MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2006933929 · doi:10.1353/mdr.2011.0038

Another Part of a Long Story: Literary Traces of Eugene O'Neill and Agnes Boulton (review)

2011· article· en· W2006933929 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tamsen Wolff

Notice bibliographique

RevueModern Drama · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMemoirLiteraturePortraitCriticismLiterary criticismArt historyArtPhilosophyHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Another Part of a Long Story: Literary Traces of Eugene O'Neill and Agnes Boulton Tamsen Wolff William Davies King . Another Part of a Long Story: Literary Traces of Eugene O'Neill and Agnes Boulton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010. Pp. xix + 299. With Another Part of a Long Story, William Davies King offers the first considered account of the marriage between Eugene O'Neill and the writer Agnes Boulton, which lasted over a decade and produced two children. King illustrates how Boulton has been misrepresented in biographies of O'Neill, not to mention dismissed with regard to her own life and literary achievements. Her memoir about her life with O'Neill, Part of a Long Story, from which King takes his title, was criticized mainly because it contradicted popular understandings of the playwright. Published in 1958, two years after O'Neill's autobiographical Long Day's Journey into Night received its posthumous, critically heralded premiere, Boulton's book painted a very different portrait of a young O'Neill. Most critics rejected her version, and a few even denounced the book as a cheap attempt to exploit the playwright's death. King effectively refutes this criticism and identifies the ways in which Boulton was a successful writer in her own right. He writes, It would be silly to pretend that her life demands a telling the way his does. And yet it is somehow because she did not accumulate that mantle of literary history herself, because she has never been a topic of biographical interest except in relation to O'Neill, and because it seems dubious, that it ought to be done. (20) [End Page 395] King's reclamation of Boulton is valuable, in part because of her talents but also because, in closely examining her life, King provides significant insight into some of the particular challenges facing a liberated woman writer in the early twentieth century. At the same time, the book is devoted equally to O'Neill and his writing over the course of his relationship with Boulton. The chapters are organized chronologically, examining biographical developments alongside the literary output of the two authors. King emphasizes that Boulton and O'Neill addressed marriage in stories and plays while self-consciously reflecting on the practice and institution in their life together. In the mid-1920s, for instance, O'Neill and Boulton participated in the pioneering study A Research in Marriage, conducted by neurologist Dr. Gilbert Hamilton. Even as O'Neill responded to the study's lengthy questionnaire on marriage, he was producing drama on the subject. As King's subtitle suggests, he reads all of O'Neill and Boulton's literary work (as well as diaries and correspondence) for information about the marriage. This approach to the literature is most instructive when the pair actually worked on something together, as was the case with the revision of a play O'Neill first wrote in 1917 entitled The Guilty One and Beyond the Horizon (1920). Here, King provides evidence of an exchange between the couple, written on and about a specific text. Literary collaboration of any kind between O'Neill and Boulton was unusual, however, so King often pursues a kind of conjectural detective work in their drama and fiction. Analysing the earlier years when Boulton was most productive, for example, King describes her stories in great detail in the hunt for clues about her life. In one instance, he places parenthetical queries beside the names of fictional characters in her story (is X the real-life counterpart? Or is Y?), which underscores how speculative this endeavour is (61). Toward the end of the book, King speculates in a different fashion: "Doing some aggressive editorial work," King changes the notes that Boulton wrote on the occasion of O'Neill's death in order to create improved, "lovely lines" of poetry (210). Doing so allows him to make a perfectly feasible connection to a poem O'Neill had written in 1919 and to suggest the possibility that O'Neill's original poem was written with Boulton in mind. Nonetheless, this is a move that highlights the creative leaps necessary to draw some of the book's conclusions...

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
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 enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,021

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,003

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 Opus0,090
Tête enseignante GPT0,277
Écart entre enseignants0,187 · 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
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueModern DramaMême sujetCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary ResearchTravaux en français237 207