MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1984183617 · doi:10.1353/mdr.0.0101

Edward Albee (review)

2009· article· en· W1984183617 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas P. Adler

Notice bibliographique

RevueModern Drama · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHonourScholarshipExistentialismHumanismLiteratureArtHistoryArt historyPhilosophyTheologyLawEpistemologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Edward Albee Thomas P. Adler Toby Zinman . Edward Albee. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008. Pp. 163, illustrated. $18.95 (Pb). Although not intended as such, Toby Zinman's engaging book might almost be seen as a companion to the recently published three-volume Collected Plays of Edward Albee, whose appearance she mentions in her introduction. Arranged chronologically, the book's brief essays (anywhere from four to fourteen pages long) introduce theatregoers and readers to each of Albee's original, though not his four adapted, works from The Zoo Story (1958) through Occupant (2008). As befits a series of books on modern dramatists that Michigan intends to be "concise" and "accessible," Zinman's approach is informal and even chatty. Surprising, however, for a university press book is the virtual absence of any reference to or acknowledgement of the previous academic scholarship about Albee's plays. [End Page 254] Zinman's method is appropriately suggestive rather than prescriptive, eschewing what she calls "hermetically sealed interpretations" and offering instead strategies or possibilities to help audiences generate "their own understandings and appreciations" (2). So Zoo Story, along with being seen as "a sociopolitical critique" indicting a society that values "materialism instead of humanism" (17), is also given several allegorical (Christian, existential, homosexual, psychological) readings. Or Seascape (1975) (not, as Zinman says, the first of Albee's works to win the Pulitzer, an honour earlier accorded A Delicate Balance [1966]) is discussed from the perspective of "Literary Darwinism" (79) as well as being subjected to various mythic, political, and gender approaches. One of Zinman's richest chapters considers a play thus far little analysed, The Goat or, Who is Sylvia? (2002), which she regards as Albee's most explicit examination of "the limits of tolerance" (141) and of the enormous difficulty of understanding "the vagaries of human passion (149). She concludes that, for the playwright, "human sexuality is more complex, far wider, deeper, and less governable than we generally think" (149). Occasionally, an observation will seem strained, as when Zinman proposes that The Sandbox (1959) be viewed as Albee's "comment on the movies [as] the Angel of Death to the theater" (34). Zinman's play-by-play format, however, never allows her to see Albee whole and compels readers to do much of the synthesizing for themselves, without an index to assist in that. Zinman does provide some connections along the way, by mentioning writers who influenced Albee (in particular Beckett, but also Ibsen and Kafka, Pinter and O'Neill, though Pirandello is unaccountably missing); by making fresh and unexpected allusions (to Einstein and Bohr and Coetzee or to Kiss Me, Kate / The Taming of the Shrew, Two Gentlemen of Verona, and the Shakespearean green world); and by addressing both Albee's distinctive use of language (Delicate Balance, All Over [1971] and Counting the Ways [1977]) and his indebtedness to musical forms (Box and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse Tung [1968], Listening [1976], and Fragments [1991]). She notices, as well, repeated narrative devices: the arrival of intruders who put other characters to a test (several plays from Zoo Story on) or the centrality of a real or illusory child (from The American Dream [1960] and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? [1962] to The Play about the Baby [1998]). Finally, she points to recurrent thematic motifs that mark many of Albee's most significant works: the necessity of rejecting a too-comfortable status quo; the need to embrace "the challenge of change" (65) and the possibility for growth it brings with it; the "power of memory to reinvent reality" (120); the certainty of "loss" that accompanies "time's pressures and its passage" (8); and "the inevitably of mortality" (33) and our fear in the face of it. In citing acts of betrayal as a dominant failure on the part of Albee's characters, Zinman might well have underscored more sharply rejections [End Page 255] of the other predicated on loathing or prejudice of a sexual nature, especially in the case of the central character in Three Tall Women (1991) who ostracizes her son for his homosexuality. Of course, what frequently appears as betrayal in Albee's works from Zoo Story...

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,839
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueModern DramaMême sujetCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary ResearchTravaux en français237 207