Parallel Narratives: Trauma, Relationality, and Dissociation in Psychoanalysis and Realist Fiction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent essay, which convincingly argues that cultural trauma theory should be expanded to include more recent developments in psychoanalytic theory. It shows through Lisa Appignanesi' The Memory Man and Aminatta Forna's The Memory of Love, both novels, that contemporary fiction already reflects these shifting views of trauma in ways that challenge traditional cultural trauma theory.

I have noted some minor suggestions and errors in the comments function in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the close reading of this work and for the suggestions for clarification. The reviewer’s suggestions were all minor changes to language and syntax, and all changes have been made accordingly in the document. Hence no point by point response is formulated here. The authors feel elated that their work has been so well received.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a call for the return of notions of community and plurality to Trauma studies. Following Luckhurst and Craps, it argues that disassociation has been neglected in the field, with theories of repression foregrounded. This is a limited reading of Freud, for this article, one that finds it confirmation in earlier theories, especially related to the literary, with Shoshana Felman being representative of these.  It then turns to novels by Appignanesi and Forna to clarify and work through what  is at stake in forwarding relational revisions to the limited cultural understandings of classic Freudian narrativisations.
I found the whole article to be confidently researched and beautifully written. The argument is clear and cogent. It works as an article both for experts in this area, and literary scholars with no particular grounding in the debates it works through. Elegant and persuasive, I would welcome its publication in this present form, and would recommend to my peers if this was the case. 
As such, what follows is not a demand for change – my purpose as a reviewer, I think, is to ensure that the  author is publishing the best version of their own argument possible, rather  than having to change a successful argument so it is more in line with my own thinking. With that in mind, I would like to ask the author to turn again to Felman’s work prior to publication, whether or not such a turn results in them thinking any change to their text is needed. In this present article, Felman is centrally read in terms of her appeal to Nachtraglichkeit structures. That is of course a fair assessment. My own take, however, is that this focus detracts from what else is going on in Felman’s work in when engaging backwards formation: ‘reading effect’, framing narration, difference. These concerns lead Felman to proceed through a detailed close-reading, and whether or not one agrees with this approach or not, it is one that is central to her project and her thinking. My sense is that, despite arguing persuasively for the increased pluralism of the approach suggested by Luckhurst etc, the result is arguably in one sense a more restrictive reading than those to be found in Felman’s writing on literature. The analysis in this present article works generally at the level of ‘story line’. There is little sense of the framing narration. Thus, for example, on p. 8, when Bruno realises he has been Mauthausen, the author is great on drawing out two possible conceptual readings of this within Psychoanalysis, but does not touch on the extent to which the character’s ‘realization’ is narrated from a position other than his own. There is a excess perspective here necessary to the production of the self. It is the kind of point that Felman would latch onto, as through this her reading of the social dimension of textuality and psychoanalysis is actualised. Likewise, although Adrian is unaware of the significance of silence, I take the reading of him in this present article sees this knowledge as in some way self evident, and does not address how Adrian is narrated, the precise language of the perspective, and the difficulties of identity and difference that this might introduce. All I am saying, I think, is that Felman can be read as offering a far more problematising reading of the self, the social, and the pluralistic than is credited here, but only a reading that engages with the language of texts, rather than their broad ideas or narratives, can adequately account for this. For a good sense of these issues, I would argue that a return to the whole project of Literature and Psychoanalysis: The Question of Reading Otherwise is required.   
But I am writing all of the above because what interests me within Psychoanalysis is precisely such a project, rather than the kind of Psychoanalytic criticism that is being (very successfully) practiced here. I merely ask: what would a slightly more engaged analysis of the language of the text do this argument? But it is a question that this present article should not feel it has to work through: it already is doing so much, and doing this very effectively.   

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the close reading of this work and for the suggestions for further engagement with Shoshana Felman’s work. The intent of this article is to highlight the implications and possibilities of relating relational psychoanalysis to the study of literary depictions of trauma and memory, exemplified by the close examination of the novel’s story telling. Due to the restrictions placed on the article through the word count, the authors have decided to focus on the “level of ‘story line’”, as observed by the reviewer; they agree, however, that a more thorough reading of the novels in terms of their language, narration, and overall aesthetics is very much called for. This could perhaps be realised in a follow-up project, or in a comparison with more ‘traditional’ trauma novels. The constraints of this article mean that this topic cannot be devoted the attention it would require. That said, the authors thank the reviewer for their suggestions for close readings of the text passages already highlighted in the article. The authors have taken steps to revise the article to include more comprehensive textual analysis throughout.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the argument is clear, engages with recent scholarship in the field, and offers a critical perspective on canonical models of trauma fiction in light of relational psychoanalytic theory. I would recommend its publication, while, however, considering the following issues, from which the article could benefit:  

1. Theory – exploring the reciprocal relationship between trauma theory (relational psychoanalysis) and fiction, I found myself wondering about the place of cultural memory theories (also affect theory) and the recent call to move beyond violence, trauma and suffering to focus on futurity. Compare for instance Kennedy in Companion to Literature and Trauma (2020), who refers to Rigney (2018), Ortner and Anderson (2019). In what way do these new tendencies converge? It might be worthwhile mentioning LaCapra's (1998) rather early criticism of Felman's and Caruth's work on literature and trauma.    

2. Interpretation – in pointing out the central role of cultural contextualization intertwined with urgency for agency and possibilities of resilience, growth and healing (301-306), alongside plot and structural outlines, do (and how) both novels by Appignanesi and Forna demonstrate such a role particularly in terms of language (multilingualism, estrangement etc.)?

3. Methodology – Regarding cultural (and historical) contextualization, following works by Rothberg (2009) and Eaglestone (2017) it is recommended to articulate the comparative approach in the exploration of Holocaust and postcolonial literature dealing with trauma. As to the interdisciplinary frame (special issue on literature and medicine), the relationships between the authors (of fiction) and therapists (psychoanalysts), and between literary creation and scholarly theory, questions arise that could benefit from further illumination: Firstly, what can we learn from the gap between the literary characters and readers in terms of the ability to narrate, articulate and comprehend as a response to trauma?; And, secondly, to what extend does the closure of both novels illustrate and converge with the work in the clinic? What do they tell us about success and failure in processing trauma?   

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for their close reading of this work and for their suggestions for improvement of it. These have all been considered and the manuscript has been edited to reflect this. As none of the material included in the first submitted version of this article was considered irrelevant, the authors have been grappling with keeping their work within the word limit. This has placed considerable limits on the amount of new material they have been able to include in the revised version but have made a focused effort to include as much as possible. A point by point response to each issue raised by the reviewer is provided:

1. Theory – Thank you for pointing this out, the authors now refer to the really relevant convergence between cultural memory theory and trauma studies, and in particular the ‘focus on futurity’ and how this is reflected in the novels. The authors have also included a reference to early criticism of Caruth’s work on literature and trauma, so thank you for pointing out the oversight in not doing this.
2. Interpretation – Thank you for bringing our attention to the role of language in this context, we have taken steps to revise the article to include more comprehensive textual analysis throughout, focusing on the possibilities that the realist aesthetic can offer to the depiction of trauma in terms of language and structure.
3. Methodology – Regarding the topic of Shoah and postcolonial literature, thank you for pointing this out, we have included a brief paragraph in the introduction regarding our comparative approach to the novels and their respective subjects. 

An addition has been made to clarify the parallel between the telling of Agnes’ narrative at the closure of Forna’s novel, and the critiques directed at psychoanalysis for universalising and collapsing differences (Altman, 2004; 2009; Cushman, 1990; 1996). The reviewer raises an interesting and important question concerning the parallels between the novels and psychotherapeutic work, which could perhaps be illuminated in a follow-up project. That project could be more explicitly devoted to narratology and the process of relational psychoanalysis. A discussion of this nature calls for more fine-grained work and a depth of writing which are beyond the present scope.

Again, the authors thank the reviewer for all the comments and for helping them improve their work.