Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hammond's Charles Dickens's Mary Hammond, Charles Dickens's Expectations: A Cultural Life, 1860-2012. Farnham: Ashgate, 2015. Pp. xii + 299.The fortunes of may go up and down, its recep - tion inevitably depending on ever-changing historical context. Tracing flurry of reassessing generations of Charles Dickens's Great Expectations is Mary Hammond's task here. The purpose is not an easy one, for any attempt to approach entails vast and complex historiographic and bibliographic examination that has being properly named The Industry by Laurence W. Mazzeno. Whereas much literature has been written on both British author and his works, Hammond's reception history of Great Expectations proves successful in revealing the extraordinary multiplicity of possible cultural readings of Dickens's [thirteen] novel (2). The book's interest is primarily to explore Great Expectations's fate after it passed out of control of its author, Hammond masterfully dissecting 'capsular' character of that makes it cultural product irresistible misplaced.To give readers flavor of what book contains, it deals chronologically with these matters in following manner: conception of and its poor reception into Western world (1860-1870); criticisms levelled against book between 1870 (Dickens's death) and 1900, including an examination of first British and American stage adaptations; revival of interest in during new media age (1900-1945), where author focuses on first film adaptations; entrenchment of Great Expectations 'classic', especially after release of David Lean's 1946 version; and one final chapter that takes look at different languages and media into which has been translated.In her introduction, Hammond affirms that with Great Expectations, Dickens created 'cultural event', integrity of which cannot be compromised because its remediation potential was inbuilt. Whilst not all the remediations have been commercially or aesthetically successful, author concludes that even relative failures are useful, not because they show up 'superiority' of 'original' which they try to render anew, but because they are filled with historical traces of uses to which has been put and shifting meanings attaching to 'event' he began in 1860 (11). These statements reveal Hammond's effort to analyze Great Expectations's 'tradaptations' (using term coined by French Canadian director Robert Lepage) to different and cultural contexts beyond question of 'fidelity' and 'authenticity'. Conventional academic discourses have remained, mainly, tied to an univocal correspondence between book and its version, thus emphasizing what Thomas Leitch has called persistent model in which original is taken as privileged content for its adaptation (106). On contrary, Hammond puts risk of her book in vagaries and plurality of market forces to explain evolution of Great Expectations from its non-lucrative beginnings to its transformation into a commodity for consumption in different formats (20). In this sense, book moves away from Brian McFarlane's Charles Dickens' Expectations: A Close Study of Relationship Between Text and Film (Screen Adaptations) (2008), not only because its scope is far more ambitious, but also because McFarlane's approach is primarily intended to inter-semiotic transposition (Raitt 47) that oppose 'original' versus 'copy'.After providing key elements to understand how Dickens's 'very fine, new and grotesque idea' came to be Pip and Magwitch, Hammond focuses on publishing process of Great Expectations and reception of its different editions in both British and American markets. According to her, episodic structure of and its quadripartite scheme of plots are central to an understanding of both its contemporary criticism and modest sales. …
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".