Affective Stylistics and Children’s Literature: Spirituality and Transcendence in Robert Munsch’s Love You Forever
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In lieu of an abstract, here is an excerpt from this article: Using affective stylistics, a method of literary criticism developed by Stanley Fish, I describe my experience of reading Robert Munsch’s Love You Forever , paying particular attention to textual devices related to spirituality and to transcendence. I begin with a definition of the transcendent spiritual, followed by a brief description of affective stylistics before turning directly to a consideration of some of the themes and techniques used to produce the spiritual effects of Love You Forever . Particular attention will be paid to the role the senses play as a means of entry into a spiritual world, to the ways in which spirituality and transcendence are symbolized, to the effects produced by the use of repetition in the text, to the use of nocturnal and diurnal symbolism, to the juxtaposition of the themes of constancy and change, to the links between the predictable rhythms of the storyline and certain needs arising from human development, and, finally, to the play between fantasy and realism in the narrative world.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".