MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040195064 · doi:10.1353/utq.0.0335

The Monk (review)

2009· article· en· W2040195064 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael Eberle‐Sinatra

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubtextRomancePoliticsLiteratureArt historyEliteReading (process)HistoryClassicsArtPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Monk Michael Eberle-Sinatra (bio) Matthew Gregory Lewis. The Monk. Edited by D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf Broadview. 2004. 480. $12.95 Matthew Lewis’s 1796 novel The Monk stands out as a key Gothic text with its combination of Gothic tropes, political subtext, and sexually explicit material. The novel received so much attention when it was first published that, as is well known, it led the author to be nicknamed ‘Monk’ Lewis for the rest of his life. The resulting controversy was not all together positive, to say the least; Coleridge summed it up nicely when he declared in his review, ‘The Monk is a romance which if a parent saw in the hands of a son or daughter, he might reasonably turn pale.’ Coleridge’s concern stemmed in part from the fact that there was an amazing fancy for the Gothic at the time. Its frenzy spared no social class of the English society: everybody was reading Gothic novels; readers were recruited among the leading figures of the world as well as among the humble, as Jane Austen would show to great effect in her Gothic parody Northanger Abbey. Like previous scholarly editions of The Monk, D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf’s edition is based on the first edition of Lewis’s novel since, as the editors note, ‘the critical consensus, which we endorse, is that the later lifetime editions represent successive retreats from, rather than refinements on, the author’s original vision.’ (The editors include in one of their appendices their collations of all five editions for readers interested in seeing how Lewis responded to the controversy.) The introduction is succinct, yet informative, and is built around the four sections of the appendix (‘Literary Sources,’ ‘Historical Contexts,’ ‘Critical Reception,’ and ‘Cultural Responses’). The biographical sketch is concise and to the point, and nicely complemented by a brief chronology of Lewis’s life. Students could probably benefit from an expanded chronology that sets up the novel within its historical period and amid other key literary publications of the time. The edition as a whole benefits from the many insights of D.L. Macdonald’s excellent biography of Lewis (University of Toronto Press, 2000), as well as from the skills of the editors, skills that had already been demonstrated in their Broadview editions of Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindications (1997) and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1999). The present edition attests once again to their editorial rigour, as attested by their choice of text and their collation work presented in the variants appendix, as well in the many footnotes, which will answer most queries [End Page 260] raised by undergraduate and graduate students. This is clearly the best edition of The Monk available. Michael Eberle-Sinatra Michael Eberle-Sinatra, Département d’études anglaises, Université de Montréal Copyright © 2009 University of Toronto Press Incorporated

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207