Restoring the Past, Forging the Present: Scapegoating and Redemption in Calvaire and These Are The Names
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is a very smart use of Rene Girard's writings to understand two more recent texts. The article would be substantially strengthened by focusing on a single work. By focusing on two works, the conclusion for each is limited, essentially, to the simple assertion that each provides an alternative model to that of Girard's scapegoat. That would allow the author to go deeper into both Girard and one of the texts in question to explore what that alternative model reveals.
Author Response
We want to thank the reviewer for his/her kind words.
The suggestion to focus on a single work, is intriguing but we did not follow up on it. We rather attempted to make clear why an analysis of both works of fiction would complement each other and help us answer our central questions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The central argument is not clearly presented. Case studies are interesting but not fully contextualised or framed in terms of their value and their relationship to the core themes of the paper. Research aims and questions are unclear and the structure of the paper and in particular the introduction makes for a confusing read.
The paper as a whole felt under referenced and there was a lack of engagement with broader scholarship. The core theoretical text (Girard, René. 1986. The Scapegoat) needed to be analysed and explained in more detail - there was too much assumed knowledge on the part of the reader. A stronger foundation was needed in theory and context.
The authors need to be more confident and explicit about their central argument, what they are contributing, and how their work aligns with the fields they appear to be engaging with. There were some core theme but they needed to be further developed (trauma, memory, scapegoating, past/present)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comments
I would recommend adapting the title to make it easier to locate through searches - currently it doesn't give much information on the content of the article. References to These Are The Names, Calvaire, and trauma would be particularly useful.
The authors ask in the opening section: why should fictional stories shed light on our historical reality? But do not show engagement with the vast historiography concerning the relationship between fiction and history. See major journals such as Film & History and more recent edited collections such as Hollywood and the American Historical Film, Smthye, J. ed. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) and Histories on Screen
The Past and Present in Anglo-American Cinema and Television, Edwards, S. ed. (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), and the foundational text by Robert A. Rosenstone History on Film/Film on History (2017, third ed. [2006]).
This essay would benefit from some disciplinary placement of the discussion in the field of Trauma Studies, and also some clearer signposting from the opening to show why this is a good fit for a journal called Religions. The first first explicit reference to religion is until p.5/l/187-88.
The abstract as the clearer expression of the argument alludes to the importance of memory and trauma as core themes and analytical frames but there is currently insufficient discussion of these terms and the relevance and need for this discussion. The essay needs a clear thesis statement and more explicit outline of the paper in terms of core argument and how this is developed and why.
More detailed discussion of René Girard and the scapegoat is required. The authors assume quite a lot of knowledge from the reader. Stronger framing in the introduction of the core argument and theoretical models is needed - the discussion of the 'theology of the sacrifice' is interesting but is not fully developed or structured through the paper. Demasking the scapegoat also seems to be key point but again it needs to be introduced earlier in the paper to allow for the case studies to work more neatly and build upon a developed theoretical foundation.
Again, signposting is an issue - the discussion of past and present (section 3.3) is a clear 'religions' discussion but it has not been woven into the structure of the paper and introduced as part of the method of the paper. The discussion of the relationship between past/present is discussed in the conclusion (and appears in the title and briefly in the introduction) but not fully developed across the paper and in the case studies.
Author Response
We have clarified the central argument of our paper. Girard’s key theory and concepts have been introduced and outlined more clearly and we have applied it in a more structured way. We also have changed the subtitle of our work into a more descriptive one, in order to make clear what the reader may expect.
The suggestions concerning ‘Film & History’ were not implemented, because this is not central to our concern. We have perhaps caused misunderstanding where we speak about the relation between fiction and history. The journal Film & History publishes articles about “motion pictures under the following rubrics: 1. Films which interpret history; 2. Films which reflect history; 3. Films made to influence history.” That is really not our subject. Similarly, Rosenstone’s book History on Film/Film on History is mainly about history as a mode of expression and compares works of history and works of fiction regarding the fact that they are both created thanks to certain conventions. However, our objective is to show how fiction can be helpful to understand “real life”. Through our adaptations of the text we have attempted to clarify this. We hope we have rewritten our text so that this misunderstanding is no longer possible.
In the first version there were several references to trauma. However, trauma is not the topic of our paper, and we have therefore removed mentioned references and explained the relation between our work and trauma studies in a footnote on page 1.
Explicit references to ‘religion’ were missing in the first four pages of the first version of our paper. We have adapted this by ‘sign-posting’ in the abstract, in the introduction on page 1, and on page 3.
We appreciate the constructive comments by reviewer 1 and we hope we have processed this reviewer’s feedback in such a way that it has improved our paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Essay establishes an enticing central concern. Overall, however, the connections between the supplemental theoretical works could use further elaboration. The specific use of Ricoeur, for instance, seems a bit quick. The cited passages do not seem to lead directly to the authors' conclusive claim on page 2. When Ricoeur claims that a literary work can "rewrite" and "refigurate" our reality, it sounds like he is just claiming this is what literature does in order to entice, not necessarily that literature has the power to nudge readers to change the world itself. What is the exact connection here between the textual and the extra-textual realm? And what does Ricoeur think it is or could be? This line of argument needs some further delving into the specifics of Ricoeur's claims. The references to Girard also seem a bit quick, for lack of a better adjective. I'm not saying they are inaccurate as much as saying they seem a bit nebulous, in need of further working through, especially in the case of Calvaire. I understand how Gloria's abandonment might lead toward the village scapegoating her (everything was so great until she bailed), but it is unclear how the village's delusion about Marc plays into the scapegoating process. Also, the overall connection between a literary work and reader/viewer affect leading to transformation of reality, specifically how we might deal with trauma, is a bit dubious. How does art transform desire? Does this connection only function on a purely individual basis? After reading this novel and watching this film, am I better equipped to avoid the delusional scapegoating mechanism when confronted by personal loss? Or are the authors indicating that these works posses a more broad edification purpose, something like transforming or supplementing the nature of trauma studies itself?
Calvaire is often not italicized in the essay.
And the bib reference for Wieringa's novel is missing.
Author Response
We have expanded and clarified the part on Ricoeur. In the conclusion this part is revisited. In the conclusion, we also speculate more elaborately on the transformative potential of fiction for readers/viewers.
We have also introduced and explained Girard’s key concepts more thoroughly. Subsequently, the question how the protagonist is turned into a scapegoat is better explained.
We thank this reviewer for his/her valuable feedback. We hope that our improvements are satisfactory.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
A very sensitive and insightful reading of two works through the lens of Rene Girard's writings on 'scapegoats.'Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your appreciation of our work.
Best regards,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction although clearer still lacks an explicit thesis statement, why these specific two texts? What relevance does this have? If you are not willing to engage with the scholarship surrounding film/literature and history then you will still need to establish what you mean by real life and historical reality? Whose reality? Who is the intended or 'implied reader' or viewer (Iser, 1978)? How does the paper align with the remit of Religions?
Your objective of "show[ing] how fiction can be helpful to understand “real life”" is still not clearly expressed. Why, how, should, and do publics use literature and film to help work through their own traumatic/past experiences? How does this relate to the case studies you have selected? Are they particularly helpful examples to discuss this process? The historical context of these two Dutch language texts needs to be more explicitly discussed - their national/linguistic and historical framings are relevant.
If this is purely intended as a textual analysis of these two texts you need to reconsider your invocation of the uses of film/literature as a method of 'understanding real life'.
Author Response
Notes with changes regarding the manuscript “Restoring the Past, Forging the Present”
21 April 2021
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.
We have made the following changes to the manuscript:
The thesis statement has been clarified in the following lines: 37-40; 44-45; 448-451. The last sentences revisit the thesis statement in the introduction.
We have changed “historical” into “actual” and “non-fictional” respectively, as to clarify the contrast between fiction and non-fiction, on pages 53-54 and 56.
We have changed “historical” into “temporal” to clarify the contrast fiction/non-fiction on pages 365-366.
We hope you find our adjustments satisfactorily.
Best regards,
The authors
