{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035555555555555556, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00962962962962963, 'mean_word_length': 4.977876106194691, '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}}
Vertue Rewarded; or, the Irish Princess. A New Novel (1693) (review)

32). Or look at the reference to Mary Ann Doane on Joan Crawford that is offered as supplementary commentary on the conceptual pertinence of Irigaray for the purpose of reading Behn (p. 29n). Craft-Fairchild is not concerned with differences between spectatorship in eighteenth-century fiction and in film, and the highest praise in her book is that Burney's The Wanderer "anticipates the work of Luce Irigaray" (p. 160). Such manoeuvres may serve as theoretical shock therapy, but they are questionable as a large-structural method. Maybe the importance of Inchbald's writing is to anticipate twentieth-century feminist theory. But literary criticism such as Craft-Fairchild' s is not the place to look for reflections on what this historical claim might mean. Rhetorically and conceptually, Masquerade and Gender accords intellectual priority to Irigaray and other twentieth-century feminists rather than to women writers of the eighteenth century. Craft-Fairchild' s use of ahistorical parallels should therefore itself be considered in relation to her identification of masquerade as "the arena for female loss" (p. 56). In her own technical sense, it is no theory-hostile misgiving to say that this book responds to "the masquerade of femininity" with a masquerade of theory.