stylistically awkward

got my first reviewer comments back from a paper i wrote last year. 2 reviewers: one liked it, the other didn't. one ticked 'Yes, could be published with minor revisions', the other ticked 'Maybe, requires major revisions'.

Z1:
"While at times I wondered where the argument was going—as, for instance, in the discussion of the author’s eviction from her apartment and the size of students’ desks—the paper brought it back to the central topic and made it relevant."

Z2:
"if the paper’s consistent use of self-reference is a necessary aspect of its methodology and argument (something that is not evident in the paper’s current form, despite its thematic focus on subject/self), then this approach should be explained and justified at the onset"

Z2 asks for lots of explanation:

"The paper’s central question and argument seem implicit; rather these should be explicitly expressed in the introduction."

Z2 also says that it's "stylistically awkward".

the disparity here is reassuring. i do think my work either resonates or not. it connects to some readers but not others. and i think that's fine. actually, better than fine. an alternative might be to operate in a space of mediocrity where nobody is offended, yet nobody is excited either. at least the editor is excited (she used exclamation marks in her email). though maybe this is because she knows i'm a postgrad (the paper is adapted from a graduate conference presentation) and she's being extra nice on that basis.

editor:
"I'm most inclined to agree with the comments in Z1 - I think your paper is very powerful as a self-reflective piece - in fact, I loved it!"

so if it wasn't a peer-reviewed journal i'd be sorted? though something tells me these people aren't really my peers. well, not yet. not until i can feel affiliated with 'the academy'.