{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0204211869814933, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0038289725590299937, 'mean_word_length': 5.149019607843138, '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 Myth of Persephone in Girls’ Fantasy Literature (review)

stresses that Emily of New Moon so deviated from the model of the orphan girl genre that the series never realized the material success of Montgomery’s more traditional Anne of Green Gables. Sanders contends that Emily of New Moon was ahead of its time because it demonstrated that growing girls do not need discipline so much as “information which may best be communicated in a relationship that is characterized more by equality than disciplinary affection” (120). Many scholars, myself included, have speculated on the changes in girls’ fiction in the aftermath of World War I. Sanders attributes the diminishing presence of affective discipline to an emerging discomfort with the manipulation that exists beneath the surface of any project aiming to exact change through moral suasion. Sanders points out that “in relationships that are healthy according to contemporary definitions, the child must be empowered, not merely serve to empower a stronger man to her own benefit” (189), contrary to the pattern found in earlier entrants in the genre. Disciplining Girls will be of interest not only to scholars of children’s literature, but to scholars of literary history and gender studies as well. Sanders carefully charts the teleology of affective discipline through fifty years of girls’ fiction. His work deserves a place beside pioneering studies of American sentimental literature by Ann Douglas, Nina Baym, and Cathy Davidson, and alongside the more recent work of Laura Wexler and Mary Chapman.