Dissidence by Design: Literary Renovations of the "Good Taste" Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the literary responses to the British “good taste” movement in the work of Aldous Huxley, Evelyn Waugh, and John Betjeman. Bolstered by the increased prominence and influence of design experts in the early-twentieth century, critics and designers sought to improve public taste in Britain. The didactic and rhetorical strategies these taste reformers employed gradually convinced Britons that their nation, which lagged behind its European neighbours in accepting modern design, was in the throes of a “taste crisis.” The increased authority of design experts, the public enthusiasm for decoration, and the growth of the market for household goods led not only to a widespread fascination with design, but also to the formulation of an increasingly narrow and orthodox definition of “good taste.” I analyze these authors’ critical and literary writing, relying, in many cases, on their unpublished or neglected work in order to reveal the development of their taste theories. I argue that these writers, dissatisfied with what they perceived to be the “good taste” movement’s stultifying and homogenizing effects, produced a “dissident” taste theory in reaction to the consensual and codified notion of “good taste.” Chapter One considers Huxley’s often overlooked role as the editor of House & Garden magazine in the context of his early fiction and his gradual conversion to mysticism. Chapter Two examines the architectural novels of Evelyn Waugh, noting, in particular, the inherent tensions he navigated between modernity and tradition, Philistinism and theory, theology and aesthetics. Chapter Three studies John Betjeman’s roles as critic, poet, guide-book writer, and preservationist, charting the development of his tastes from international modernism to local eclecticism. Rather than accepting the easy distinctions between “good and bad” taste, Huxley, Waugh, and Betjeman—themselves so often criticized for being unyieldingly absolute in their worldviews—attempted instead to articulate a “taste between,” one that fused the aesthetic, ethical, and psychic components of taste in an imaginative spectrum, rather than an orthodox system.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".