On the Edges of Gothic Parody: The Neglected Work of Mrs F.C. Patrick and Sarah Green
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines two novels that parody popular, late eighteenth-century fiction: Mrs F.C. Patrick, More Ghosts! (1798) and Sarah Green, Romance Readers and Romance Writers (1810). Both texts embrace and resist elements of gothic romance through intertextuality and generic instability. These two novels are marked by dynamic ambivalence: the writers overtly disavow the gothic genre, yet fail to abandon gothic sympathies for a consistent parody. Dynamic ambivalence empowers the reader to take multiple, conflicting positions within and against the plot. Both authors warn readers that in order to strengthen one’s mind, one must be insensible to melodrama and resist romantic extravagances; nevertheless, each exposes this stance as a façade. Using comic elements to deflect criticism and satire to establish their moral vision, Patrick and Green aim to elicit sympathy for female characters, even when they are foolish, deceived, or debauched. More Ghosts! and Romance Readers offer a cultural critique, embedded in parody, which challenges the contradictions inherent in women’s position in that era.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".