{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025284900284900286, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010683760683760684, 'mean_word_length': 5.256124721603563, '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': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Formation of Science in Japan.

the selections because the source materials, unlike those of the succeeding decade, were spared destruction at the time of Japan's surrender. The wealth of primary materials makes this era particularly fruitful for serious study. Four chapters, primarily the excellent work of Hatano, deal with the critical period from the Manchurian Incident through Japan's surrender (1931—1945). By discarding the "fifteen years war" interpretation, Hatano's periodization challenges the validity of that staple of Japanese Marxist interpretation. His scheme, however, allows the historian to isolate the Pacific War instead of integrating it into a larger, East Asian context. The war did, after all, stretch from the borders of India to the Aleutian Islands, Hawaii, and Australia. Periodization, then, is not a closed issue, but open for innovative research and reassessment. In the final chapter, Iokibe Makoto, Hosoya Masahiro, and Asada examine the literature of the Allied Occupation of Japan. Their essay focuses on the state of Japanese scholarship and prospects for future comparative studies and macrolevel analysis of the years between 1945 and 1952. An addendum to the accompanying bibliography lists recent important publications up to 1987 on the subject. In general terms, the essays and bibliographies acknowledge Japan's Marxist historians, but downplay their role in advancing historiography. For instance, Rekishigaku kenkyukai's 1972 edition of Taibeiyo sensosbi series is not a rehash of the 1956 edition. It is a whole new approach derived from extensive research in basic documents. Surely Fujiwara Akira's work, notably the stimulating Taibeiyo sensoshiron, merits more than a bibliographic entry. There are inevitable lacunae. For example, not all the titles cited in the bibliography are translated. This leaves a nonspecialist wondering what Mansbu kenkoku jiinenshi or Mantetsu means (p. 63). Consistency of organization fluctuates; one contributor gives all titles, while the next gives only the author and number keyed to the accompanying bibliography; still others give both types of citations. Brief summaries or conclusions for all the essays would have been helpful. These cavils aside, this volume stands as an enormous contribution to the field of modern Japanese studies. My selfish wish is that it had been available twenty years earlier. Today it offers us new lenses and a fresh perspective in which to view the epoch. One hopes it stimulates non-Japan specialists to consider cooperative efforts. Far more likely, it should encourage a new generation of Japan specialists to mine this rich seam of Japanese intellectual thought in order to reassess the dynamic, sometimes violent, and still unfolding international relations of Imperial Japan.