MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033957753 · doi:10.1353/nlh.2010.0009

Fictional Settlements: Footnotes, Metalepsis, the Colonial Effect

2010· article· en· W2033957753 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Literary History · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismAdventureWifeHistoryStyle (visual arts)EmigrationLiteratureTragedy (event)ArtArt historyPhilosophyArchaeologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fictional Settlements: Footnotes, Metalepsis, the Colonial Effect Elaine Freedgood (bio) I am going to argue that the nineteenth-century novel is anomalous using as an example an anomalous nineteenth-century novel. The anomalous novel, Catharine Parr Traill’s Canadian Crusoes (1852), is not well-known now, although it was well reviewed and popular in its time, and for about fifty years thereafter. A genre fiction in at least two ways—as a young adult novel and as an adventure fiction—it is also an emigration novel, which may or may not be a genre. It was written in Canada by a pioneer who is often described as “British-Canadian” and who began writing children’s books at the age of sixteen to support herself and her family after her father died. The field, in Pierre Bourdieu’s sense, might best be described as that of “colonial letters.”1 I mean “letters” in both the sense of belles lettres and in the sense of epistles written home.2 Anglophone Canadian fiction and travel writing of the nineteenth century was not usually read by Canadians, but rather by Britons in Britain, who might or might not be prospective Canadians. The writers in the field of colonial letters who imagined and constructed fictional settlements such as the ones proposed in Canadian Crusoes “participate in domination, but as dominated agents; they are neither dominant, plain and simple, nor are they dominated.” Parr Traill, as the wife of a British army officer, is mildly privileged in the colonial social hierarchy, but just by virtue of having to participate in emigration, she is among the dominated citizens of nineteenth-century Britain. Her participation in the representation of empire is accordingly complex: her writing encourages emigration to Canada’s forested “north” and also depicts the intense hardship and tragedy that so often attends it. Bourdieu has argued that “literary fiction is . . . a way of making known that which one does not wish to know.” We can bear novelistic revelations because they remain “veiled.”3 It is this figure that I wish to amplify and revise in what follows. I want to suggest a specifically “colonial effect.” The idea of the “colonial” in this effect must be understood both literally and figuratively. It refers both to the way in which the [End Page 393] novel helps us to imagine and colonize actual space, in part through the navigation of represented space, and it also refers to the idea of the colony as a place over which a fantasied domination can always preside. Dorothea Brooke longs for a “colony”; Gwendolen Harleth for an “empire”; Robinson Crusoe is of course not the first or last fiction in which such dreams come true. As Edward W. Said spent much of his career arguing, most explicitly in Orientalism (1978) and Culture and Imperialism (1993), empire depends on substantial epistemological and narrative support. Novels are perhaps always in some sense colonies for their authors and readers: small worlds under the control of the author who makes them, and then the reader who can turn the pages or not, who can imagine the world represented or not, live in it for a time or not, can believe in this or that aspect of it or not. The colonial effect I want to describe suggests that part of the work that an imperial power requires from the realistic fiction that novels tend to proffer is precisely an important flexibility between fantasy and reality. Realism’s weird—although thoroughly naturalized—combination of fictionality and factuality, in its awkward form in the anomalous Canadian Crusoes and its elegant form in more canonical nineteenth-century novels, makes known that which we do not want to know about our world but which we must know at some level, or at some moments. In some sense, realism makes social reality known literally: actual places and historical events mingle with fictional places and people. Realism insists on some degree of reference. The delicate but persistent connection between fiction and reference makes the form of the nineteenth-century novel anomalous (and this form persists beyond the nineteenth century in any novel that continues to be realistic and thus referential). It is most...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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