{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027881040892193308, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006815365551425031, 'mean_word_length': 4.767857142857143, '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}}
William D. Godsey Jr, Aristocratic Redoubt: The Austro-Hungarian Foreign Office on the Eve of the First World War . West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 1999. Pp. 304, illus.

Dvorak's real aim is to challenge the stereotype of Vienna 1900 as a center of refined culture rather than brutal politics. One aspect of Carl Schorske's argument was, of course, to emphasize precisely the linkage between these two aspects of late imperial Vienna. In this sense, it is not always clear whose arguments Dvorak means to refute. His book would benefit from more careful definition of terms such as Central and Eastern Europe—not in the sense that there is an essential reality to be defined, but to clarify the argument and provide a better basis for comparing examples and thinking about the issues he raises. The writing needs more care and more precision in matters of degree. The book is composed of short, often one-sentence paragraphs and an enormous amount of quoting. The quotations are often quite interesting (whether from Hitler or Wilde), but they are frequently too long, in contrast to the short, choppy paragraphs of Dvorak's own text. Dvorak makes too little effort to provide a careful context for his broad generalizations, but there is probably something to them. In Dvorak's view, what ordinarily passes for Viennese modernism was not really modern at all but elitist and trapped in Austria's repressive and antidemocratic past. For him, the dominance of Vienna was attained at the expense of the genuinely progressive forces in the monarchy, whether Prague or Trieste, capitalism or Socialism.