Reading (and writing) the ethics of authorship: Shakespeare in Love as postmodern metanarrative
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Answer me only this: are you author of plays of William Shakespeare? -Viola De Lessups to Will Shakespeare in Shakespeare in Love Although Shakespeare in Love (1998) enjoyed rave reviews in popular press, some critics in intelligentsia question artistic significance of film's postmodern aspirations. In an article in Chronicle of Higher Education, for example, Martin Harries reserves special disdain for intrusion, via series of anachronisms, of popular culture into film's screenplay, written by Marc Norman and playwright Tom Stoppard.1 Harries ascribes these textual gestures to desire on filmmakers' part to pander to Hollywood narcissism: The anachronisms give comforting illusion of closeness, Harries writes, but this closeness can never overcome distance between entertainment as industry and more fragile and, finally, more mysterious business of Globe, Rose, and Theater (B9). For Harries, Norman and Stoppard's screenplay only succeeds in satisfying Hollywood's ostensible yen for reinvisaging itself, rather implausibly, as an Elizabethan theatrical enterprise. A. O. Scott similarly derides Shakespeare in Love as a frisson of self-congratulatory pleasure. A Senior Editor of Lingua Franca, Scott devotes particular attention to problematizing Stoppard's obvious role in construction of film's anachronistic puns, linguistic games, and witty textual paradoxes. What we get is mostly less than meets eye: erudition of cocktail party and emotional range of good TV sitcom, middlebrow pleasures dressing up in trappings of high learning, Scott writes. Troubled by what they perceive to be film's intellectual masquerade, Harries and Scott essentially misconstrue narrative structure of Norman and Stoppard's screenplay as mere product of linguistic high jinks and textual diversions, rather than as carefully constructed and highly literate text that offers valuable insight into contemporary conceptions of authorship, semantics of love, and humanistic possibilities of postmodernity. In fact, Scott even refuses to acknowledge Shakespeare in Love's explicitly postmodern narrative design, preferring instead to refer to John Madden's Academy-Award-winning film as brain-teaser and as without difficulty. Clearly, modernism implies literary tradition that essentializes art forms through its adherence to universal belief system founded upon logic, rationality, and existence of moral center. Scott's flawed terminology hardly begins to account for postmodern narrative philosophy that undergirds Shakespeare in Love. Availing themselves of such techniques as metanarration and parody in their screenplay, Norman and Stoppard recognize indeterminacy of language and multivocality inherent in kinds of intertextual discourse evinced by such Stoppard plays as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1967) and Travesties (1974). As with Shakespeare in Love, latter play argues for elasticity of history as Stoppard stages an imaginary encounter in early twentieth-century Zurich that features Lenin, James Joyce, and Dadaist Tristan Tzara. In Sequel to History: Postmodernism and Crisis of Representational Time (1992), Elizabeth Deeds Ermarth observes that the best definition of postmodern narrative might be precisely that it resolutely does not operate according to any of historical time, that is, representational time, and in many cases directly parodies or disputes that time and generalizations it allows to form (43). Postmodernists such as Stoppard deliberately flaunt constructed nature of history and sanctity of historical truth in their texts. Shifting back and forth across arbitrary borders of linear time, such writers embrace resulting multiplicity of cultural perspectives that negation of history necessarily allows. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Stoppard challenges modernist notions of authorship by narrating Shakespeare's Hamlet from play's textual margins. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,027 | 0,008 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».