“The Blood Will Flow Back to You:” The Reactionary Proletarian Fiction of Marita Bonner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first fifty years of twentieth century American literature is marked by various literary movements such as the European adaptation of modernism, the rise of the Proletarian novel influenced by Marxist ideology, literature of the “lost generation,” the Harlem Renaissance, and the rise of feminist writing. The connection between proletarian literature and Harlem Renaissance is useful, for many of the leading leftist and Marxist intellectuals sought to promote or encourage the development of black literature. This is a period marked and made important historically by critical attention to the fiction of black male writers such as Richard Wright, Chester Himes, James Baldwin, and Claude McKay who depict the struggles of black male subjects to survive hostile ghettos, joblessness and underemployment, and racial hostility and segregation in the migrant community originally from southern cities. More recent critical attention has focused on African American women writers who contributed to at least three of these movements – most notably the literature of the Harlem Renaissance, proletarian literature, and black feminist ideology. Feminist scholar Paula Rabinowitz has re-evaluated the 1930s as a decade of women’s revolutionary fiction. According to Rabinowitz, women’s revolutionary fiction of the 1930s narrates class as a fundamentally gendered construct and gender as a fundamentally classed one and so enables the beginnings of a theory of gendered class subjectivity. (8)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".