Intrusion, Immersive or Irregular: Classifying the Fantasy of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell with the Intertextual Influence of Sir Orfeo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Often when we think of fantasy we think of far off places or some magical world completely removed from our own. We think of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia or J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth. Even J. K. Rowling’s wizards and witches are distinctly divided from and inaccessible to non-magical people. But what happens when this Other Place comes into contact with our world? Susanna Clarke explores this type of contact in her novel Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. Relating the adventures of two magicians in early nineteenth century England, the novel describes what happens when the magic of the Faerie realm interacts with our world or, more specifically, with England. The ultimate effect is one where each place does not exist independently of one another but rather are ontologically connected. Unpacking the particulars of this existential coexistence and identifying the exact nature of Clarke’s fantasy is no easy task. For this it is helpful to turn to Farrah Mendlesohn’s Rhetorics of Fantasy, a book dedicated to the classification of five different types that a fantasy work might fall into: portal-quest, immersive, intrusion, liminal and irregular. Despite the thorough detail that Mendlesohn achieves in outlining and explaining each category, Clarke’s novel remains exceedingly difficult to place. In addition to Mendlesohn’s book then, we must also turn to the outside influence of other primary texts, like the Middle English poem Sir Orfeo, to classify the intricate fantasy that is Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".