Term papers writing service


A comparison of the geography of the united kingdom and israel

At the highest level, how can we characterize the international and domestic geographies of British writing? What roles, if any, did cultural identity play in contemporary writers' spatial imagination?

Corpora and methods

What locations were over- or under-represented in their work and how, if at all, does the answer change when we group writers by national origin or by perceived ethnicity?

What shifts in geographic attention marked the transition from the late Victorian period to the interwar era of high modernism? These questions, and others like them, have received much recent attention, both popular and academic. Our goals in posing these questions are several. We seek first to assess the applicability of two specific, widely though not universally shared presumptions about the shape of British and British-aligned literature's engagement with the physical world during the period.

These are its internationalism, by which we mean its interest in and use of locations outside the United Kingdom, and its geographic intensity, that is, the frequency of its reference to specific locations. Internationalism is attached to modernist literature in particular with such frequency that it can seem almost a truism.

The early critical and polemical work of T. Eliot and Ezra Pound, classic studies by I. Richards and Hugh Kenner, and more recent scholarly turns to global modernisms and world literature are all premised on the decreasing significance in the early twentieth century of strictly national systems of literary production and on the central incorporation of a more cosmopolitan perspective into the era's literature.

But we would be surprised to find that, taken as a whole, the literature of the early twentieth century was less international than that of the preceding decades. The matter of geographic intensity is less widely debated, but no less interesting. Jon Hegglund has an explanatory mechanism in mind when he writes, in his excellent World Views, that After the turn of the nineteenth century.

This overload of geographical particularity had the effect, ironically, of denaturalizing the 'background' spaces of fiction. On the other hand, a shift toward the representation of psychological interiority at the expense of the social world has often been associated with leading modernists from Virginia Woolf to James Joyce to William Faulkner.

The resulting tension between outward-looking geographic intensity and inward-facing psychology opens space for a new quantitative intervention. By characterizing the geographic attention of a large swath of British fiction published between 1880 and 1940, we hope not only to address these questions of internationalization and intensity, but also to detect other widespread spatial phenomena in the period and to better understand the dynamics of selected subgroups of authors and of texts in relation to one another.

We ask, for instance, to what extent the London that took shape in more or less canonical writing of the period was representative of the imagined London of British fiction as a whole and, hence, to what extent canonical fiction is a reasonable proxy for period writing generally.

How did foreign writers, especially those who identified as Black or Asian, resemble and diverge from native British authors in their treatment of the metropole, the nation, and the globe? How, moreover, did any of these forms and groups change over the course of the sixty years leading up to the Second World War, or during what we might call the long modernist era? It should be clear, then, that while we have a range of specific questions to answer, our work is also in part exploratory and recuperative.

Our research concerning the imagined geography of foreign writers in Britain addresses a dearth of literary scholarship regarding writing by people of color within the nation prior to the more familiar influx of migrants from British colonies after the Second World War and, we hope, contributes to the ongoing recovery of this largely forgotten body of creative work. Finally, we aim to provide both quantitative and qualitative context for future research on the literature and culture of the period via computational means that are novel in the area.

The sections below proceed by way of much new data, almost all of which is tied directly to the questions posed here. Our results lead us to three broad interventions in modernist literary studies. First, we argue that a modernist studies that values internationalism must devote significantly more attention to non-canonical literature. The mass run of fiction published between 1880 and 1940 was consistently and meaningfully more international than its better-known analogues.

Writing by non-native British writers was radically more so. If critics are drawn to the outward turn in modernist texts, they can and should find a larger, earlier, and perhaps more important version of the phenomenon by looking beyond the usual suspects.

Second, we need to rethink London as it a comparison of the geography of the united kingdom and israel encountered and described by outsiders. This isn't just a matter of turning away from the famous and the posh in favor of the neglected and the downtrodden though there are worse places to start. It's about explaining, for instance, why foreign writers of color depict a more public, verdant London than their colony-born white counterparts, while devoting less of their attention to the East End and to notably international districts of the city.

These patterns are either anecdotal or essentially invisible to conventional study. Computational methods make them available for nuanced literary-historical reinterpretation. Finally, we argue against treating the years between 1880 and 1940 in terms that emphasize temporal discontinuity. Aspects of British fiction did change across this span of sixty years, and many of the differences we observe in the era's literary-geographic attention are genuinely important.

But when we work at scale, it's very difficult to locate "on or about. We see instead situations of influence and drift or—and this is the rub—we find true ruptures only between corpora built around differing principles.

The latter case, comparing corpora assembled to emphasize difference, is the one that resembles most closely the way in which modernist studies built its canons. Those canons and the practices they embed aren't simply errors, but they are deliberately and systematically nonrepresentative of large-scale literary history. Modernist literary critics would do well to grapple with that fact more directly than we often have.

There is long-standing interest in the literary geography of London. The lives and works of individual writers from Arthur Conan Doyle to Virginia Woolf, and the sites associated with particular literary and social networks, have been plumbed for named locations and marked on maps.

Susan Stanford Friedman and Franco Moretti, drawing in part and in different ways on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, have each influentially argued that setting gives rise to distinct varieties of narrative and that some narratives are inconceivable outside particular settings. The "critical consensus," as Eric Bulson writes, has it that "ways of representing the city and the world changed radically between Dickens' London and Joyce's Dublin. Jonathan Schneer has argued that London in 1900 was an "imperial city" not only by virtue of its place in global trade and politics but also in its built environment.

From Nelson's column in Trafalgar Square and Cleopatra's Needle on the Thames Embankment to the "revived classicism" of buildings constructed around a comparison of the geography of the united kingdom and israel turn of the century, the "public art and architecture of London together reflected and reinforced an impression, an atmosphere, celebrating [.

Elleke Boehmer, among others, has called attention to how the city was "an important meeting ground for Indian, Irish, African, and Caribbean freedom movements. The imperial city of "colonial writers" is often explored through white writers like Jean Rhys and Katherine Mansfield, who occupied an ambivalent place in imperial Britain's racial hierarchy but whose experiences and perspectives certainly were not representative of many colonial subjects in London.

James and Una Marson, active in the half century preceding them, each of whom was writing of London in the 1930s only the former gets an entry in the volume.

Did sites where large numbers of immigrants lived, studied, and worked receive greater proportional attention in writing by authors with similar geographic and demographic origins? According to the London Encyclopaedia, in "1911, one in twenty-five of London's residents was foreign born," but they were not evenly dispersed across the city.

Were there differences in the proportional mention of these and other sites across different types of literature?

  • Hamas has advocated for suicide bombers to blow themselves up on populated Jewish streets;
  • Tech Hub has also brought British entrepreneurs to Israel to participate in Israel's high-tech scene.

These questions raise larger concerns about the relationship between identity and place, and about the relationship of historical circumstance and literary representation, which we explore below. Corpora and methods To address these literary-geographic questions, we assembled four corpora, each comprising books published in Britain between 1880 and 1940. These groups range from the comprehensive to the specialized, varying in size from over 10,000 books to as few as 130.

In all, our research collections include 10,765 distinct volumes. The largest of the corpora, labeled "Hathi" in the figures and discussion below and serving as a type of baseline for the others, contains 10,010 volumes of fiction published in the UK between 1880 and 1940 and held by the HathiTrust digital library. These volumes are the ones previously identified by Underwood et al.

The texts in all corpora were identically prepared; they were supplied by HathiTrust and processed non-expressively.

Like us on Facebook

Histograms of the four corpora by date of publication are presented in figure 1. Volumes by corpus and year of publication in the research dataset.

  • The area of various small countries expressed in comparison to various areas within the United States of America;
  • Tech Hub has also brought British entrepreneurs to Israel to participate in Israel's high-tech scene;
  • We used the chronological list of principal literary works in the widely circulating Oxford Companion to English Literature, now in its seventh edition 2009, ed;
  • Arable land includes land defined by the FAO as land under temporary crops double-cropped areas are counted once , temporary meadows for mowing or for pasture, land under market or kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow.

Note that the y-axes are not shared between corpora; the Hathi corpus is much larger than the others, which differ in turn from one another. The other three corpora are more restricted, though they cover the same publication dates and broad context of publication. We used the chronological list of principal literary works in the widely circulating Oxford Companion to English Literature, now in its seventh edition 2009, ed. We excluded poetry, drama, and nonfiction works listed in the Companion; we included the small number of listed fictional works by non-British writers mostly American and Irish.

Using the Norton as a proxy for authorial prominence, we verified that our corpus included every work of fiction by Norton authors that is listed in Oxford's The Reinvention of the British and Irish Novel, 1880-1940. As the name suggests, the Prominent corpus comprises generally canonical or near-canonical fiction by writers published in Britain between 1880 and 1940. The prominence of the authors involved produces a corpus that is closer than any other in our dataset to the contours of canonical modernism.

But we have been careful to avoid referring to it as such and, indeed, it contains important realist, popular, and topical fiction alongside aesthetically experimental texts by Woolf, E.

  1. The Arab armies were devastated once again, and Israel gained even more territory.
  2. The conflict with the insurgents continued until the last British soldier left Palestine; at the end of April 1948, British forces fought a small battle against Zionist militias near Jaffa , temporarily preventing a Jewish takeover of the city, while failing to expel the militias from Menashiya. During the battles in Sinai , the Royal Air Force conducted almost daily reconnaissance missions over Israel and the Sinai.
  3. Israel has taken military action against anti-Israel factions within Lebanon on a number of occasions.

Lawrence, and so on. When we examine these texts by author gender, race, and national origin, it reinforces what is generally known: But the degree of gender and racial disparity might surprise. The next largest group may be described as hyphenated anglos Anglo-Indian, Anglo-Irish, Anglo-Caribbean, Anglo-Americanpeople of "Anglo-Saxon" ancestry who were born and perhaps raised in a colonized territory but who spent significant portions of their lives in Britain Rudyard Kipling and George Orwell, for example.

Israel and Palestine

The longest of these is the "London" portion of K. Snell's Bibliography of Regional Fiction in Britain and Ireland, 1800-2000 restricted to 1880-1940 for our purposes. Dalloway—it is made up, on the whole, of much more obscure and "popular" texts than those on the Prominent list.

This means that the corpus contains more genre fiction than do the others, especially detective stories, crime and sensation novels, and sociologically inflected accounts of extreme poverty and wealth.

Israel–United Kingdom relations

This fact implies that our large Hathi corpus isn't as complete as researchers in the field might hope, particularly regarding less prominent works unlikely to be held by the mostly American universities that generate HathiTrust's archive. Finally, we assembled the fourth corpus, "Foreign authors in Britain" "Foreign" —which is in some ways the primary object of our investigation—through reference to seven distinct critical studies.

It includes 130 volumes in sum, drawn from: To be included in the Foreign corpus, a book must, in addition to having been named in the critical sources above, have been produced by a writer born and raised overseas and outside Europe who was resident in the UK for some period as an adult, generally as an outsider of one sort or another.

The majority of these authors were from Britain's colonial possessions, especially in the Caribbean, South Asia, and Africa, and were of ethnicities other than white Anglo. Nevertheless, the Foreign corpus includes some books by writers who were generally identified as white. Most of these authors, like Eliot Bliss, William Plomer, and Jean Rhys, were born and raised in colonized territories respectively, Jamaica, South Africa, and Dominica as part of a minority population of colonial occupiers.

Again, because we have aimed to focus on the works and cultural contexts of a subset of authors who have often been left out of literary study, we have not included white writers from white settler colonies Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or the United Statesnor have we included white authors from colonized territories who were educated in Britain and were more "insiders" than "outsiders" in the ruling society such as Rudyard Kipling a comparison of the geography of the united kingdom and israel George Orwell.

But they had—and they continue to have—important, tangible political and social meanings. Among the effects of this difference was an altered balance between novelistic fiction and other prose forms. Put simply, foreign writers often chose—or were forced—to produce boundary-crossing works of travelogue, memoir, narrative history, and expository essays.

To exclude these forms would be to exclude a large portion of literary production by foreigners white and nonwhite alike during the period under consideration. It would also produce deeply misleading results, since the novel represented a uniquely minority form for foreign authors.

We have therefore used, following our critical sources, an expansive understanding of narrative in the Foreign corpus, controlling as appropriate for the resulting generic diversity. Employing methods previously described 40 we extracted named locations from all corpus texts using the Stanford named entity recognizer NER 41 and associated each location string with detailed present-day geographic data via Google's Places and Geocoding APIs.

We know that our bibliographies are subject to interpretation and to the vagaries of scholars' idiosyncratic selections as well as our own.

Many texts identified in the sources are unavailable via HathiTrust or, in a small number of cases, may be misidentified by our automated process of matching bibliographic records.

HathiTrust texts were digitized via scanning and optical character recognition, and contain numerous mistranscriptions. The NER process is imperfect, and subsequent geocoding of even properly recognized locations can fail due to toponymic ambiguity.