|
HSSC的编辑，夜里make decision…… 这次依然是minor revision……
Reviewer 3
I want to begin by acknowledging that this revision represents substantial and good-faith engagement with the concerns raised in the previous round. Having compared the point-by-point response against the revised manuscript directly, the great majority of the changes described are genuinely present in the text rather than asserted without corresponding revision. The three-part typology of "anti-education," distinguishing the philosophical critique associated with Nietzsche, the thematic treatment of failed Bildung in the Bildungsroman tradition, and the formal anti-didacticism exemplified by Sade, is a meaningful advance over the earlier, more diffuse use of the term, and it gives the concept the analytical precision it previously lacked. The decision to open each of the four main sections with an explicit statement of the research question that section addresses is also a real improvement. It resolves what was previously a structural ambiguity in how the four-part framework related to the material discussed under each heading, and it is now much easier to see why a given example belongs where it does.
The deepened engagement with Sade, with Leopold Andrian's Der Garten der Erkenntnis, and with Thomas Mann is a welcome shift from breadth toward depth, and it is critical to mention that this addresses one of the more substantive concerns raised previously, namely that citation density was substituting for sustained analysis. The expanded discussion of Calafato and Simmonds is a similar improvement: the empirical finding is now actually put to work in the argument rather than gestured at. The removal of the Chateaubriand, Said, and Tower of Babel material from Section 5 has also been carried out as described, and the section now reads with a clearer organizing logic around the question of what educational agency writing confers.
One claim in the response letter, however, does not fully match what appears in the manuscript. The response states that the abstract has been revised to foreground the four-part framework alongside the education and anti-education dialectic. The dialectic is indeed now prominent and clearly stated. The four-part framework, however, is not named or otherwise signaled in the abstract as it currently stands. Since this was a specific and reasonable request, I would ask that the authors revise the abstract once more to make this structure explicit, whether by naming the four categories directly or by indicating clearly that the paper proceeds through four distinct modes of relating literature and education.
It is also worth noting, though this is a minor point, that a single reference to Homer remains in Section 2, despite the response letter indicating that underdeveloped references of this kind had been removed. As it now functions as brief scene-setting rather than as an undeveloped citation carrying argumentative weight, I do not think this needs to be removed, but the authors should be aware that the claim in the response letter is not entirely accurate on this point.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Reviewer 2
The authors have the addressed all my concerns. I recommend acceptance.
| 
