MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2207937240 · doi:10.1353/scb.2015.0008

Daniel Defoe, Contrarian by Robert James Merrett

2015· review· en· W2207937240 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maximillian E. Novak

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats · 2015
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWater Governance and Infrastructure
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNarrativePhilosophyMeaning (existential)The ImaginaryLiteratureAmbiguityIntertextualitySophisticationEpistemologyAestheticsArtPsychoanalysisPsychologyLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Daniel Defoe, Contrarian by Robert James Merrett Maximillian Novak Robert James Merrett. Daniel Defoe, Contrarian. Toronto: Toronto, 2013. Pp. xx + 409. $52.50. There are many excellent things about Mr. Merrett’s most recent book on Defoe. He writes with a full grasp of Defoe’s canon and is not afraid of deviating from the bibliography amassed by P. N. Furbank and W. R. Owens. The judgments of someone so familiar with Defoe’s writings have to be taken seriously. He also writes with a considerable critical sophistication. In a footnote, he quotes Lincoln Faller on Defoe’s ambiguity: ‘‘Defoe alerts his readers to move through them [his writings] with maximal curiosity. Trying to sift the actual out from the invented is not so important as looking for the meaning that stands behind both, and which makes both equally useful.’’ In much the same manner, Mr. Merrett reveals how complex Defoe actually can be—how we must be constantly aware of how Defoe’s texts undercut surface meanings. Indeed in the final chapter, titled ‘‘Defoe’s Imaginary,’’ he shows how full of images the fictional prose can be and how, through those images, Defoe sometimes conducts arguments that may, under certain circumstances, involve directions quite different from that supplied by the flow of the surface narrative. And he demonstrates how conscious Defoe was about the ways in which words convey their meanings. He maintains that Defoe realized that ‘‘fallibility and delusion are narrative resources,’’ and that his invitation to the reader ‘‘consists of inducing readers to read past the inconsistencies of his characters and narrator and to recognize textual aporias with a compassion and reflexive awareness that entails sharing self-consciousness about speech acts and figurative thinking with the implied author.’’ Mr. Merrett brings into his discussions a wide range of modern thought, from Wolfgang Iser to Frank Kermode, from Julian Jaynes to J. L. Austin, and they often afford him provocative ways into Defoe’s texts. His favorite critical approach, however, is contained in the title—Defoe as a ‘‘contrarian.’’ In the quotations at the beginning of his work, he includes Heraclitus on ‘‘opposite tensions’’ and Blake’s ‘‘Without Contraries is no progression.’’ I am not certain that Mr. Merrett’s readings of these concepts produce the feeling that they are alike or compatible. Defoe certainly did not operate with a systematic connection between oppositions such as Blake offered, though he may have been aware [End Page 69] that such a system represented a common enough pattern of thought in the Renaissance. Mr. Merrett offers ‘‘polar’’ thinking as a synonym for ‘‘contrarian,’’ though I am not sure I understand this concept as applied to Defoe. He quotes Peter Thorslev on polar thinking, but Thorslev considered this a wrongheaded way of approaching argument. Thinking in contraries was certainly part of the love of paradox so common in the seventeenth century, and Defoe frequently indulged himself in a pattern of thinking that approached ideas by balancing one view against another without arriving at a firm conclusion. During his early life this would have been considered a way of avoiding the appearance of being overly dogmatic. To some of his eighteenth-century readers, such a paradoxical approach created the appearance of mental confusion. On the other hand, Mr. Merrett rightfully stresses Defoe’s approaching subjects in a way that sometimes seemed offensive and occasionally shocking to his contemporaries. My quarrel with Mr. Merrett’s picture of Defoe is that he reads all of Defoe’s writings as emanations of the young man who was, at one time, training to be a dissenting minister. We do not know why he gave up this profession, but we do know that he abandoned it to engage in various (somewhat shady) business ventures and finally to become a writer on economic, political, and social themes. Mr. Merrett, unfortunately, attempts to read A Tour thro’ the Whole Island of Great Britain and The Compleat English Tradesman as essentially works about Christianity. This is simply not viable. For example, it was understood in the seventeenth century that writing on economics was about the world as it was, not as it should be. Any...

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)0,002
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: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,486
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,866

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,317
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · 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
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
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Scriblerian and the Kit-CatsMême sujetWater Governance and InfrastructureTravaux en français237 207