Tobias Smollett’s <i>Ferdinand Count Fathom</i>: The Purpose of Picaresque
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tobias Smollett’s third novel, The Adventures of Ferdinand Count Fathom (1753), is best understood as a satire of the national self-involvement that Smollett detected in the emergent discourse of English literary sentimentalism. Like Sarah Fielding, Smollett identified a distinctive strain of sentimentalism in the mid-eighteenth-century English novel well before the sentimental novel had emerged as its own subgenre. In Fathom, he revises older Spanish picaresque conventions to confront this popular taste for sentimental fiction, which he sees as simply a modern manifestation of traditional romance delusion. To grasp the central importance of picaresque to Smollett’s project in Fathom is to see that this method of writing in its original anti-romance guise retains a more vital and purposive presence in the eighteenth-century British novel than is often recognized. And it shows how the much-maligned Fathom brings to full conceptual fruition the tantalizing hints of anti-sentimental and anti-English attitudes found in Smollett’s more widely admired first two novels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".