{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021299638989169676, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.709443099273607, '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}}
At Large and Unrelated

politan styles "to emphasize the importance of affect, manner, and self-consciousness in all practices of critical cosmopolitanism and to identify the use of new narrative strategies in the cosmopolitan literary practices of the twentieth-century." Moreover, Walkowitz contends that her broad conception of style—one that regards style as stance, consciousness, posture, and attitude—is useful in understanding nonliterary conceptions of cosmopolitanism such as those in media studies, history, and anthropology. In a very subtle move, Walkowitz situates her own cosmopolitan style as a complement, not a challenge, to the cosmopolitan politics ofBruce Robbins and others. For her, recognition of cosmopolitan style foregrounds an analytic feature of the critical cosmopolitanisms of these writers—and does not supplant cosmopolitan politics. The basic point forWalkowitz seems to be that "cosmopolitan theory is more literary and more modemist than its practitioners have previously acknowledged." Whereas cosmopolitanism as viewed through the lens of political criticism has tended to reduce considerations of style, Walkowitz's book rigorously and persuasively restores considerations of style into cosmopolitan theory. Walkowitz's book is an impressive interweaving of theoretical speculation and close reading. Its own style is marked by careful textual exegesis punctuated by appropriate (albeit eclectic) theoretical pairing. While Walkowitz's study most clearly favors the critical work ofTheodorW. Adorno, numerous other theorists—from Homi K. Bhabha and James Clifford to Michel de Certeau and Gilles Deleuze—come to the fore at appropriate moments. Even though the introduction may be slow going for those unaccustomed to the vernacular of contemporary cultural and literary theory, it will be well worth the effort as it provides a telegraphic overview of some of the main issues in cosmopolitan theory. The readings of the individual novelists are less theoretically dense and are well-argued and written. My main complaint about the book is a relatively minor one: it lacks a discussion of the relationship of postmodernism to cosmopolitan style, particularly when Ishiguro, Rushdie, and Sebald are ordinarily more closely affiliated with postmodernist fiction than modemist fiction. While a couple of passing mentions of postmodernism are made, they do not provide much insight as to why postmodernist international fiction could not as well result in critical cosmopolitanism. Nevertheless, Walkowitz's book is to be praised for reinforcing the important point that fiction is an ideal place to explore critically the complicated, troubled and troubling, social and political waters of contemporary, transnational, global society.