MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2064107303 · doi:10.1353/esc.2007.0074

Faith in the Faithless: An Inter(re)view with Linda Hutcheon

2006· article· en· W2064107303 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brad Bucknell

Notice bibliographique

RevueEnglish studies in Canada · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFaithPremisePostmodernismComicsAdaptation (eye)HistorySociologyPhilosophyLiteratureArt historyEpistemologyArtPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Faith in the Faithless:An Inter(re)view with Linda Hutcheon Brad Bucknell Linda Hutcheon is University Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto and is arguably one of the most prolific of Canadian scholars. A Theory of Adaptation (New York: Routledge, 2006) is her ninth solo effort. A Theory of Adaptation points out the pervasiveness of adaptation in the current multimedia climate but also shows how the practice has had long and deep connections to literary and cultural practices long before the present. As with elements of the postmodern, the new is not so new after all. Hutcheon is at pains to point out that "there are many and varied motives behind adaptation and few involve faithfulness" (xiii). "Faithfulness" assumes a singular origin, a stable source from which anything that follows must flow. The notion of being faithful has guided many earlier studies of the relations between, say, fiction and film, comics and video games. Her premise is not so much that of Borges or Eliot, where the present re-writes the past but, rather, that the adapted text "challeng[es] the authority of any notion of priority. Multiple versions exist laterally, not vertically" (xiii). Fidelity to the text being adapted is, then, not the issue here. [End Page 157] There is an interesting double movement in this book, perhaps linked to Hutcheon's ongoing love of such "mixed" media as opera. Opera, as anyone who experiences this form in any way knows very well, is often a vexing thing. Its "problem" is that it resembles nothing so much as the bad puppet show in Don Quixote. There, the Don knows the story being told so much better than the marionettes; he sees through the bad staging and faulty illusion, the exaggerated emotion. Yet, when the fair damsel is finally at risk, he draws his sword and rushes the stage. In other words, representations of all kinds seem to possess this unaccountable quality, this perhaps all-too-human dimension so resistant to theorization or to "reason." Hutcheon, then, continues her career-long struggle to understand the powerful relationship between the human and the representational. Hence, she points out that the "'intertextual' or the dialogic relations among texts" are never strictly a "formal issue" (xii). Rather, "[w]orks in any medium are both created by and received by people, and it is this human, experiential context that allows for the study of the politics of intertextuality" (emphasis in original). For many who work cross-disciplinarily, the interesting moment here is Hutcheon's need to go further than the notion of the intertext has formerly taken us. The following interview took place over several months during the spring and summer of 2006. On the English Studies in Canada website ,readers can find a recorded interview with Linda Hutcheon. (Just follow the links to ESC Radio). * * * BB How did you come up with the idea of working on adaptations? LH Anyone interested in postmodernism and parody likely can't ignore adaptation for long. What I realized was that most people worked on literature to film and most did case studies. I like to tackle things across media and across genres, so I thought there might be room for a "theory of adaptation." BB It strikes me that almost all of your work takes a very optimistic view of things. You continually accentuate the positive. In the present book, for instance, you make it clear from the start that one of your main purposes is to force your readers to recognize the prevalence of adaptations. You also note the almost endless stream of negative descriptors used in regard to adaptations (2–3). Your purpose often seems to be to rehabilitate those [End Page 158] forms or cultural/aesthetic practices which for whatever reason are often sneered at. LH It's either my postmodern de-hierarchalizing impulse or my Pollyanna personality defect, I suppose. Maybe both? I can't do much about the latter, but I will confess to a real pleasure in trying to make the culturally denigrated newly appreciated. I enjoyed taking on postmodernism when "pomo-bashing" was the name of the game; ditto for adaptations. Have you...

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)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
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: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,094
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,196

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0210,044
Communication savante0,0150,025
Science ouverte0,0020,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,020
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

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 Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,248
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · 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
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

Citations11
Publié2006
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEnglish studies in CanadaMême sujetShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismTravaux en français237 207