{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02518891687657431, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030226700251889168, 'mean_word_length': 4.760869565217392, '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}}
Revising the 1930s in the 1990s, Or the Work of Art in the Age of Diminished Expectations

Each generation of scholars, it seems, must come to terms with the cultural legacy of the 1930s. A period that somehow seemed codified even before it was concluded, the decade has regularly been revisited by intellectuals who grapple with it in toto, pushing it to the Left or to the Right, or who, at key moments, rescue one select cultural figure from the political fray (William Faulkner in the 1940s, Tillie Olsen and Zora Neale Hurston in the 1970s, and Nathanael West, apparently, in the 1990s). And as with any historical endeavor, each generation returns to the scene (the scene of political possibility in this case) with its own set of ideological and aesthetic questions, its own intellectual