MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W276897617

The Promise and the Apology: Speech-Acts, Ethics, and Reading in Mavis Gallant's "The Pegnitz Junction"

2011· article· en· W276897617 sur OpenAlex
Margaret E. Toye

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevuePapers on Language & Literature · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueContemporary Literature and Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWitnessNarrativeReading (process)StorytellingLiteratureHistoryArtLawPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

novella The Pegnitz Junction, a favorite among Mavis Gallant's critics, is also considered her most complex and challenging piece of writing (Schaub 27; Wilkshire 891). Set in post-Second World War Germany, text is produced from Gallant's position as an interested witness. A Canadian reporter during war, Gallant went on to live for rest of her life in Europe, where she wrote a number of works that attempted to come to terms with this traumatic event. Gallant can thus be considered to function as what Ann Kaplan has described as an embodied translator (104), where her writing participates in an of witnessing (122). This important practice of witnessing, Kaplan argues, implies a larger ethical framework that has to do with public recognition of atrocities (122). Gallant's narrative investigates issues of memory, storytelling, writing, reading, speech, and action, and her brilliance lies in her ability to examine issues of language in extremely nuanced ways as well as to engage in analyses in many registers simultaneously, where her technical abilities serve to develop themes of her story. Motivated by a desire not to look at large objective historical or political structures for answers about why Nazi Germany happened but instead to look close up in terms of fascism's small possibilities in (qtd. in Brandt 31), Gallant felt that it was in every living where the origin of worm--the worm that destroyed would be found (qtd. in Schaub 22). Karen Smythe argues that Gallant's stories approach ... an anagnoristic understanding of human potential for inhumane behavior, and of necessity of remembering ethically, so that extremes of sentimentality and irresponsible forgetting--both of which allow evasion of responsibility for past--are condemned (90). At its most basic level, story follows journey of protagonist, a young German woman named Christine, who accompanies her lover, Herbert, and his son little Bert to Paris and then back to Germany. Christine is engaged to marry another man, a theology student, and throughout narrative tries to decide between her two suitors. three travelers depart from a hotel in Paris and embark on a number of train journeys in order to return home; story ends with them still in transit and with characters all in a state of limbo. It is significant that in a narrative that examines such moral themes, Gallant chooses structure of four-fold allegory to allow her to address larger and world historical issues while focusing on every day aspects in characters' lives. Rather than particular being subsumed into some larger symbolism, allegory allows her to engage these other levels where significance of each level remains intact. voyage thus operates at a literal level as a journey through France and Germany; at typological level looking back at past and linking train journeys to those that took Jewish people to death camps in Nazi Germany; at moral level, as questioning of how one should act in present; and, finally, at teleological level, which presents future journey of German people and humanity in general as a question mark, particularly in terms of generations born after war. Yet Gallant's use of allegory is anything but morally programmatic or judgmental. She refuses both binary thinking and moral finger-pointing and instead emphasizes an ethics of listening, reading, rereading, reviewing, and understanding past, even as we realize that any tellings and understandings are going to be selective and limited. In 1940s, Gallant was asked in her capacity as a reporter to write captions to accompany first pictures that were issued of concentration camps. At time, she argued that pictures should speak for themselves, effectively counseling silence and disagreeing with her editors, who wanted something sensationalist (Hancock 39). …

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.

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 enseignants0,909
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,686

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 technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,225
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