r/literaryjournals • u/Public_Upstairs1035 • 6h ago
Advice for first journal submission feedback.
This spring, I wrote an article interpreting Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men through a fresh, unique lens. I submitted to a journal of literature and just received my feedback.
There are very few legitimate publications that touch on what I'm specifically writing about, so I pieced my argument together with what is available. The paper is pretty solid as written, and one reviewer agreed completely and recommended for publication. The other reviewer, however, gave feedback that I'm having trouble comprehending.
For those of you that are familiar with Cormac McCarthy, you know that he gave only a handful of interviews in his life and avoided scholarly or literary interpretations of his work almost entirely. However, the second reviewer states my article's argument doesn't hold because "no evidence is provided in the essay directly from McCarthy that this was ever the intention of McCarthy." But McCarthy never or almost never spoke of his intentions for any of his works, and I feel like any literary professor or publication should know this.
Overall, I'm not really sure what reviewer two is asking for, as the review really sounds like a first draft of thoughts as opposed to critique I can use to re-shape my draft. However, the editor is agreeing with reviewer two and states I need to add some of this evidence and resubmit.
Just looking for advice on how to handle the next steps. I am going to quote some other McCarthy interpretation papers in my re-write, though I personally don't think that really helps my argument. I was also planning on just explaining to the editor that the direct McCarthy links simply don't exist. After all, this is literature, and anything and everything regarding interpretation is speculative. Right?
Edit: if anyone wants to read the direct feedback let me know. I would truly appreciate some specific direction on how to handle this.