Historical-political spaces recreated : a comparative study of Sherwood Anderson and Su Tong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mid-West America and the south China are both fundamental to the national consciousness of America and China respectively. Furthermore, both of them have appealed to literary imaginations and thus played significant roles in the two national literatures. This paper looks into the political and historical significances of these two spaces and how they are recreated through the powerful imagination of Sherwood Anderson and Su Tong. In Anderson's case, I argue against the popular criticism that reads Anderson as a representative of the "Revolt from the Village" group, because Anderson remains faithful to his small town origin. The evil aspects of industrialization and the problems of the modern world that Anderson sees confirm his faith in the land. His active pursuit after a better future for the small town indicates that he is essentially romantic and idealistic. In contrast, Su Tong's south China is bleak and hopeless. Writing against a long literary tradition that portrays the South as affluent, peaceful, regenerative, and highly cultured, Su Tong is daring in his deconstruction of the popular image. He not only recreates the symbol of rice but also gives a horrific picture of the declining South, physically and spiritually alike. The two writers also share interest in the youth that are struggling for maturation in these two spaces . Reading Ninesburg, Ohio as Bildungsroman instead of protest literature, I argue that Anderson harbors hope for American youth with small town origin. Meanwhile the fatalist and decadent traits persist in Su Tong' s treatment of this theme. The youth in his fictive world, which is marked by grotesqueness, have no future, nor hope, nor escape. They are doomed even before they reach adulthood.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".