“Catch them trying to draw a map of a child’s mind”: contaminating reader-response criticism, age studies, and queer theory through a reading of “Peter and Wendy”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis argues in favour of bringing together deconstructive studies and reader-response criticism as tools of literary analysis, focussing on J.M. Barrie's 'Peter and Wendy' (1911) as a case study. In particular, it explores the ways in which the implied reader(s) of the novel are informed by cultural constructs related to age. In doing so, it underlines the most productive points of contact between the literary fields it employs, leveraging them to carry out an original reading of a classic text of children's literature. 'Peter and Wendy' has been discussed by critics both for the constructs of childhood that it implies, and because it envisions a ‘double addressee’ composed of child and adult readers. These are crucial themes for several literary fields: children’s literature studies, as well as branches of cultural studies that differ from one another but share an interest in deconstructing social identities. This thesis explores the interconnections between the two themes through a shift in perspective, employing Wolfgang Iser’s theory of reader-response criticism. It reframes the question of the double addressee by identifying two implied readers in the novel, a ‘child’ and an ‘adult’ one, and by describing the defining features of each. Then, it analyses the effect exerted on each implied reader by some of the representations of childhood and adulthood in the text. While taking care to minimise the risks of undue generalisations, the thesis employs the concept of a double implied reader as a valuable interpretive tool: the features attributed to the ‘child’ and ‘adult’ implied readers, it argues, are the first and most comprehensive constructs of age identity that we encounter in the novel. The underlying general belief is that cultural constructs are never only found in a text’s characters and plot; they also define its (implied) reader – an argument that is relevant to literary theory in general, regardless of the addressees' age.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".