MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2953122944 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2018.0017

Making Oscar Wilde by Michèle Mendelssohn

2018· article· en· W2953122944 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John G. Peters

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBiographyPoetryAestheticismArt historyLiteratureArtHistoryClassics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Making Oscar Wilde by Michèle Mendelssohn John G. Peters Making Oscar Wilde by Michèle Mendelssohn; pp. 360. Oxford UP, 2018. $33.05 cloth. Michèle mendelssohn has written a useful, clear, and engaging biography of Oscar Wilde. Making Oscar Wilde adds productively to other Wilde biographies because of its emphasis on Wilde’s early life and in particular on how those early experiences contributed to Wilde the public figure and Wilde the aesthete author he would later become. [End Page 150] As do other biographers, Mendelssohn begins with Wilde’s early years (1854–81) but emphasizes how his very early experiences would influence Wilde’s later career. She then moves to Wilde’s lecture tour of America and spends roughly two-thirds of the book on this single year (1882) of Wilde’s life. Mendelssohn spends the final part of her book on the last seventeen years of Wilde’s life, often pointing back to Wilde’s experience in America to show the origins of Wilde’s mature literary production. Despite this seemingly unbalanced coverage, Mendelssohn generally justifies such emphasis on a single year of Wilde’s life, as she shows how Wilde’s various experiences during his lecture tour were crucial in his development as an author and personality. Furthermore, Mendelssohn is particularly thorough in her research and has the advantages of Internet archives and resources that only in the past decade or so have been widely available to biographers. She makes good use of these sources in carefully documenting the evidence in support of her various conclusions. While reading, I felt fully convinced of her conclusions, especially her major argument concerning the crucial role Wilde’s lecture tour had on his later literary works. I do, however, have several minor reservations. First, although Mendelssohn effectively supports her conclusions, I sometimes wondered about the direct relevance of some of the chapters in part 2 (the chapters covering Wilde’s lecture tour in America). These chapters are well written and interesting, but a few seem rather tangentially relevant to Mendelssohn’s main argument. I wonder whether the chapter on Jefferson Davis, the chapter on the lynching in Louisiana, and even the chapter on Wilde’s views on Irish politics, for example, really further Mendelssohn’s main argument concerning the role the lecture tour had on Wilde’s later literary career and celebrity status. Second, part 3 of Making Oscar Wilde moves almost directly from Wilde’s return to the United Kingdom in January 1883 to the latter part of the decade with very little discussion of the intervening years. Finally, Mendelssohn’s biography takes the reader (relatively quickly) through Wilde’s mature literary period as well as his trial and death a few years later. Again, all of this is well written and of interest, but, since this biography is about the making of Oscar Wilde, a discussion of Wilde in his mature state would seem to go beyond the scope of Mendelssohn’s main argument. The author does at times point back to Wilde’s earlier experiences and their role in making Wilde’s mature period, but I still felt that much of this section of the book was a little tangential to Mendelssohn’s main purpose in writing this biography. In the end, though, these are minor quibbles with a very fine work of biography that will be of value to scholars for many years to come. [End Page 151] John G. Peters University of North Texas Copyright © 2019 Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada

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)0,000
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: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,694
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
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)0,0090,001

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 Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · 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
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

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian reviewMême sujetShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismTravaux en français237 207