The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 1: A Life in Print ed. by Benjamin Lefebvre, and: The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 2: A Critical Heritage ed. by Benjamin Lefebvre, and: The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 3: A Legacy in Review ed. by Benjamin Lefebvre
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 1: A Life in Print ed. by Benjamin Lefebvre, and: The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 2: A Critical Heritage ed. by Benjamin Lefebvre, and: The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 3: A Legacy in Review ed. by Benjamin Lefebvre Emily Woster (bio) The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 1: A Life in Print, edited by Benjamin Lefebvre. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 2: A Critical Heritage, edited by Benjamin Lefebvre. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. The L. M. Montgomery Reader. Volume 3: A Legacy in Review, edited by Benjamin Lefebvre. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. The introduction to the first volume of The L. M. Montgomery Reader recounts the commonly accepted “genesis story” of Montgomery studies (1: 3). The story goes that, while Montgomery’s works were incredibly popular upon publication, serious scholarship overlooked or actively denigrated them throughout the middle of the twentieth century. In 1985, the first volume of The Selected Journals of L. M. Montgomery, edited by Mary Rubio and Elizabeth Waterston, was published, and the familiar Sullivan Entertainment Anne of Green Gables miniseries was released. The journals marked a shift in academic attention, and the miniseries marked a popular reappraisal of her work. Momentum built on both fronts, and the centenary of the publication of Anne of Green Gables in 2008 was celebrated with new scholarly assessments and publications. Since then, scholars “working from all over the world, continue to find new ways to study this body of work—in terms of empire and nation, sexuality and repression, performance and resistance, parody and allusion, space and place, memory and forgetting, nature and culture, authorship and legislation, and national and international appeal and reception” (1: 4). In this new atmosphere, Montgomery studies has grown and integrated new perspectives, but has also inspired rediscovery and republication of texts previously only available in archives, library repositories, and private collections. Enter the Reader project. Lefebvre’s ambitious and exhaustive series seeks to uncover and reevaluate the “surprisingly vast array of additional materials that originated beyond the walls of the ivory tower” (1: 4), and recontextualize some of the most representative essays in Montgomery studies. Thus the three volumes of the Reader serve as both a thorough resource for serious Montgomery scholars and a fascinating case study of the ways popular media influence literary legacy. The first volume of the Reader, entitled A Life in Print, collects essays by and interviews with the author published in her lifetime. Volume 2: A Critical Heritage includes twenty essays from [End Page 219] a variety of academic perspectives published between 1966 and 2012. Volume 3: A Legacy in Review includes 370 reviews, only a representative sample, of Montgomery’s novels and a thorough discussion of her later writings. Each volume offers Lefebvre’s incisive critical voice in its introduction and each entry is presented with a useful headnote. Lefebvre’s judicious editing helps make each entry readable and, together with the contextual framework provided, clearly useful to those interested in Montgomery and media culture. As Lefebvre himself notes, the well of new or “rediscovered” Montgomery material seems never to run dry, making well-framed collections like this one even more useful. A Life in Print begins with a comprehensive and contextualizing introduction to the Reader that explores both Lefebvre’s methods and the sweep of Montgomery’s career. For those new to the author, this introduction is an invaluable review of the literature and invitation to the conversation. The volume itself includes ninety-one pieces, either interviews with or essays written by Montgomery. Lefebvre notes that “As evidence of a more public Montgomery, these pieces complement and complicate the poetics of self-representation that scholars have traced in past published sources” and author profiles throughout the century (1: 5). Lefebvre also points out that “some of the most revealing details about Montgomery’s strategies and methods as a writer are found in the essays, letters, and interviews published in her lifetime” (1: 8). In essence, this volume attempts to trace “L. M. Montgomery,” author and craftsperson, rather than the “Maud” of the journals, or the “Reverend...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».