The Encyclopedia of Girls' School Stories , and: The Encyclopedia of Boys' School Stories (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: The Encyclopedia of Girls' School Stories, and: The Encyclopedia of Boys' School Stories Lisa Rowe Fraustino (bio) The Encyclopedia of Girls' School Stories. By Sue Sims and Hilary Clare. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000 The Encyclopedia of Boys' School Stories. By Robert J. Kirkpatrick. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000 The titles of these two companion books about the British school story are far less interesting than the material between the covers. They are the types of reference books that scholars might pluck from the library stacks while looking for something else and wind up browsing through for hours, so filled are they with interesting details. Each book begins with a Preface by editor Rosemary Auchmuty that describes why she considers the work "pioneering," since the school story has not been considered a genre worthy of scholarly study until fairly recently. Just as today's adult critics tend to overlook or deride popular series fiction that children themselves adore, the school story in its heyday was the object of critical antagonism. However, contemporary critics are now turning their attention to the social, cultural, and political impact of the thousands of school stories published in Britain between the mid-1800s and the 1940s, and girls' school stories are "of particular significance for the social and cultural history of women" (Preface vii). The Acknowledgements in these encyclopedias describe the process by which the authors solicited information and contributions from numerous sources and experts. The Introductions by the authors survey the material, providing a crash course in the historical, thematic, and theoretical development of the genre of British school stories. Along the way, the surveys point out important authors, titles, and publication issues. In the girls' encyclopedia, Auchmuty includes an additional section called "The Critical Response," in which she objects to the academic community's past record of "condemning girls' stories for repetitive plot-lines, stereotyped characters, false values, lack of reality and so on," and she lauds recent scholars who have used a feminist approach to counter the negative stereotypes (19). The largest section in each book consists of an alphabetical listing of authors, ranging from very brief entries of a paragraph or so to lengthier essays of several pages for authors such as Elinor Brent-Dyer and Thomas Hughes, who made the most significant contributions. Entries are also included for Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand authors whose school stories were published in Britain. Each entry includes biographical information, a general description of how the author's work fits within the genre, some critical analysis of particular titles deemed especially important or influential within the genre or within the broader field of children's literature, and a bibliography of the author's school-related books and magazine publications. Many authors wrote both girls' stories and boys' stories and appear in both encyclopedias. As remains the case in children's literature, the majority of authors were women (often using initials or male pen names to disguise their gender), with a number of men writing for boys but few men writing for girls. The encyclopedias end with sections on general topics such as adult school fiction, annuals and anthologies, ballet school stories for girls, "penny dreadfuls" for boys, evangelistic school stories, school story papers, and others. Bibliographies of scholarly sources provide a good starting point for further research. Though it is undeniably necessary to learn about the marginalized position of the school story within British children's literature criticism, the point was made repetitively, especially regarding the girls' stories. I found the defensive posture rather shrill and annoying at times, for the analysis of the genre's importance and influence is strong enough to stand on its own merits. Nevertheless, these encyclopedias were a massive undertaking and provide a wealth of background information to scholars interested in studying the impact of the British school story on children's literature. [End Page 47] Lisa Rowe Fraustino Lisa Rowe Fraustino is an active member of the ChLA and the author of several books for children and young adults, most recently The Hickory Chair, named a Blue Ribbon Book by the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. She teaches at Wyoming Seminary...
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".