MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2082151665 · doi:10.1353/sdn.0.0026

Thomas Hardy Reappraised: Essays in Honour of Michael Millgate (review)

2008· article· en· W2082151665 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Green

Notice bibliographique

RevueStudies in the novel · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHonourHistoryInterpretation (philosophy)Context (archaeology)ClassicsSociologyTheologyPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Thomas Hardy Reappraised: Essays in Honour of Michael Millgate Laura Green Wilson, Keith, Ed. Thomas Hardy Reappraised: Essays in Honour of Michael Millgate. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. xxiii + 304 pp. $65.00. This collection’s subtitle straightforwardly characterizes its contents, a Festschrift for the distinguished Hardy scholar Michael Millgate. The first half of the title, however–Thomas Hardy Reappraised–is more ambiguous. As Keith Wilson writes in his preface, the biographical and historical work on Hardy that Millgate began publishing in the 1970s opened up “an essential context for serious discussion of Hardy’s work” (ix). Millgate himself thus “reappraised” Hardy in two ways: first, by replacing speculation and sensationalism about Hardy’s life with scholarly research; and second, by establishing Hardy’s work as deserving of critical attention. He was soon joined by other scholars, many of them featured here, so that Hardy now “occup[ies] an assured position at the very centre of contemporary literary and cultural studies” (xiii). If Hardy’s position is “assured,” then, in what sense does this collection “reappraise” him? Does the word suggest that it is time to decenter, recenter, or reconsider Hardy’s work or Hardy studies? Or does it signal an homage to and continuation of Millgate’s initial, generative reappraisal? These fifteen previously unpublished essays suggest the latter interpretation. They offer not radical rereadings of Hardy’s work or cultural location but rather careful reconsideration, by distinguished scholars, of its significant themes. The two opening essays, for example, consider Hardy’s relation to religion. Pamela Dalziel places a previously unpublished homiletic exercise, written by Hardy when he was eighteen, in the context of some of his other comments on religion to argue that his Christian convictions were more serious and longer-lasting than many readers have recognized. Mary Rimmer’s essay on Hardy’s “biblical and liturgical allusion” follows nicely from Dalziel’s, surveying Hardy’s poetry and fiction to produce a conclusion similar to Dalziel’s: “Few agnostics present such vexed and contradictory attitudes towards the sacred as Hardy” (32). In favoring such nuanced rereading over more radical claims, these essays typify the volume’s spirit. Wilson has sequenced the essays so as to highlight thematic or methodological connections. The four essays following Dalziel’s and Rimmer’s track allusions (to Hamlet, other poets, children, and stones) in groups of Hardy’s works; among these, Marjorie Garson’s, “Written in Stone: Hardy’s Grotesque Sublime,” stands out for its wide-ranging analysis of Hardy’s representation of stone as a medium that both expresses and resists human history. Drawing on Derrida and Darwin, Garson argues that for Hardy, “though human subjectivity is nothing but writing, it has evolved…in a universe that cannot be written upon,” a situation that “while it renders the human situation ironic, renders the poet’s apprehension of that situation sublime” (112). Each of the next five essays focuses on a single novel to discuss themes ranging from the “erotics of dress” (in Simon Gattrell’s essay on A Pair of Blue Eyes) to [End Page 383] Platonic idealism (in Jeremy Steele’s essay on The Well-Beloved). Of this group, three share a concern with the location of individuals on continuums of natural and social history that also links them to Garson’s essay. Hardy subtitled his second novel, Under the Greenwood Tree, “A Rural Painting of Dutch School,” and Ruth Bernard Yeazell analyzes the tension in the novel between the static scene-painting in Hardy’s description of a group, the Mellstock choir, on the one hand, and his growing “allegiance to plot” (149), adumbrated by the courtship narrative of an individual character, Fancy Day, on the other. J. Hillis Miller’s essay, which follows Yeazell’s, also analyzes a tension in Hardy’s representation of individuals. He juxtaposes Raymond Williams’s emphasis on community with Martin Heidegger’s celebration of radical individuality (“Dasein”) to conclude that Hardy’s pessimistic plotting, in The Return of the Native, endorses neither. The Egdon heath-folk are happy only in their ignorance of “humankind’s true conditions of existence,” but claiming individuality by “detaching onself from the community,” as do Eustacia Vye...

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,910
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,685

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
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)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,133
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,190 · 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

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueStudies in the novelMême sujetThomas Hardy Literature StudiesTravaux en français237 207