Margaret Atwood and the Labour of Literary Celebrity. <i>By Lorraine York.</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In her earlier book on Canadian literary celebrity, Literary Celebrity in Canada, Lorraine York (2007) heads her chapter on Margaret Atwood with a comment Atwood made in 1973: "I've been described as the Barbra Streisand of Can Lit … But I think of myself more as the Mary Pickford, spreading joy" (99).As York mentions, Atwood's observation is both wry and self-aware.Mary Pickford, a Canadian actress who eventually became a Hollywood starlet during the silent era, made the transition from the margins of her profession, far from the engines of international celebrity, to a central role as a prominent film producer, public benefactress, and founder of the United Artists film studio.Near the beginning of her own illustrious career, when she herself was becoming a celebrity author, Atwood's pithy comment provides ample evidence of her awareness that her own career trajectory had much in common with Pickford's.In Margaret Atwood and the Labour of Literary Celebrity, Lorraine York examines Atwood's acute awareness of the potential and the dangers of celebrity-and the rewards of managing it wisely.In this lively and provocative book, York focuses on Atwood's celebrity as the product of Atwood's early decision to approach the work of writing and publishing as a cultural industry.Work began in the 1960s, when Atwood took the advice of her friend and mentor Jane Rule to get an agent.In 1976, Atwood professionalized her work and image further when she became the first Canadian author to incorporate herself as O.W. Toad, an anagram of her own name (p. 7).From her careful reading of the correspondence archived by Atwood and O.W. Toad, York shows that Atwood is neither helpless in the face of unmanageable fame, nor an empty sign managed by others.Rather, Atwood is a canny author and self-aware cultural worker who treats the craft of writing as an art, and treats the management of her career and image as serious business."Margaret Atwood" as a brand is the result of decades of collaboration between Atwood; the office of O.W. Toad and its assistant-who manages her correspondence and her public appearances to promote new books and projects; her longtime agent, Phoebe Larmore; and a group of editors who work with the content and presentation of Atwood's writing at every step in the production process.Atwood has created a network of business associates who help her make decisions and manage the business of what Graham Huggan (2001) has called "Atwood Inc.," while she remains at the centre of the production of both her image and the cultural products that bear her name.At the same time she is often ironic, even caustic, about her own fame and about the idea of writing as a business.York reserves her judgement about Atwood's stance about celebrity, calling it "complicated" (p.132).She does say at many points that
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».