MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091928194 · doi:10.1093/fs/knaa161

<i>Victims of the Book: Reading and Masculinity in Fin-de-Siècle France</i> . By <scp>François Proulx</scp> <i>Victims of the Book: Reading and Masculinity in Fin-de-Siècle France</i> . By ProulxFrançois. (University of Toronto Romance.) Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2019. 403 pp., ill.

2020· article· en· W3091928194 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew J. Counter

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Theme (computing)SociologyHistoryHumanitiesLiteratureArtArt historyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is an immemorial paradox that European literature spends a great deal of time warning its readers against the dangers of reading. François Proulx’s ambitious and thought-provoking book focuses on a particular iteration of that paradox: the literary and cultural obsession with the deleterious effects of reading on young men in Third Republic France. The backdrop to Proulx’s account is formed by post-débâcle anxieties about the intellectual, sexual, and physical development of French youth, and the work of doctors, moralists, and pedagogical reformers who viewed reading, both as an activity and as a means of understanding the world, as potentially damaging to that development. In the foreground are a number of Third Republic writers whose works problematize young men’s relationships to books, including Jules Vallès, Paul Bourget, Maurice Barrès, André Gide, and Marcel Proust. The chapters on each of these authors offer fresh and important insights, including many which point beyond the book’s primary theme to make stand-alone contributions to the study of the authors in question; indeed, one of Proulx’s great strengths is his ability to tell a historicist, contextualist story though sustained and sensitive close readings that do full justice to the literariness of the works under discussion. The benefit of this particular thematic structure, on the other hand, is to offer compelling but unexpected rapprochements between writers (most obviously between Vallès and pretty much any of the others). The breadth of material and works considered is impressive; one is only surprised that Proulx does not have more to say about Gide’s Les Faux-Monnayeurs, briefly discussed in the penultimate chapter. Analysis of this novel has tended to favour the formal at the expense of the thematic, yet it focuses many of the thematic questions at stake here — particularly intergenerational relationships of influence, education, and eroticism — in unique and provocative ways. No doubt it is in the nature of the subject matter that there should be (very) few women’s voices heard in Proulx’s book. This is not to say that gender as a mode of analysis is absent: on the contrary, Proulx demonstrates that an incoherent parade of sexual horribles, from effeminacy to outright homosexuality, from petty Don-Juanism to impotence, lurked just beyond the penumbra of the young man’s reading lamp. Fin-de-siècle doomsayers were more likely to invoke Emma Bovary than Frédéric Moreau as the emblem of dangerous reading even (or especially) when the reader-victims they had in mind were male, and the anxiety studied by Proulx is in this sense a metastasis of the perennial preoccupation with women’s reading to which Madame Bovary attests, and which nineteenth-century prigs were apt to regard as the ‘lesson’ of that novel. The contradictions within this genealogy (women mustn’t read because it’s not ladylike; men because it’s too ladylike) could no doubt stand further exploration, but Proulx’s nuanced and patient work here does much to elucidate this strange — and, one suspects, highly significant — incoherence.

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench StudiesSame topicFrench Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207