{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03188879803761243, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014717906786590351, 'mean_word_length': 5.150753768844221, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Development of the International Book Trade, 1870-1895: Tangled Networks (review)

similarities, Conway’s readings demonstrate a wit that seconds her judgment that these novels look back to the Restoration political crisis. There are some slips. Roxana is not Defoe’s “final novel” (112). Richardson’s correspondent appears as Lady Bradsheigh (158). The text systematically refers to the Duke and Duchess of Malborough. And the reader could well ask for more. The leap to Defoe and beyond skips over politically effective scandal romances undeniably by Delariver Manley—as Queen Zarah is not—and novels by such women as Eliza Haywood and the Jacobite Jane Barker. Is it only in Defoe’s appropriation of it that the amatory novel revisits the Restoration political crisis? As a marketing ploy if no more, Roxana originally sported a title, The Fortunate Mistress, that responded to Haywood’s recent Idalia; or, The Unfortunate Mistress (1723). The Protestant whores of Richardson and Fielding may have more kin than this study acknowledges. But tracing the novel’s ideological entanglement in the formative quarrels of an intensely partisan age is a task for many hands. Alison Conway has made an essential contribution.