Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how Algernon Blackwood's spiritual and mystical beliefs complicate his relationship with the Gothic genre. Rather than adhering strictly to Gothic conventions, Blackwood blends supernatural elements with a sincere evocation of the numinous, creating a literature of possibilities rather than impossibilities. Writing at a time when distinctions between psychic phenomena and scientific materialism were fluid, he challenges conventional horror by framing the supernatural as an expression of heightened consciousness rather than external terror. This discussion also considers authorial intent. While Wimsatt and Beardsley's ‘Intentional Fallacy’ warns against privileging authorial intention in literary criticism, Blackwood's nonfiction and autobiographical writings offer valuable insight into his creative process. By analysing ‘The Willows’ (1907) alongside his travelogue ‘Down the Danube in a Canadian Canoe’ (1901) and essay ‘The Psychology of Places’ (1910), I argue that Blackwood's concept of ‘dramatised emotions’ transforms the supernatural into a means of communicating subjective reality. Using the pantheist notion of divine indwelling in nature, I propose the term ‘weird immanence’ to describe how Blackwood employs genre to articulate subjective truths more potently than mimetic realism. Unlike the traditional Gothic sublime, in which the natural world mirrors human drama, ‘The Willows’ represents an authentic emotional response to landscape, intensifying the eerie potency of Blackwood's fiction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".