MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395040326 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2023.a925227

The Edwardian Picture Postcard as a Communications Revolution: A Literacy Studies Perspective by Julia Gillen (review)

2023· article· en· W4395040326 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauren Alex O’Hagan

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)LiteracyArtVisual artsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Edwardian Picture Postcard as a Communications Revolution: A Literacy Studies Perspective by Julia Gillen Lauren Alex O'hagan (bio) The Edwardian Picture Postcard as a Communications Revolution: A Literacy Studies Perspective by Julia Gillen; pp. 158. Routledge, 2023. $241.27 cloth. For most people today, postcards are typically seen as frivolous and somewhat mundane material objects, confined largely to the domain of vacation souvenirs. So it might seem startling to hear them declared a "revolutionary communications technology" (5), but as Julia Gillen so expertly argues in [End Page 172] her book The Edwardian Picture Postcard as a Communications Revolution, that is exactly what they were in Edwardian Britain (1901–10). Postcards brought about a sudden and radical change in the way that people interacted with one another. Their low cost, portability, variety, visual appeal, and potential for creativity, coupled with an efficient postal service (post could be delivered up to eight times a day in major cities!), meant that by 1903, five hundred million postcards were being sent in Britain each year. In Gillen's view, until the dawn of the digital age in the 1990s, there was "no comparable means of exchanging rapid, cheap, accessible written messages with images" (2). Gillen's book draws upon more than a decade of detailed study into these intriguing artifacts, tapping into their unique history from a literacy studies perspective, yet extending this method by drawing upon tools from the sociolinguistics of writing, corpus linguistics, and social history. Gillen convincingly points out that an overarching posthumanist or socio-material approach is needed to appreciate postcards truly because they have an agency that "go[es] beyond human intentionality" (14) and entwines a wide range of people, materials, and technologies. While many scholars—and indeed collectors—are attracted to the colourful images of postcards (and in this regard, I must point out the excellent The Picture Postcard, by Ann Wilson), it is the other side to which Gillen is drawn. She seeks to explore the writing of the postcard "as a social practice" (6), shining a spotlight on the everyday literacy of its users and navigating the challenges of historical records to uncover the lives of those who typically pass under the radar. This is done beautifully in chapter 6, which crafts the stories of three women from three different walks of life: Annie Parrish, Janet Carmichael, and Ruby Ingrey. Through their postcard collections, we gain a deep insight into their social networks, personal relationships, hobbies, and interests in ways that very few other surviving examples of ordinary writing can offer. Gillen's diligent research also enables a reconstruction of the postcards' movements around Britain, clearly visualized in map form. However, she equally reminds us that we are mere eavesdroppers into private conversations from long ago, as exemplified by the compelling correspondence between Ingrey and Arthur Waddelow, that cannot be fully untangled. For researchers unfamiliar with using census records, they may be pleasantly surprised at what benefits they can offer and even inspired to explore them. Gillen helpfully includes a step-by-step guide to their use in chapter 3, also pointing out potential difficulties (e.g., illegible handwriting, incorrect spellings) and how they can be overcome. In its focus on the materiality and multimodality of postcards, chapter 4 is another standout. Here, we get into the nitty-gritty of the dataset as Gillen explores patterns of use in terms of writing implements, orientation, writing systems, non-standard fonts, unique codes, and languages, as well as texts and marks by both publishers and the Post Office. She puts forward the important argument that linguistic communication always employs multiple [End Page 173] semiotic resources to make meaning and that, therefore, postcards should be viewed as technologies that interact with people in specific socio-cultural and socio-historical contexts. Drawing on the work of Diane Mavers, she later introduces the term "semiotic resourcefulness" to describe how writers select from a broad spectrum of available resources according to their communicative purpose. This is something that she takes further in the concluding chapter, referencing Caroline Tagg and Agnieszka Lyons's recent work on "mobile resourcefulness" in WhatsApp messages and positing the extension of this term...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207