MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1995270879 · doi:10.1353/utq.2005.0042

In Muddy Water: Conversations with Eleven Poets (review)

2004· article· en· W1995270879 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Susan Holbrook

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShort Stories in Global Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCLARITYComicsReflexive pronounRepresentation (politics)NarrativeLiteratureSociologyPhilosophyArtLawChemistryPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: In Muddy Water: Conversations with Eleven Poets Susan Holbrook (bio) Robert Budde. In Muddy Water: Conversations with Eleven Poets J. Gordon Shillingford. 154. $18.95 Robert Budde's In Muddy Water: Conversations with Eleven Poets contributes to the ever-pleasing genre of author interviews, with the distinction that the dialogue here is less formal and the questions less programmatic; these discussions, while plenty illuminating, are just more fun. When I saw that Budde's introduction was structured like an interview, that RB was interrogating RB, I have to admit to wincing briefly. At best this would be corny, at worst self-indulgent. But Budde made the most of playing on the structure, often to humorous effect. He tells himself, 'I began the project, as you know, in 2000,' talks to himself at cross-purposes, gets testy (e.g., 'Whoa, cool your academic jets there pal'), and ends on a sweet and comic note, 'RB: Thanks, Rob. Stay close. / RB: You too.' The introduction is, in short, as unassuming and charming as Rob Budde himself. I thought I had one quarrel with the introduction (and, indeed, the book), and was glad of it, because no review should be without some quarrel. Asked by Budde how he chose his subjects, Budde answers 'I know them all. There is no claim to a full representation here and there are far more absences or exclusions than presences. Most of the writers have connections to Winnipeg.' Most? Maybe I was imposing clarity on a book that was trying to stay muddy, but as far as I could see all the writers have connections to Winnipeg. There's discussion of Merk's pub, community and university writing activity, the city's particular geography. The moment I thought maybe the book wasn't about Winnipeg after all, when George Amabile held forth on his formidable pedigree, including live encounters with James Merrill, Marianne Moore, Robert Frost, and T.S. Eliot, Budde responded 'Amazing. ... Were there then any writing influences in Winnipeg?' Unless I was missing some implication carried by the title, could it be that Winnipeg is windy and muddy? It seemed to me that the city could be announced more definitively as a raison d'être for the book. Just in case, I thought, as I slipped my review into its envelope, I'll check the web to see how muddy Winnipeg is. Now I know, as all Winnipeggers know, that Winnipeg means 'muddy water' in Cree. I suppose I could still argue that the title is too much of an inside joke, but like all outsiders who finally catch on and slip inside, I'm not complaining. Topics of conversation here are wonderfully diverse and unpredictable. Having said that, there are a few recurrent touchstones, allowing for their substantive investigation. The notion of writing community, for example, arises frequently, the interactions and mutual inspirations of local networks are teased out. The role of theory is something many of these writers touch upon, suggesting the generative relationships between theory and poetics. In Muddy Water also gives us something not always apparent in author interviews, engaged attention to the nuts and bolts of composition: [End Page 343] metaphor, syntax, punctuation, and what borders on a preoccupation in this book, the line break. The line break, with all its mechanics and magic, is a perennial mystery to writers and I for one can't get enough of it. What I like most about the book is the way it conveys the individual personality of each writer. Often a collection like this bears the overwhelming stamp of the interviewer rather than offering a memorably eclectic gathering. Although Budde definitely holds his own as a knowledgeable and astute reader of their works, authors are given free rein to communicate themselves. Méira Cook is characteristically erudite, George Amabile can talk for five pages uninterrupted, and I don't know if Todd Bruce himself is responsible for the glass-knocking, but twice his comments are interrupted by stage directions: '[sound of beer spilling]' and '[the distinct sound of beer sloshing everywhere].' Difficult as it is to choose a favourite, the conversation among Budde, Dawne McCance, and Robert Kroetsch is...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,074

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0220,010

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 Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,186
Écart entre enseignants0,180 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlyMême sujetShort Stories in Global LiteratureTravaux en français237 207