{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03105934553521908, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011092623405435386, 'mean_word_length': 4.9537953795379535, '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}}
Rethinking Authorship: Jack London and the Motion Picture Industry

In the middle of June 1913, a person in New York City who wanted to see a moving picture ‘‘installation’’ or ‘‘exhibit,’’ as they were often called, would have had several choices: the eightreel Italian spectacle Quo Vadis at the Astor Theatre, Thomas Ince’s five-reel The Battle of Gettysburg at the Grand Opera House, Captain Scott’s South Pole pictures at the Lyric, or Jack London’s Adventures in the South Sea Islands at the Criterion, a Broadway playhouse.1 A person who chose the Criterion for one of its twice daily screenings of the London film would have seen, as the title promises, exotic views of the South Sea Islands while listening to Martin Johnson, who accompanied London on his journey and was credited with making the film, provide a lecture describing the images. Press accounts of the day indicate that seeing the film would have been an exciting, worthwhile experience, despite the fact that London, whose name was a valuable commodity by 1913, appears to have played no significant part in the final product. One advertisement’s detailed synopsis of the film, for example, implies London’s on-screen presence only once; moreover, Johnson appears to have taken most of his footage after London and his wife, Charmian London, had returned home.2 Although the public’s desire to see London at work, both as author and American adventurer, had intensified over the course of the early 1900s, his absence from the film was surprisingly not an issue in the press coverage, which failed to mention it at all. In fact, reporters seemed most impressed by the film’s realism and its uncanny verification of the unfamiliar rituals of the ‘‘noncivilized’’ world. On 16 June 1913, the Morning Telegraph reported that viewers