MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170244881 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2003.0006

The New Woman in Fiction and in Fact: Fin de Siecle Feminisms ed. by Angélique Richardson and Chris Willis (review)

2003· article· en· W2170244881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDandyArt historyNew WomanHistorySquireArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviews Angélique Richardson and Chris Willis, eds. TheNew Woman in Fiction andin Fad: Fin de Siede Feminisms. (Palgrave, 2002), pp. 258 + xvi, $19.95. So many books have been published recently on the topic of the New Woman that I tend to greet another with the protest, "What could still be new about the New Woman?" Certainly, the aim ofPalgrave Press's latest offering on the subject — an essay collection entitled The New Woman in Fiction andin Fact: Fin-de-Siecle Feminisms, — is not a new one. In claiming to reveal the "polyphonic nature of the debates around feniininity at [thefin de sieck]," the book may be added to a list ofsuccessful books published over the past decade — such as Sally Ledger and Scott McCracken's CulturalPolitics atthe Fin de Sieck (1995), Susan Hamilton's Criminah, Idiots, Women, &Minors': Nineteenth-Century Writing by Women on Women, and Talia Schaffer and Kathy Alexis Psomiades's Women andBritishAestheticism (1999) — dedicated to excavating the heterogeneity ofNew Woman culture. If the book's premise is an old one, however, some ofthe voices are new: alongside the "usual suspects" ofNew Woman Scholarship — Ann Ardis, Sally Ledger, Lyn Pykett, Talia Schaffer, and Angélique Richardson — the reader encounters scholars like Laura Marcus, who brings her considerable expertise as a psychoanalytic critic to bear on the New Woman in her article, "Staging the Trivate Theatre': Gender and the Auto-Erotics of Reverie." Familiar and unfamiliar scholars alike contribute to this scholarly cartography oífin de Steele culture, and ifit does not necessarily broaden the boundaries of our understanding, it definitely maps in the details ofprevious studies in literary genre, colonialism, eugenic, utopianism, and late Victorian medical discourse, among other turn-of-the-century cultural concerns. Reflecting the investment in "fact" and "fiction" expressed in the collection's title, Angélique Richardson and Chris Willis's lengthy introduction splits its focus between nineteenth-century women's socio-political history and fictional representations ofthe New Woman. The broad scope ofthe editors' historical discussion — Victorian Review97 Reviews which comprehends the period from Wollstonecraft's publication of Vindication ofthe Rights ofWoman (1792) to the turn of the century — was, perhaps, more ambitious than it needed to be; however, such breadth does suit it for use as a general introduction for students fairly new to the topic. Considering the challenge of such scope, the historical survey manages to include a surprising amount of detail. In fact, at times, the statistics quoted become a bit tedious; might the reader not, for example, be trusted to infer the growth ofwomen's higher education at the turn of the century from one or two examples, rather than be plagued by an exhaustive catalogue ofBritish educational institutions and their respective policies. If the editors' copious details seem, at times, overly comprehensive or even annoyingly arcane (exactly how significant is it, for instance, that Wollstonecraft's Vindication happened to be banned from Horace Walpole's library?), it is only fair to point out that such close attention to the historical record does at many times prove extremely fruitful. Particularly interesting, for instance, was the fact that marital rape was still legal in Britain until 1991, a compelling reminder that, because institutionalized gender inequality is not safely contained in the past or specific to thefin de sieck, a discussion ofNew Woman feminism is extremely relevant for readers today. As Richardson and Willis shifted from their historical survey (New Woman as "fact") to a discussion ofartistic and journalistic representation (New Woman as "fiction"), I must admit my disappointment at the ease with which they accepted such distinctions. Surprisingly little attempt was made to address the slipperiness ofthese terms — fact and fiction — or the problems of such categorizations. I do appreciate, however, the editors' attention to the visual register in their analysis offin de sieck representations of the New Woman. By including various cartoons and illustrations of the New Women from contemporary serials, Richardson and Willis force us to recognize the frequently overlooked fact that the period's "visual iconography" played as significant a role in the fictionalization ofthe New Woman as contemporary novels and essays did (13). The introduction draws to a close with a brief summary ofthe collection...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207