MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2113017948 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2005.0015

Love Confounded: Revaluing the Great Tradition by Brian Crick (review)

2005· article· en· W2113017948 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael John DiSanto

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPassionCriticismAsidePhilosophyReading (process)SociologyPsychoanalysisEpistemologyHistoryLiteraturePsychologyArtLinguisticsSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviews Brian Crick. Love Confounded: Revaluing the Great Tradition. (Denton, Norfolk: Edgeways, 2004), vii + 288 pp. ¿30.00. The best way to characterize Brian Crick's Love Confoundedis to invoke his own words when describing George EUot's Middlemarch: the book is both "a serious piece of Uterary criticism" into how Shakespeare and several major noveUsts think about the relationship between sexual passion and marriage as weU as a "decisive critique of the Uterary and cultural Ufe" that prevails at the present time (174, 177). Throughout the book, the central issue is passion and Crick raises difficult questions about the role of passion or the lack thereof in contemporary Ufe and Uterary criticism. In one way, Crick concludes that passion has been inteUectuaUy discounted from serious consideration in our thinking, at least partiaUy because of the methods and systems that we increasingly rely upon as readers and as a society as a whole. The impUcation is that passion is identified as irrational because it cannot be accounted for scientificaUy and is therefore simply put aside. Having been aU but ignored, our capacity for passion is uneducated and severely underdeveloped if not warped. There is no mistaking that Crick is nodding in agreement when he invokes one of Kierkegaard's judgements of his age: "Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion" (143). Part of the difficulty in reading the book is that Crick is unequivocal in his attack on many of the methodological assumptions underlying scholarship on Uterature. Like one of the noveUsts whom he admires, Crick attempts to "lay bare the want of passion EmUy Brontë charges her prospective audience with" and raises the difficult question of whether "the reception of the [book] proves the indictment true and just" (147). Being a scholar myself, I fear there is some danger that my response to Crick's book will manifest what he identifies as "the weirdest combination of sophistication and emotional arrest" in academic readers (25). To use Crick's own summary of his book, his "concern throughout has to do with how Shakespeare and his inheritors, the major noveUsts from Austen to Lawrence, represent famiUal relations, especiaUy those of brother and sister and father and daughter and married love" (18). When simpUfied to a "naked formula," Crick's argument is that "close family ties between members of the opposite sex" are represented as if they were a model for marriage, or "the prospect of love between husband and wife is posed as a threat to the prior commitment" (18). Each chapter is built upon 126volume 31 number2 Reviews unfashionably close readings of King Lear, Mansfield Park, David Copperfield, Wuthering Heights, The Mill on the Floss, Middlemarch and A Pairof Blue Eyes, novels in which Crick diagnoses how noveUsts seem doomed to write insufficiently critical variations on the terribly unsettling quaUty of the love between CordeUa and Lear. However, unUke Shakespeare, the noveUsts shy away from passion as if it were a threat to our Uving, thereby undermining an important part of our nature. So when George EUot represents passion between Dorothea and Ladislaw in the love scene towards the end of Middlemarch, the result is something embarrassingly adolescent. Or, when Dickens treats the marriages between older men and younger women in David Copperfield, the relationships resemble those between father and daughter. Although assenting to F. R. Leavis's sense of a great tradition of EngUsh noveUsts indebted to Shakespeare, Crick raises serious doubts, suggesting that the maturity of the writers falters when it comes to love and sex, at least until Conrad and Lawrence began writing revaluations of their predecessors in the early twentieth century. In The SecretAgent, Crick identifies Conrad's profound criticism of the domestic drama in the novel tradition that he inherited in the representation of the Verloc family. In short, by slowing kiUing off an entire family Conrad explodes with a vengeance the ideas about love and domestic Ufe found in the EngUsh novel. Love Confounded closes with a discussion of D. H. Lawrence that primarily focuses on The Rainbow but also makes important aUusions to some of his shorter works. A careful consideration...

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 candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
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 enseignants0,227
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0170,003

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 Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

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
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian reviewMême sujetCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary ResearchTravaux en français237 207