Good Form and Riddling Talk: Imperialist Rhetoric in The Hobbit and Peter Pan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper places J. R. R. Tolkien’s and J. M. Barrie’s famous children’s stories— The Hobbit and Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Would Not Grow Up , respectively—in conversation with each other to examine The Hobbit ’s original context as a self-contained work of children’s literature. A comparative reading of these texts’ villains reveals that both Smaug and Captain Hook utilize refined rhetoric to intimidate their childlike opponents, reflecting ideas of Western superiority prevalent in the Edwardian and Modern eras even as their characterizations subvert cultural and literary conventions. Analyzing how their rhetorical tactics are connected to the British classroom shows that these characters’ language demonstrates an imperialist logic that a mastery of English rhetoric supports one’s ability to redefine and categorize others to justify conquest. The paper concludes by considering the larger significance of Tolkien’s and Barrie’s protagonists ultimately adopting these imperialist rhetorical strategies to defeat their foes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".