{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032915360501567396, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0109717868338558, 'mean_word_length': 4.528138528138528, '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}}
LUCRETIUS AND LUCY HUTCHINSON

(though usually focussed on the male) is also occasionally relevant, but J. stays focussed on the specifically gendered creation of a woman (literally or metaphorically) or use of a manufactured woman, usually, though not exclusively, by a man – a wise choice when this theme alone offers such a great variety of texts for study. The book is written in an easily readable style and elaborates on secondary scholarship for those new to the field. Technical terms are clearly explained (though I am not sure the term ‘Ur’ can be quite so easily boiled down to mean ‘source’, p. 68) and there is a small glossary. It is an excellent resource for students of both film and Classics. J. provides her own highly readable prose translation of Met. 10.238–97, which will be invaluable to nonspecialists, while the Latin text is provided in an Appendix. It is a shame that the flow of the writing is occasionally interrupted by typing errors or minor inaccuracies (for example, the names Freddie/Freddy and Zac/Zack are spelled inconsistently; the Buffy episode ‘Ted’ is from Season 2, not 1, p. 145) but these do not detract from the overall achievement of the work. This lively and engaging volume will prove very useful to students and scholars alike.