MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2029674673 · doi:10.1353/crv.2006.0011

"Taking Them to the Moon in a Station Wagon": An Interview with Ann-Marie MacDonald

2005· article· en· W2029674673 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melanie Lee Lockhart, Ann-Marie MacDonald

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSympathyPrideAppealIdeal (ethics)SociologyLawPsychoanalysisMedia studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

"Taking Them to the Moon in a Station Wagon":An Interview with Ann-Marie MacDonald Melanie Lee Lockhart (bio) (by telephone, May 11, 1998) Melanie Lee Lockhart: I've heard you characterize your project as the "fight to make the world larger." Could you touch on the strategies you use to appeal to a wider audience—how you bring other points of view into the body of your work? Ann-Marie MacDonald: I don't try to create an ideal world. I don't try to fix the world, in my novel for example. I try to include as much of what I see being there as possible, and enter into sympathy with the various points of view. For example, entering into sympathy with James and his destructive desires and ambitions. Entering into sympathy with Teresa and her rage and her racism and her pride—she has stuff in common with James at that level. And we can definitely say, well, she has reason and he doesn't—we could argue that. But I try not to apologize or to justify points of view, but to illuminate them. I'm not trying to change the characters, to change James into somebody who won't abuse his daughter. I'm not trying to change Teresa—I mean, she shoots somebody. I'm not trying to make anyone better or worse than they really are. But try to see that their actions will have results and repercussions. And somewhere, symphonically, each of them is playing an instrument. And they have no idea that they are playing in the same orchestra. They have no idea that they're all—and I guess this is my vision as a storyteller—that, wittingly or unwittingly, they are all contributing to the narrative and to the various explosions of the narrative. For example, Frances being shot is a process that [End Page 139] began when her older sister met Rose in New York City. It continued when Frances started to try to seduce Ginger. It was compounded when Ginger heard Rose play the piano in Harlem when Rose was masquerading as a man. All the steps are there. Basically, the Luvovitzes and the Taylors and Teresa, the black people, the Jewish people, the Lebanese people, the white people, you know, the Anglo people, many of them share the same prejudices and the very same self-images. And I like to show that because it's ironic. And many of their clannish qualities are very endearing, and many of us can identify with them, but it's also necessary that they be put up against pluralism and democracy and individuality, and the right of people to be individuals, not just products of their culture, or of the old country. And it's in that collision, the tension between the old country, the family, the racial, cultural, clannish values, colliding with the contemporary world in a way that the secular world, the world that says you're an individual no matter what colour you are, it doesn't matter. And the irony, of course, is that it matters, not just because you'll be discriminated against, but because that gives you power too! It gives you identity. It does matter. But it's in that tension and it's in that collision that I find the stories. Not wanting to lose what you've been born with, what your parents have given you, but knowing that you have to lose some of it in order to embrace what's going to be yours. And to be part of a secular, democratic culture, you move out of that inner ring—but you try to keep both things going. MLL: Would you say that's what your writing is for—to bring these various experiences and discourses into communication with one another? AMM: Well, I don't set out with a mission, you know. But it seems to me there's a lot of drama there, there's a lot of pain and a lot of effort, and a lot of very, very good intentions, and a lot of anger. People are always terrified of losing something, terrified of change...

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 candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,948
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,948

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,286
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · 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.

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

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

En bref

Citations4
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Review of American StudiesMême sujetAmerican and British Literature AnalysisTravaux en français237 207