MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2000137417 · doi:10.1353/jjq.0.0153

The Professional Literary Agent in Britain, 1880–1920 (review)

2009· article· en· W2000137417 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron Jaffe

Notice bibliographique

RevueJames Joyce quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePublishing and Scholarly Communication
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublicityModernism (music)SociologyArt historyHistoryLiteratureLawArtPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Professional Literary Agent in Britain, 1880–1920 Aaron Jaffe (bio) The Professional Literary Agent in Britain, 1880–1920, by Mary Ann Gillies. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2007. 304 pp. $69.00. As Peter Keating, Mark S. Morrisson, James C. Davis, and others have noted, the twentieth century began with conditions of overproduction in the markets for literary goods.1 The flooding of the book market was already being noted in trade journals at the end of the nineteenth century. In broad strokes, the modernist production model functions as a dialectical response to these conditions, a negative image of underproduction. Lawrence Rainey proposes for modernism “a tripartite publication program—journal, limited edition, and public or commercial edition,” putting a lot of emphasis on the importance of the second term, the exquisite limited editions that effectively made every reader a patron of the modernist author.2 The insulation of modernism in the collecting culture these editions enabled serves as a kind of indemnity against market risk. Yet, for all the rarified, small houses willing to preserve authorial privilege at all costs—presses such as the Hours, Black Sun, Cuala, Hogarth, Egoist, and other boutique operations recalling an arts-and-crafts ethos of the prior century—there were many more publicity-savvy firms, new and old, that kept modern, literary lists significantly invested in modernist trends. The rise of the most famous publishers of modernist texts, with their attendant links to emergent advertising and publicity techniques, also testifies to a transition in consumer culture that enabled modernist risks and rewards for firms like B. W. Huebsch, Alfred A. Knopf, Boni and Liveright, Charles Scribner’s Sons, Harcourt Brace, Random House, Viking Press, and New Directions in the United States and Elkin Matthews, John Lane, Bodley Head, J. M. Dent, William Heinemann, Chatto and Windus, Faber and Faber, [End Page 399] Methuen, Secker & Warburg, and Penguin in Great Britain. Dent’s Everyman Library was one such scheme, as was the Modern Library that Bennett Cerf bought from Boni and Liveright for Random House. Boni and Liveright’s fortunes—used to publish and promote Jean Toomer’s Cane, for instance—were made by packaging miniature volumes of William Shakespeare’s texts into Whitman’s chocolates.3 Beyond modes of production per se, two professional developments are germane to any consideration of this developing aspect of literary production in an age of literary oversupply: first, the rise of the literary publicist-figure, like Edward Bernays, who knew how to help publishers survive by leveraging one kind of book on others, and, second, the advent of the literary agent-figure, like J. B. Pinker, who knew how to negotiate these anxious conditions for authors. Concerned with the latter, Mary Ann Gillies’s The Professional Literary Agent in Britain: 1890–1920 offers the kind of focused approach to the diverse material practices of modernist production that only a topic-, rather than author-, driven monograph can provide. The rise of the professional literary agent cuts across the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. On the whole, this superb text, which draws on book history and new bibliographic studies, relates the professionalization of the interactions between authors and publishers. The professional literary agent—who synthesized the skill set of a publisher’s reader, literary journalist, bookkeeper, copyright lawyer, and editor—promised the author expert knowledge in different horizontal publishing niches, the so-called “planes” of publishing.4 The power of agents as cultural intermediaries between authors and publishers rested on their demonstrated knowledge in creating value through publication and publicity in different markets delivering different literary demographics, on the one hand, and maintaining a stable of talented and reliable authors on the other. Agents were proficient not just in securing favorable book deals but also in slicing up the burgeoning periodical marketplace for their clients, making serialization deals and, perhaps most critically, knowing how to navigate the benefits of complex new copyright laws for their stable of authors. The two main protagonists of this study are A. P. Watt, the first professional agent, who was active from the 1880s until his death in 1914, and Pinker, who was active from the mid-1890s until he died in...

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,671
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,804

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,260
Écart entre enseignants0,243 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJames Joyce quarterlyMême sujetPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationTravaux en français237 207