MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964534493 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2006.0030

The House of Blackwood: Author-Publisher Relations in the Victorian Era (review)

2006· article· en· W1964534493 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Solveig C. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinkelstein's testHistoryValue (mathematics)PublishingArt historySociologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The House of Blackwood: Author-Publisher Relations in the Victorian Era Solveig C. Robinson (bio) David Finkelstein , The House of Blackwood: Author-Publisher Relations in the Victorian Era (University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 2002), pp. viii+198, $55 cloth. In this detailed study of the preeminent Victorian publishing house William Blackwood & Sons, David Finkelstein brings together more than ten years of research in the Blackwood archives at the National Library of Scotland. The result is refreshing. Freed from the hagiography that colored both Margaret Oliphant and Mary Porter's 1897–1898 study and Frank Tredrey's 1954 history of Blackwood's, Finkelstein draws from long-lost records to paint a clearer picture of "the manner in which social and cultural factors feed into the process of production, dissemination, and reception of individual works" (16). Although the book includes case studies of a number of important Blackwood's authors – among them John Hanning Speke, Charles Reade, and Margaret Oliphant – The House of Blackwood is concerned not so much with individual authors and their relationship with the firm, but with how those relationships illuminate "the firm's general underlying aesthetic and economic considerations of the literary marketplace" (13). VPR readers will find much of interest and value here. Among the revelations are inventories of the firm taken after the deaths of the principals. These inventories provide snapshots of holdings and assets at various stages in the firm's rise to preeminence and during its gradual decline. The 1879 inventory, taken after the death of John Blackwood, is especially interesting, providing as it does "one of the most complete commercial and [End Page 81] financial statements one is likely to encounter of any British publishing firm operating in the nineteenth century" – down to the number of pieces of wooden and metal type in the printing shop (2). The details about author contracts and fees, copyright valuations, and the relationship between the editorial offices and the printing offices are clearly delineated throughout the book, providing helpful insights into how the pragmatic, economic, technological back of the house interacted with the aesthetic, editorial front. VPR readers will also appreciate the updated sales figure information in the appendixes. (Tables present figures for the firm as a whole, for Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, and for Margaret Oliphant.) Finkelstein affirms that the "engine that drove the Blackwood firm to profitability" from the 1860s on was George Eliot (34). As Eliot's relationship with her publisher is exhaustively documented elsewhere, Finkelstein restricts his analysis to Eliot's impact on Blackwood's bottom line. One of the more interesting facts that he records is that Eliot accounted for an astonishing 51.2 percent of Blackwood's profit in the decade after her death (1890–1899) – due primarily to reissues of her works. Unfortunately, Blackwood's then saw its profits collapse in the early twentieth century, when a combination of changing reader tastes and sheer over-saturation of the market evaporated the demand for Eliot's novels (36). The other primary money-makers during Blackwood's heyday were the firm's flagship review, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine (Maga), and a surprisingly large backlist of "nonliterary" texts. Maga was the main force linking Blackwood's many authors, and Finkelstein describes how John Blackwood's savvy editorial leadership produced maximum returns for the authors who were featured in Maga while holding aloft "the twin banners of sound criticism and Tory politics" (96). Maga's peak sales and profitability came in the decade 1860 to 1870, when sales reached 763,299 and total profits exceeded £45,000. Finkelstein also analyzes Maga's substantial decrease in profitability in the 1880s, when Maga's position as the leader of High Tory opinion was challenged by the launch of the National Review. Under the editorship of Alfred Austin and William J. Courthope, the National Review poached both Maga's contributors and its readers (97–99). The third pillar of Blackwood's success was its extensive – and largely unstudied – list of nonfiction titles, ranging from "Scottish hymnals series and General Public Statutes to textbooks and manuals on farming, zoology, geography, and metaphysics" (36–37). Chapter 3 offers a detailed look at one such book, John Hanning...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207