MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792084550 · doi:10.1353/chq.2018.0009

L. M. Montgomery and War ed. by Andrea McKenzie and Jane Ledwell

2018· article· en· W2792084550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adrienne Kertzer

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren's Literature Association quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)Context (archaeology)Art historySpanish Civil WarPaintingArtHistoryHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: L. M. Montgomery and War ed. by Andrea McKenzie and Jane Ledwell Adrienne Kertzer (bio) L. M. Montgomery and War. Edited by Andrea McKenzie and Jane Ledwell. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2017. Andrea McKenzie and Jane Ledwell’s edited collection has much to offer anyone interested in how readers remember female authors who do not abide by the cultural scripts defining the topics appropriate to them. While Rilla of Ingleside, the Montgomery novel most directly concerned with characters who live and die during the First World War, is the focus of many of the essays, one of the collection’s many strengths is how Rilla is nearly always viewed in a comparative context that situates it beside either the works of other artists and writers responding to the war, or other works by Montgomery. Thus, in “Mapping Patriotic Memory: L. M. Montgomery, Mary Riter Hamilton, and the Great War,” Irene Gammel explores “the subversive potential of a consoling aesthetic” (58) by juxtaposing Rilla with the work of a contemporary of Montgomery’s, the painter Mary Riter Hamilton. In contrast, in “Education for War: Anne of Green Gables and Rilla of Ingleside,” E. Holly Pike observes how many characters in Rilla regard the war as “a dividing line in history” (88), a perspective in keeping with that of Montgomery, who wrote “that the Anne series belonged to ‘the green untroubled pastures and still water’ before the war” (87). Just as Anne of Green Gables and the other Anne novels published before the First World War have a vexed relationship with the Anne books produced during and after the conflict, Montgomery’s war writing is similarly complex, moving from the longing expressed in Rilla that a better world would be born from the destructiveness of the war to a less hopeful vision as Montgomery witnessed the resurgence of global warfare. This darker vision is readily apparent in Montgomery’s treatment of Walter Blythe, whose death in battle features in Rilla. In titling their final section “Healing or Hurt? The Aftermath,” McKenzie and Ledwell clearly allude to the title of the poem that concludes Montgomery’s post-humously published The Blythes Are Quoted. In The Blythes, “The Aftermath” is attributed to Walter and presented as a poem that he composed just prior to his death. The poem’s exploration of the persona’s horror at having bayoneted a young boy prompts Anne’s relief that her son did not survive. Mirroring her own torment about the return to global conflict, Montgomery has Anne observe that Walter might have been further distressed “had he seen the futility of the sacrifice they made then mirrored in this ghastly holocaust” (Montgomery 510). One of the many questions raised by Montgomery’s war writing is how readers determine the relationship between the author and her fictional characters. Is Walter as a character authorized to express what the female author cannot? This possibility resonates in Susan Fisher’s essay “‘Watchman, What of the Night?’: L. M. Montgomery’s Poems of War.” Probing the relationship between Walter’s poetry and The Watchman and Other Poems, the only collection of poetry that Montgomery published [End Page 107] during the First World War, Fisher asks whether Montgomery intended Walter’s poem “to be taken as her last word, her ultimate assessment of the Great War” (107). The answer is not clear. That the manuscript of The Blythes Are Quoted was delivered to Montgomery’s publisher on the day of her death in 1942 is not necessarily proof of her views, for as Caroline E. Jones observes in “The Shadows of War: Interstitial Grief in L. M. Montgomery’s Final Novels,” Montgomery debated whether she should include “The Aftermath” in the manuscript. Jones reads this uncertainty as further proof of “Montgomery’s struggle . . . between the truth she experienced and the truth she so desperately longed for” (181). A second question is how concepts of gender inform Montgomery’s literary production, a topic analyzed in Laura M. Robinson’s “L. M. Montgomery’s Great War: The Home as Battleground in Rilla of Ingleside” and Maureen O. Gallagher’s “Across Enemy Lines: Gender and Nationalism in Else Ury’s and...

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)0.002
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.037

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildren's Literature Association quarterlySame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207