Reviewer #2 pointed out four main areas in need of revision in their report.
First, the report states that the work I did three or four years ago is three or four years out of sync with more recently published scholarship. This is absolutely true! Thankfully, the report gives specific advice on how the manuscript can be updated and thereby strengthened. This is not at all difficult to implement.
Second, the report warns against taking a subjective tone in the statement of positionality contained in my introduction. I respectfully disagree, as I believe that my personal identity is an important aspect of my work. I also believe that taking a more personal tone at the beginning of the book will make it more accessible to a wider audience. The formal literature review section could be expanded, however.
Third, this report uses the language of social justice to make misogynistic and homophobic statements. Why are people like this? I have no interest in addressing these statements in the book itself, as that sort of rhetorical violence doesn’t need to be put in print, but I’m looking forward to unpacking them in future posts on this blog.
Fourth, the report points out several typos and inconsistencies in style and citations. This is correct, and this level of editing is something I purposefully refrained from in order to deliver the manuscript in a timely manner. I assume the press will support me with professional copy editing, but I’ll also do my best to double-check everything before I send in the revised manuscript in August.