I like this paper for all sorts of reasons, and it needs only a few changes to make it even better. Here I suggest:
I would restructure the introduction to open with what is now the second paragraph (simply delete "however" after "Continuity".) I would work into the material on revolution at the end of that paragraph (after the Linde citation), then move on to the discussion of narrative.
I would strengthen - perhaps justify would be a better word - the claim that the self must have continuity. I agree with this, but there is a large literature that disputes it, claiming instead that people are pieced together ad hoc. The current version of the argument is best represented by Kenneth Gergen's work. I would like to see more attention paid to the salience of the claim that continuity is indeed central, if only in a footnote acknowledging the debate. (Another helpful reference is Peter Marris's book, Loss and Change.)
In the methods section (pp. 3-5), there is a concept that nicely encapsulates the importance of the revolution in the narratives. It is what Dan McAdams calls a "nuclear episode" (I'm referring to his book The Stories We Live By, 1993, NY:Guilford). He maintains that analysis of these episodes in narratives can reveal essential imagery and themes the tellers use, which may or may not be useful for this paper. The concept, however, would emphasize what is at present a weak point.
I would like to know more about the rest of the sample (other than Danek). My initial response was to advise you to rewrite the findings using illustrative material from many interviewees, but that would make for a different paper. What I suggest instead is that you say more about why you focus on Danek, how representative he is or is not. I do not know, for instance, if he is a typical "old structure" person.
Throughout the paper, you need to make much better use of the literature on narratives. I am not one of the reviewrs who insists on seeing a string of my favourite references after every significant claim. However, as it is, this paper would not provide much direction for someone who got enthused about narrative research after reading it. I am taking the liberty of including a partial list here, which is not to say that these all have to be included, just that you need to make your paper more of a resource than it presently is.
[There follows a list of 18 references.]
The paper provides a compelling application of neo-Labovian analysis and a useful empirical discussion; I enjoyed and appreciated it; especially liked the title and its use throughout. Let me raise several points that might sharpen the argument.
The statement "Our concern" on p.5 is admirably clear and sociologically relevant, but I'd like the author to reflect on his/her moral stance, implicit in this statement. In one sense the author is simply being a sociologist: the object of sociology is that the narrator will tend to become a figment of a discourse within a historical-political context. In that sense the paper is, implicitly, a fine example of ethnomethodology: the speaker as skilled member, with all the oxymoron of those words. But this: don't you tend to accept that the speaker is, legitimately, stigmatised? By displaying the rhetorical techniques by which he "passes", don't you imply he needs to pass? Don't you also, in your way, love to hate him (cf. p.5)? A fine point perhaps, but the paper is subtle enough to warrant raising it.
Second, as you acknowledge on p.12 (last paragraph), the Miller & Glassner typology is functionalist. Again, what are the implications of assimilating the interviewee's story to functional needs of society? What's the not-so-latent concept of the member that is at work here? My point is that while the Labov categories on p.6 seem purely descriptive, the M&G categories are normative, and that difference is not made thematic.
Finally, the last sentence is far less than readers deserve, and less than the paper deserves. The Conclusion starts with a strong paragraph, but the middle para. ("This bio work") is less clearly stated. The final sentence on p.23 lack a verb, which I read as less of a typo than a breakdown of the argument. Re the final sentence on p.24, let me be harsh and suggest that the paper reflects as negatively on "Czech character" as any "stereotypes" in the interviewee's story--at least I'd like you to consider that the paper is readable in those terms. The articulate self-reflections on p.4 suggest that you can do something with these observations, though I may be overstating them for effect.
Note some minor punctuation and spelling errors, e.g., p.20, "sowing" should, I think, be "sewing" (if it fits in the living room). Again, a fascinating and, on the whole, compelling analysis--thanks.
This is a very nice paper. It uses its analytic framework effectively in interpreting the case material and, overall, the argument is quite compelling. Historically situated and biographically informed, the presentation is a fine example of growing empirical work at the cutting edge of biography and society.
I only have two minor suggestions. First, in as much as author is acquainted with some of Gubrium and Holstein's analytic writing on "narrative practice", he/she might consider more recent developments in the following texts. Author's use of the concept "biographical work", on p.23, resonates very well indeed with the idea of narrative practice. The following are merely suggestive:
[There follows a list of 4 references.]
Second, the paper ends rather abruptly. How about elaborating on the last sentence a bit more?
Lovely paper.
Click here to go back to article abstracts and histories.
Click here to read the Neither a Dinosaur Nor a Weathercock article.