MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391696234 · doi:10.1353/eal.2024.a918922

Fair Copy: Relational Poetics and Antebellum American Women's Poetry by Jennifer Putzi (review)

2024· article· en· W4391696234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wendy Raphael Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly American literature · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsPoetryGender studiesHistoryLiteratureArtSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Fair Copy: Relational Poetics and Antebellum American Women's Poetry by Jennifer Putzi Wendy Raphael Roberts (bio) Fair Copy: Relational Poetics and Antebellum American Women's Poetry jennifer putzi University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021 272 pp. Jennifer Putzi's Fair Copy: Relational Poetics and Antebellum American Women's Poetry expertly engages the composition, publication, and circulation of women's printed poetry to produce a far-reaching theory and methodology of relational poetics as radical recovery. Moving with graceful nimbleness between this overarching framework and a precision born of copious archival work, Putzi offers a compelling narrative of women's engagement with print and its various networks and relations—a story unknown in part because studies of nineteenth-century women's authorship have primarily focused on prose and in part because of a scholarly emphasis on originality and individuality. Putzi's account of what she calls "unremarkable poetry"—that which aims at imitation rather than invention—produced by women poets in their particular gendered, classed, and [End Page 196] raced negotiations with authorship is a remarkable contribution to the study of American poetry. Putzi joins a company of scholars such as Claudia Stokes, William Huntting Howell, Ezra Tawil, Alexandra Socarides, Kerry Larson, Eliza Richards, and Colin Wells who add to our understanding of nineteenth-century poetic culture as one that was deeply invested in imitation. She builds on the transformative work done by book history scholars, including Michael Winship, Meredith McGill, and Leon Jackson, as well as Virginia Jackson's theory that the lyric sublimates social mediations, to construct her concept of "relational poetics" (12). Relational poetics is first a theory that shaped antebellum women poets and second a scholarly methodology Putzi employs that arises from this archive. At its core it emphasizes "imitation, community, and collaboration … in poems themselves, in the avenues women poets take to gain access to print, and in the way their poems function within a variety of print cultural contexts" (1). Putzi turns from the figure of the nineteenth-century woman poet to the real labor of women poets within particular communities and then, taking her cues from the poems themselves, nimbly demonstrates how to read such poems as negotiations with various encumberments to authorship, print, and audience engagement. Fair Copy begins with the ubiquitous poet, Lydia Huntley Sigourney, to establish the prevalence of relational poetics and then moves to four less read poets and poetic communities as test cases "to demonstrate the radical potential of this reframing of the critical lens" (17). Starting with Sigourney, the "American [Felicia] Hemans," allows Putzi to describe the ways that literary originalism and nationalism worked for and against Sigourney's consistent embrace of repetition, cyclicality, and audience engagement. One highlight of the chapter is how Putzi traces the misattribution of "Death of an Infant" to Sigourney in order to underscore the "continual and creative performance of poetic authorship" in each discrete appearance of the poem, as well as the sustaining pleasures her readers took in such questions (43). Establishing Sigourney's relational poetics against this backdrop of literary nationalism peels back the assumption of romantic conceptions of authorship as well as of the lyric poet, which then provides the momentum for the book to begin a multipronged foray into the composition, publication, and circulation of other women poets. A poetic community well-known to scholars invested in working-class women, the mill girls of the Boston Manufacturing Company who published [End Page 197] the Lowell Offering between 1840 and 1845, comprises chapter 2. Putzi argues that previous assessments of these working-class poets as simply imitators aspiring to gentility and literariness does them a grave disservice, as it does not take into account that the poets were keenly aware of such criticisms already. Rather, the Offering poets wore their imitative practices on their sleeves and "claimed both the reading and the writing of poetry as a classless activity" (62). Offering poets transferred poetic practices of the domestic parlor to the space of the factory—clipping, pasting, and scrap-booking poetry onto the walls and machinery and internalizing it as their own; or, as Putzi writes, "literalizing the notion of the newspaper's 'poet's corner'" (72). Through...

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)0.006
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly American literatureSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207