Dr. Cinderella and the Bronze Artifact, Cardinal Napellus and the Copper Globe: Was Gustav Meyrink an Early Adopter of M.R. James’s Ghostly Fiction?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a methodical, sober comparison of the work of two important authors, not usually understood to have a connection. Through motif analysis, an argument of forwarded that one was influenced by the other. 4 possible objections are raised (chronology; English proficiency; English contacts;  intellectual property issues) , but these are dealt with in turn. Although the argument is persuasive, the conclusions clear, and the essay should be published, I do think there is not enough here on what might problematic or controversial about the methodology. The essay does not question the idea that there are 'building blocks' to a text - that is itself an idea that can be much debated. Nor, crucially, is the notion of motif analysis analysed. Not the least of the problems with motif analysis is that it abstracts motif/trope from narration/the language of the text. Motif thus understood can - of course - be understood to unproblematically repeat across texts, but returning to precise textual formulations can often problemtise such iterations in productive/ interesting ways. This is not to discredit motif analysis, or suggest any major change of argument or focus - the essay is great as it is. Instead, the essay needs to at least acknowledge, however briefly, its limits, and show some awareness of the kind of criticism it might face.  Or, the essay could just quote a little more from the texts, and offer a little detailed reading of these quotations. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a methodical, sober comparison of the work of two important authors, not usually understood to have a connection. Through motif analysis, an argument of forwarded that one was influenced by the other. 4 possible objections are raised (chronology; English proficiency; English contacts;  intellectual property issues) , but these are dealt with in turn. Although the argument is persuasive, the conclusions clear, and the essay should be published, I do think there is not enough here on what might problematic or controversial about the methodology. The essay does not question the idea that there are 'building blocks' to a text - that is itself an idea that can be much debated. Nor, crucially, is the notion of motif analysis analysed. Not the least of the problems with motif analysis is that it abstracts motif/trope from narration/the language of the text. Motif thus understood can - of course - be understood to unproblematically repeat across texts, but returning to precise textual formulations can often problemtise such iterations in productive/ interesting ways. This is not to discredit motif analysis, or suggest any major change of argument or focus - the essay is great as it is. Instead, the essay needs to at least acknowledge, however briefly, its limits, and show some awareness of the kind of criticism it might face.  Or, the essay could just quote a little more from the texts, and offer a little detailed reading of these quotations.

___ Thank you for this overall positive evaluation of the submitted ms. I am grateful for the helpful and constructive ideas offered by this reviewer; in particular, for problematizing the usage of “literary motifs” and the approach of “literary motif analysis”, as appearing in the originally submitted ms. In hindsight, and agreeing with this reviewer’s point, it appears that it was less than optimal to use these terms (from the paper’s Abstract and keyword list onwards), as motifs in literary theory and analysis frequently are understood as patterns repeated (i.e., recurring) throughout a literary text (in the sense of a leitmotif), whereas the analyses and textual comparisons presented here pertain more to literary borrowings, literary allusions, literary nods, literary echoes (namely, the sampling and the adoption of story requisites from two of M. R. James’s story on the part of Meyrink). Hence, this is more akin to patterns observed once (i.e., occurring) than to patterns repeated (i.e., recurring) in the respective Meyrink stories. Consequently, all references to literary motifs and literary motif analysis have been deleted in the revised ms. Given these facts, quoting more extensively from these workd of M. R. Jame and Meyrink would not really add value (and the full text of all four stories, now in the public domain, is accessible at various locations online; and both tales of Meyrink meanwhile have been translated into English, as already mentioned in the originally submitted ms.).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very strong essay that I believe significantly adds to the scholarly conversation regarding Gustav Meyrink. I am particularly impressed with the methodological transparency as regards evidence and the conclusions drawn from that evidence. I myself find motif comparisons somewhat uncompelling, but I feel that the additional evidence and arguments provided lend significant credibility to the author's contention that Meyrink engaged in literary borrowing from M. R. James. This credibility is bolstered by the fact that the author is quite upfront about the level of certainty each piece of evidence generates, and I agree that a preponderance of the evidence, as the author states, constitutes a "chain of convergent, circumstantial evidence ... [that] appears sufficient to suggest that the hypothesized literary borrowings of Meyrink from M. R. James are corroborated." 

I am impressed with this author's scholarship, and I very much hope to see this essay in print. 

 

There are a handful of places where I'm not sure if the correct word was used. I suggest asking the author to verify and possibly correct if needed:

"appeased," line 79

"lot," line 104

"terse," line 220

"was anglophile" on line 253 should probably read "was an angolphile"

tense agreement on line 365: "was"/"is" should be "were"/"are"

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very strong essay that I believe significantly adds to the scholarly conversation regarding Gustav Meyrink. I am particularly impressed with the methodological transparency as regards evidence and the conclusions drawn from that evidence. I myself find motif comparisons somewhat uncompelling, but I feel that the additional evidence and arguments provided lend significant credibility to the author's contention that Meyrink engaged in literary borrowing from M. R. James. This credibility is bolstered by the fact that the author is quite upfront about the level of certainty each piece of evidence generates, and I agree that a preponderance of the evidence, as the author states, constitutes a "chain of convergent, circumstantial evidence ... [that] appears sufficient to suggest that the hypothesized literary borrowings of Meyrink from M. R. James are corroborated." 

I am impressed with this author's scholarship, and I very much hope to see this essay in print.

___ Thank you for this positive evaluation of the submitted ms. 

 

There are a handful of places where I'm not sure if the correct word was used. I suggest asking the author to verify and possibly correct if needed:

___ Thank you for this close reading and attention to detail. Necessary corrections have been made in the revised ms. Please see directly below.

 

"appeased," line 79

___ Changed to “reassured”.

 

"lot," line 104

___ Corrected in the revised ms., as this term was not correct: plumb bob (plummet, plumbline) was meant (which, in this story of Meyrink, is made out of copper, instead of the usual lead).

 

"terse," line 220

___ Changed to “tight” (as already appearing in a different ms. section; the context is a “tight chronology”).

 

"was anglophile" on line 253 should probably read "was an angolphile"

___ Done – the sentence now reads: “He clearly was an Anglophile.”

 

tense agreement on line 365: "was"/"is" should be "were"/"are"

___ Corrected in the revised ms. Once again, thank you for spotting these details.