MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379623782 · doi:10.1353/mlr.2004.a826897

American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting, 1834-1853 by Meredith L. McGill (review)

2004· article· en· W4379623782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ronald J. Zboray

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Modern Language Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)PublishingFinkelstein's testClubHistoryArt historySociologyArtLiteratureAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MLR, 99.3, 2004 769 earlier chapter to 'production and the shop floor' (pp. 38-42) and 'distributing and marketing texts' (pp. 42-46) is not repeated in the chapter on the later period. Chap? ter 2 concludes with the statement that 'the labor strikes of 1872-73 resulted in a de-unionizing policy that was to remain in place until the turn ofthe century', but at least something should have been said about labour and labour relations in the period 1880-1912, especially as this area has already been acknowledged as 'one of the least explored in publishing histories' (p. 38). Finkelstein is one of the editors of the recent Book History Reader (London: Rout? ledge, 2002) and Chapter 1 of The House ofBlackwooddraws upon a number ofthe theorists present in that important collection, including Darnton, Bourdieu, and Janice Radway, and this and the following chapter rely heavily on Radway's idea, developed in her work on the US Book-of-the-Month Club, that different 'layers, levels and planes of literary production' coexist within institutions (such as publishing houses) which manage them in an 'unhierarchized fashion' (p. 19). Finkelstein uses Radway to justify the fact that he pays equal attention to the author-publisher relations that existed between authors involved in both literary and 'nonliterary' (p. 36) projects; and the chapters on the ghosting of Speke's Discovery ofthe Source ofthe Nile and the serialization of Reade's A Woman Hater in Blackwood's Magazine are among the best here. Both demonstrate how important author-publisher relations could be in shaping the final text, but they appear curiously under-theorized in relation to the chapters that precede them, perhaps because they have appeared elsewhere in similar form. Despite these limitations, this is an important book, which by extending the remit of the house history to include much more than just the author-publisher relations of its subtitle suggests a number of ways in which book historians can challenge and revise the 'official' history of the print culture of the Victorian era. University of Reading Stephen Colclough American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting, 1834-1853. By Meredith L. McGill. (Material Texts) Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press. 2002. viii + 364pp. $39.95; ?28. ISBN 0-8122-3698-x. In American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting, 1834-1853, Meredith McGill takes aim at Michael T. Gilmore's close alignment, in his American Romanticism and the Marketplace (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), of capitalist de? velopment with the emergence of professional writing (p. 12). Rather, for her, 'the discourse of authorship develops not congruently, but at odds with changes in the conditions of production' (p. 49). Closely analysing the landmark case of Wheaton v. Peters (1834), she argues foran American exception to the British instance described in Mark Rose's Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1993). According to her, the American con? ception of copyright rejected the British Lockean basis of 'natural' personal property rights in favour of a public imperative based on readers' relation to texts as a kind of production (p. 62), within what she describes as a Jacksonian 'decentralization of power' (p. 108). As manuscripts moved into the publicity of print, they rather lost than gained private protection. Yet despite this keen recognition of the power of writing beyond the scope of print, McGill does not consider manuscript publication, so well treated for early modern Britain by Harold Love (Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, 1993)) and Margaret J. M. Ezell (Social Author? ship and the Advent of Print (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999)). This scholarship, after all, suggests more similarity between British and American 77? Reviews practice, even granted a transatlantic lag, than McGill's narrow analysis of legal discourse reveals. Moreover, exclusive focus upon printing distorts the overall pic? ture of the literary field, in so far as it severs everyday scribal production practices away from print. The introduction of this into McGill's argument, however, would undermine her Habermasian conflation of printing with the putative public sphere (after Michael Warner) and thus her juridico-politico (read: Republican) correction...

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 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)0.000
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 score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Modern Language ReviewSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207