construction is also important for your discussion. – I added a few sentences explaining this concept a bit more, and I included a connection between the mandates and the film to support it. Thank you for suggesting I cut back on section 2; I really felt like this section was too long and displaced my analysis of the film.

l 106 forward. I am not sure about Anita Bryant's role in the article. Do you bring her in, or is it Bruhm who does so? Do you need this to make the argument about heteronormativity? Is it necessary for the analysis? – I bring her in; she’s the inspiration for my theory because she’s the first one to explicitly draw on “saving the children” as a reason for performing any sort of action. I expanded this a bit to clarify the relationship between her political platform and my theory.

148: Probably a new paragraph needed here. – fixed.

l 212. The mention of "unsettlement" here could perhaps be joined to your interesting discussion of other "uns"--particularly in light of the connections to Native Americans in King's work and problems of "settling". – I didn’t explore this in relation to the Indigenous implications only because I don’t want to take this argument in that direction; however, I did spend time unpacking the term itself, especially in relation to what it means to “settle in” to a new home. I found a great example from the film to support this idea as well. Thanks for the suggestion.

285-86: Link needed between paragraphs. – I pulled down the central idea from the first of these two paragraphs and connected it more explicitly to Save the Child discourse and what the two cinematic techniques are doing in the second paragraph. I hope this clarifies the relationship between the two.

314 etc. Discussion of kite flying interesting, but perhaps noteworthy that this is a small child flying without adult supervision or involvement? This point might help you make the link to the changing parental (esp. female) roles at the time. – Great point. I split this paragraph into two and developed the first part a little more, addressing the moment of parental neglect. Thank you for this idea.

356 on. Could this analysis, or parts, be moved forward? – Yes. I moved this part up to the perfect family picnic section to draw parallels with the happy family portraits that flash across the screen during Gage’s first death.

Last, try to develop the "uncanny play" idea a bit more than you do, and the article will become even stronger. I enjoyed reading it! – Thank you. I hope I managed to expand upon this more effectively throughout. I really appreciate your feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

In places, the language could be more formal and more assertive. For example, early in the paper, the writer mentions the “Children at Play” signs, and suggests that these signs didn’t “seem” to help much. This vagueness does not work as well as a clear assertion that the signs did not have a noticeable effect on child deaths.

Likewise, the humorous tone of introducing the Wizard of Oz as “Gweat and Tewwible” also does not work well here. Oz does not relate to children playing in the streets, and imitating a speech defect for comic effect could be taken as offensive by some readers.

The introduction ends ambiguously by stating that the idea of uncanny child’s play “remains underexplored.” Here is where a clear thesis statement should go. This thesis should be targeted and specific and lay out clearly what the paper will address in terms of “uncanny play.”

This absence of a clear thesis results in a paper that is astute in analyzing moments in the film but lacking in the shape of a definite position. The narrative blends good readings with theoretical and foundational assertions, but it does not have a clear focus that develops the significance of uncanny play into a cogent argument.

One technique that limits that fullness of engagement and development of a cohesive narrative is the use of six headers that introduce individual sections. These headers substitute for transitions that help to foster the logical construction of the narrative; the use of them results in six sections that are loosely related but not progressive and cumulative.

Line 289, correction needed: “that suggest his death.”

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. Please find below the details of my responses.

Line 289 fixed.

The use of headers is implemented by the co-editors for this special collection, so my use of them is in keeping with their format. I have added transitions to the ends of each section that I hope will improve the flow.

The thesis is located in the second paragraph of the introduction section and is clearly marked by “this article addresses … to argue that play…” A transition was added to the beginning of the second paragraph in the introduction to connect it more explicitly with the first paragraph.

I’m sorry that you found Oz, the Gweat and Tewwible possibly offensive. I do not believe I explore this in any manner that is addressing it as humour. It is a direct quotation from the novel.

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading this extremely well-written, interesting and thoughtful article. The link made specifically to the cultural discourses around traffic signs warning of children at play is interesting and important and illuminates Stephen King's novel. The theoretical arguments around childhood are well-researched and well-presented, although there are critiques of the maintenance of a separation between 'Child' and 'child' (as per Lee Edelman) but also in terms of wider upholdings of separations between an 'idealised' or 'constructed' childhood and a 'real' or 'actual' childhood, most significantly in the work of Jacqueline Rose (1984). For the key question is: how then is the 'real' or 'actual' child defined as such and by whom? And how are the differences with the 'constructed' child known and by whom? Similarly, 'agency' can be queried further. However, my comments here are suggestions for further thought, not a criticism as such of this interesting article.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your compliments and suggested revisions. I spent some time clarifying the Child versus child ideas and have moved away from the "idealised" child to focus more on constructions of childhood. I also went through and looked over the sections on agency. I think I wasn't developing this idea well, so I cut most of it to make space to focus on "sexuality." Again, I appreciate your feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

General

This is a really well thought out, interesting and nicely executed article about a fun (horrifying) topic. I really enjoyed the exploration of the films and the readings of the source novel and I would recommend publication after very minor revisions (at the discretion of the author) detailed below.

Larger small quibbles

The paragraph conclusion at ln. 83-89 muddles a set of metaphors a little and I think you need to think again: A “trash heap” and a “dump” are not “screens” but vessels or receptacles. They are reminiscent of Hard Times, Chapter 1 in which the children are described as vessels to be filled up with "facts". That in itself is a horrifying childhood moment that tallies nicely with what you're arguing here. Your argument is absolutely fine, it’s just the analogy that needs a tweak.

Ln. 350-371: memento mori is not Victorian in origin. What it is is a reminder that you will die and it goes back well into the early medieval period... Christ on the cross is the ultimate memento mori. The "remembrance of death" acts as a moral reminder that you will be judged. I can't really see this in Gage's portrait. It may capture something of the morbidity of memento mori photographic portraiture but the moral urgency of the portrait is drastically distorted. You'll need to explore it a little further.

There are a couple of sweeping cultural and temporal generalisations at ll438-443 that are problematic. I get where you're coming from, but I think you're going to have to specify a little. For instance, I can't really see these making much sense outside of the USA as persuasive generalisations. That’s fine, of course, but you need to say where they hold for.

Typos and smaller things:

Ln 71: “is referring” should be “refers”

Ln. 129 replace “signs mentioned in my Introduction” with “signs already mentioned”. It’s not that long ago.

Ln. 131 replace “in a way so that” with “in such a way that”

You use the word “agendas” several times in close succession (ln. 99, 100, 127, 128). I’m not sure if it’s partly that I would use “agenda” as the plural form, or if it’s just too many. But give some thought to varying the language or just revising a little for flow.

On three occasions you quote from someone quoting someone… could you go direct to the sources? (ln. 114, 197, 388).

At ln. 148 you say King “has done an excellent job”, but I’d skip the value judgement. You’re right, he constructs and maintains a delicate balance.

Check style sheet, do words/phrases originating in a foreign language, like “fin de siècle”, “telos”, unheimlich”, “memento mori” etc. be italicized?

Ln. 166 replace “in comparison” with “to comparison”

At ln 167 you need a better descriptor for your “1970 agencies”. Just a little more information about the ones you’re reminding us about.

Ln. 232 “In” needs to be lowercase “in”

Ln. 235 replace “at providing” with “to provide”

Ln. 252 consider “and / or” in place of “or”. I think both options might work at once.

Ln. 310: replace “; hence,” with “and”. You’ve too many semi-colons going in the sentence.

Ln.315ff: I had trouble figuring out what a booty was until I rewatched the scene. Would “sneaker” work better?

Ln. 377: “the death of Gage” should be “Gage’s death”

Ln. 457: should you add a “for example”?

Ln. 448 you add a square bracketed comment that I think unnecessarily interrupts the quotation.

Author Response

Thank you for the wonderful suggestions. I feel like your ideas really improved the overall aim of my argument. Below are my responses to the suggested revisions.

Two paragraphs ln. 106-154 feel a little laboured to me, not as persuasive as your readings of the films and novels, and I think just tighten them up a little bit. Work us through the material a little quicker, I think. – Good point. The other reviewers pointed this out as well, so I significantly reduced this section, cutting out quite a bit from the two paragraphs you suggest are a little too long. Additionally, I went through the rest of this section and cut anything that did not feel like it was immediately pertinent to my argument.

Ln. 350-371: memento mori is not Victorian in origin. What it is is a reminder that you will die, and it goes back well into the early medieval period... Christ on the cross is the ultimate memento mori. The "remembrance of death" acts as a moral reminder that you will be judged. I can't really see this in Gage's portrait. It may capture something of the morbidity of memento mori photographic portraiture, but the moral urgency of the portrait is drastically distorted. You'll need to explore it a little further. – You’re right. I’m using the term in direct reference to the Victorian practice of post-mortem portraiture, so I spent some time clarifying my use of the term.

Ln 71: “is referring” should be “refers” – fixed

Ln. 129 replace “signs mentioned in my Introduction” with “signs already mentioned”. It’s not that long ago. – fixed

Ln. 131 replace “in a way so that” with “in such a way that” – fixed

On three occasions you quote from someone quoting someone… could you go direct to the sources? (ln. 114, 197, 388). – Unfortunately, there is no direct source for these quotations because they’re direct statements from interviews.

At ln. 148 you say King “has done an excellent job”, but I’d skip the value judgement. You’re right, he constructs and maintains a delicate balance. – good point. I cut this part of the sentence.

Check style sheet, do words/phrases originating in a foreign language, like “fin de siècle”, “telos”, unheimlich”, “memento mori” etc. be italicized? – I couldn’t find this information anywhere in the guides or sample papers, but I believe this is generally the norm, so I italicized these terms.

Ln. 232 “In” needs to be lowercase “in” – fixed

Ln. 235 replace “at providing” with “to provide” – fixed

Ln. 252 consider “and / or” in place of “or”. I think both options might work at once. – great idea. Fixed.

Ln. 310: replace “; hence,” with “and”. You’ve too many semi-colons going in the sentence. – I removed the second semi-colon and separated this into two sentences, which sounds much better. I kept “hence” because it’s a cause-and-effect statement rather than an additional point.

Ln.315ff: I had trouble figuring out what a booty was until I rewatched the scene. Would “sneaker” work better? – This might be a cultural thing. We use the term “booties” broadly in the Canadian context to refer to any form of foot covering for a baby. I’d like to keep this term because it’s an alliteration.

Ln. 377: “the death of Gage” should be “Gage’s death” – fixed

Ln. 457: should you add a “for example”? – I believe the colon accomplishes this, so I didn’t add “for example” here.

Ln. 448 you add a square bracketed comment that I think unnecessarily interrupts the quotation. – Agreed. I cut this.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions have made this paper much easier to read.

Author Response

Thank you. I'm really delighted that this new version is reading much better. I appreciate your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Article Menu

‘Danger: Children at Play’: Uncanny Play in Stephen King’s Pet Sematary

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI