{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02827316224445411, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002174858634188778, 'mean_word_length': 5.3535911602209945, '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}}
From Fiction to the Novel (review)

Geoffrey Day thinks eighteenth-century fiction is underappreciated because it is misread. He thinks that much of the misreading results from the application of nineteenth and twentieth-century templates for "the novel"; that is, eighteenth-century novels are judged by standards formulated by subsequent critics for more recent novels. The necessary corrective for Day is to return to the words of the practitioners of eighteenth-century fiction and criticism: for example, "Fielding provided a clear statement of the nature of his work. Unfortunately much contemporary and modem criticism, in attempts to categorize and rationalize, has chosen to ignore the signpost" (p. 21). Day's study surveys the major issues confronted by eighteenth-century critics of prose fiction: fable versus romance; history versus fiction; instruction versus veracity; the moral function of fiction; instruction versus pleasure; the importance of probability. Unusually generous quotations (twenty-four pages from James Beattie' s "On Fable and Romance" to note the extreme) illustrate accounts of the major positions organized chronologically and by issue, providing a useful outline of eighteenth-century criticism of fiction from Congreve to Barbauld. As the above quotation indicates, Day assumes that eighteenth-century pronouncements are largely self-explanatory, to be taken at face value. Occasionally he is forced to acknowledge that there are problems with his approach: "One difficulty with Defoe is deciding in what spirit to take some of his editorial assertions" (p. 1 14). The discussion that follows demonstrates that Defoe's texts are problematic, but it fails to force Day to challenge his faith in the transparency of the criticism he is presenting. And since he has refused to consider (consciously) any but eighteenth-century theories of fiction, he is unable even to attempt to resolve those problems he finds. Much of the strength of Day's study lies with its presentation of opposing positions that effectively highlight the many contentious issues for eighteenth-century critics of fiction. The most extensive treatment is given to the familiar debates between Richardson and Fielding and their respective followers, a focus that allows Day to bring together