From Sketch to Novel: The Development of Victorian Fiction (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: From Sketch to Novel: The Development of Victorian Fiction Judith Fisher (bio) Amanpal Garcha, From Sketch to Novel: The Development of Victorian Fiction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. vii + 278, $95 cloth. From Sketch to Novel is lucidly written and offers some intriguing original readings, especially of Elizabeth Gaskell. Amanpal Garcha presents a good case for the importance of narrative voices—not over plot, certainly, but as equally important. Given this argument, the focus on the “sketch” makes sense: it is in brief pieces such as Dickens’s Sketches by Boz and Thackeray’s Paris Sketchbook (two major foci in this work) that both authors experimented and found their characteristic voices, so important in creating a community of readers for their serial fiction. Thackeray and Dickens are well-suited to this study because both trained as journalists and essayists while gradually moving into novel writing. Gaskell is less appropriate because she worked almost entirely in fiction; in fact, the “sketch” Garcha finds is one three-page poem Gaskell coauthored with her husband. Garcha claims that “Two defining features of the sketch—its emphasis on detailed description and its penchant for pure discursiveness—are directly tied to two related developments that literary historians have pointed to as vital influences on the rise of the novel as well: the advent [End Page 451] of empiricism and the consequent growth and spread of periodical and newspaper journalism” (27). Ultimately, however, the book’s argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, there is a lack of precision in the definition of “sketch,” as well as an inadequate demonstration or close reading of sample sketches. If “style” is so crucial an element, Garcha should have provided characteristic stylistic analyses of The Paris Sketchbook, Sketches by Boz, and “Sketches Among the Poor” that would then carry over into the analysis of the novels. Here lies the second weakness of the study: insufficient application of the authors’ sketches to their fiction. Although Garcha claims that two qualities of the sketch are “fragmentation and incompleteness,” we are not shown this fragmentation of incompleteness in any analysis, either in the theoretical chapter or as applied to Thackeray or Gaskell. Is “fragmentation” characteristic of the choice of subject or the treatment? In a visual sketch, it is usually the treatment, but which meaning is intended for these verbal sketches is not clear. A description of a scene may be complete in itself as description, but it also may seem to be a fragment, in that it is not connected to a larger context or narrative. This seems to be the intended application in Garcha’s analysis of the various sketch-forms in the novels, but, of course, such a definition cannot apply to stand-alone sketches or sketches published in periodicals. Here, in fact, Garcha loses a valuable opportunity to place the original sketches in the context of their periodical publications in the Monthly Magazine (Dickens) and Fraser’s Magazine (Thackeray). We get little idea of how the periodical form may have influenced the voice and presentation of subject for these authors. Judith Fisher Trinity University Judith Fisher Judith Fisher is professor of English at Trinity University, San Antonio, TX. She works primarily in Victorian fiction. Her most recent publication is a scholarly edition of William Makepeace Thackeray’s last complete novel, The Adventures of Philip, published by the University of Michigan Press. She is currently working on “The Empire of the Tea-Table: A Literary History of Tea, 1660–1900.” Copyright © 2011 The Research Society for Victorian Periodicals
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».