{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030452674897119343, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006584362139917695, 'mean_word_length': 4.96078431372549, '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}}
Modernism and Masculinity ed. by Natalya Lusty and Julian Murphet (review)

259 gender were key concerns, only to transpose their arguments onto a neutral plane of “relation” or “situation.” The chapter works best as intellectual history, explaining how Eliot came to misread Bergson as an irrationalist and pointing out the considerable synchrony between Bergson and the idealist F. H. Bradley. Bradley, Moses shows, offered Eliot a notion of totality apart from the flux of experience, which Eliot would christen “tradition.” But Eliot also found in Bradley an essentially vitalist idea of complex agency, a world in which thinking or feeling toward the future “creates a minimal but more than nominal difference in reality” (184). Out of Character has a great deal to offer to scholars of Anglo-American modernism, and indeed to anyone curious about the entanglements of ethics, aesthetics, and biology. It is an empowering departure from critical works that hold up “negative agency” (70) as the default stance in modernity. Yet vitalism suffers by being presented in this book as an antidote to psychoanalysis and critical theory, when it could be read more generatively in relation to those bodies of thought.