“Not Intended to Drive People Crazy”: Genre, Gender, and the Politics of Reception in The Yellow Wallpaper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper has undergone a complex and evolving critical reception since its initial publication in 1892. Originally dismissed or overlooked by editors and early readers, the story has been reclaimed by feminist scholarship as a powerful literary intervention into nineteenth-century gender politics. This paper examines the shifting reception of the text across three key interpretive frameworks: as a non-political gothic tale, as a female gothic narrative, and as a politically charged feminist work. Drawing on critical perspectives from scholars such as Elaine Hedges, Julie Dock, and Greg Buzwell, the study explores how the story’s formal elements and cultural context intersect with the author’s own experiences, particularly in relation to medical authority and editorial censorship.This paper argues that the history of the story’s reception reflects the very institutional and patriarchal dynamics that the narrative critiques. By treating reception history as an extension of the story’s feminist intervention, the study repositions The Yellow Wallpaper as a metatextual commentary on literary value, canon formation, and the politics of critical legitimacy. Analyzing Gilman’s autobiographical writings alongside her critical afterlife, the paper situates the text as both foundational to feminist literary studies and illustrative of how marginalized voices navigate structures of cultural authority. The study highlights the story’s enduring relevance and its potential to inform contemporary debates on literature, gender, and power.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".