MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327594652 · doi:10.1111/russ.12448

Writing Fear: Russian Realism and the Gothic by KatherineBowers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2022. xvi + 241 pp. $65.00. ISBN 978‐1‐4875‐2692‐4

2023· article· en· W4327594652 on OpenAlex
Bella Grigoryan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Russian Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLogistics and Transportation Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBELLARealismCitationMedia studiesLibrary scienceSociologyComputer scienceArtLiteraturePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Katherine Bowers has written a stimulating and timely study in which she traces the role of the Gothic mode and its attendant devices in the development of Russian prose fiction, chiefly Realism. Bowers’s work may be viewed as part of a growing field of inquiry devoted to the Russian Gothic. In this context, such scholarship as Vadim Vatsuro’s Goticheskii roman v Rossii (2002), as well as Valeria Sobol’s Haunted Empire: Gothic and the Russian Imperial Uncanny (2020) and the special issue of the journal Russian Literature (May–June 2019), which was devoted to the Russian Gothic, come to mind. Bowers’s study is a welcome addition to what remains an underexplored but clearly productive area of research. In the Introduction Bowers gives an overview of her project and explains such key terms as “gothic realism,” which, she writes, “refers to moments when authors writing in what we recognize as a realist style turn to gothic narrative devices” (p. 10). Bowers contextualizes her study in relation to recent scholarship on the role of the Gothic in the development of other Realist traditions. Bowers points out that “what is compelling about how Russian realists use the gothic is … that many different writers over an extended period consistently use the gothic in similar ways, even to depict differing or opposing philosophical and political positions” (p. 11). One aspect of the significance of Bowers’s study lies in underscoring the degree to which the role, uses, and deployment of the Gothic may be fruitfully examined in potentially multiple nineteenth-century traditions as something of a transnational phenomenon. In chapter 1, Bowers surveys Russian readers’ probable familiarity with the Gothic in the 1830s and 1840s to arrive at a repertoire of Gothic works and devices that would have been known to the Russian educated public; she maintains that even without reading the main Gothic texts a typical reader would have known and recognized these features. In chapter 2, Bowers reads specific moments in Alexander Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin (Tatiana’s dream) and Nikolai Gogol’s Dead Souls (Pliushkin’s decaying estate) as instances of Gothic appropriation through an ironizing engagement. She explains that these two novels’ particular deployment of Gothic devices shaped later appropriations. In chapter 3, Bowers identifies “gothic framing devices” in Ivan Goncharov’s “Oblomov’s Dream” and Ivan Turgenev’s “Bezhin Lea” (p. 53). Bowers argues that Goncharov and Turgenev use the Gothic frames in order to complicate the educated readership’s potentially dismissive engagement with folk belief systems. Chapter 4 is devoted to Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, which is treated (aptly) as one of the Russian tradition’s most productive and extensive engagements with the Gothic; here Bowers provides a detailed reading of the novel in what amounts to a fitting culmination point to Part One of the book. Part Two is comprised of fascinating case studies that take up works of literature in connection with various social and cultural questions. In chapter 5, Bowers examines the works of multiple authors including Nikolai Nekrasov and Vladimir Dal' to explore the ways early Realist prose about Petersburg used the Gothic to cultivate such affects as horror, anxiety, and dread; ultimately, Bowers helpfully traces the Gothic dimensions of the Petersburg Text. Chapter 6 provides an especially appealing pairing of texts—Evgeniia Tur’s underexplored (especially so in Anglophone scholarship) Antonina, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, and Turgenev’s Diary of a Superfluous Man—to propose intertextual links in the context of how Tur responds to the Woman Question. Chapter 7 offers another interesting pairing of texts—Dostoevsky’s Demons and Boris Savinkov’s Pale Horse—to show that the two writers use devices drawn from the Gothic to divergent ends in their representation of revolutionary terrorism. In chapter 8, Bowers focuses on the Gothic in narratives about family, emphasizing family decline and disorder: Sergei Aksakov’s Family Chronicle, Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin’s Golovlyov Family, and Ivan Bunin’s Dry Valley. The conclusion, which is devoted to Anton Chekhov’s works, gestures towards the vitality of Gothic appropriations beyond Russian Realism, notably in the first glimmers of Russian Modernist writing. Bowers’s study is appealing both for the insightful readings of specific works and for the big picture about Russian Realism’s encounters with the Gothic that ultimately emerges. Writing Fear is likely to be of keen interest to those who study nineteenth-century Russian literature as well as to colleagues who study non-Russian literary traditions and have an interest in the Gothic.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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