MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4300003213 · doi:10.1353/mlr.2022.0148

Dostoevsky at 200: The Novel in Modernity ed. by Katherine Bowers and Kate Holland

2022· article· en· W4300003213 sur OpenAlex

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

RevueThe Modern Language Review · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueRussian Literature and Bakhtin Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésModernityHonourPlot (graphics)NarrativeLiteratureTemporalitySemioticsPhilosophyHistoryArt historyArtEpistemologyArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Dostoevsky at 200: The Novel in Modernity ed. by Katherine Bowers and Kate Holland Christina Karakepeli Dostoevsky at 200: The Novel in Modernity. Ed. by Katherine Bowers and Kate Holland. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2021. x+254 pp. $75. ISBN 978–1–4875–0863–0. This volume marks the bicentennial of Fedor Dostoevskii’s birth. It includes ten chapters by Dostoevskii scholars treating modernity and formal representation in the writer’s fiction, all offering different perspectives on how Dostoevskii reacted to ‘the sense of a new temporality’ and ‘experience of acceleration’ (p. 3) introduced by the radical reforms which restructured mid-nineteenth-century Russian society. Each contributor aims to ‘situate Dostoevskii’s formal choices of narrative, plot, genre, and characterization within modernity’ to show how his fiction both embraces and challenges the peculiarities of modern life, focusing on his major novels (p. 11). Kate Holland’s chapter discusses the duel plot in Notes from Underground and The Adolescent. Holland suggests that Dostoevskii’s heroes are experiencing a ‘semiotic crisis’ (p. 21), guided by an honour system that has lost its symbolic powers. The motifs of the slap and the duel are subverted and ‘repurposed [. . .] for a new historical moment [. . .] that yearns for the order of the honour code’ (p. 26). Anna Berman focuses on Dostoevskii’s ‘distinctive conception of the family’, arguing that he rejects the marriage plot by undermining the ‘standard family plot of matrimony and reproduction’ (p. 42). She analyses ‘queerness’ in Dostoevskii’s depiction of non-conventional families constructed not through ‘heterosexual reproduction but through active love’ (p. 50). Vadim Shneyder examines two female characters— Alena Ivanovna, the pawnbroker in Crime and Punishment, and Grushenka, the love interest of both Dmitrii Karamazov and his father—to describe how ‘money, gender and power interact in Dostoevskii’s fiction’ (p. 62). Melissa Frazier’s and Alexey Vdovin’s chapters both discuss Dostoevskii’s engagement with nineteenth-century natural sciences, respectively the ‘physiological psychologist’ George Henry Lewes (Frazier, p. 82) and Ivan Sechenov’s physiological treatise Reflexes of the Brain (Vdovin). Sarah J. Young looks at sense perception—specifically hearing and vision—in Crime and Punishment and The Adolescent to describe how the senses in Dostoevskii’s fiction ‘embody not only the perceiving consciousness but also the object of their perception’ (p. 119), reifying experience in order to access ‘the material world beneath the surface of reality’ (p. 123). Katherine Bowers’s chapter examines links between the Gothic genre and The Idiot in Dostoevskii’s use of Gothic narrative markers to generate affective experience for both characters and readers. Bowers centres her chapter on the recurring image of the so-called Gothic corpse [End Page 728] as depicted in Holbein’s painting Dead Christ and throughout the novel. Greta Matzner-Gore takes up Dostoevskii’s fascination with ‘moral statistics’ (p. 160), arguing that Dostoevskii creates a ‘poetics of improbability’ in both Crime and Punishment and Notes from Underground which challenges statistical determinism. Chloë Kitzinger discusses the notion of illegitimacy in The Adolescent. Following Lukács and Bakhtin, she describes how Dostoevskii creates the illusion of realism in his novels by disguising illegitimacy as ‘mimetic completeness’ (p. 178). Finally, Ilya Kliger examines Dostoevskii’s ‘imaginaries of sovereignty’ (p. 213) in the characters of Raskolnikov and Stavrogin. While some chapters are more tangential to the overarching theme of modernity and form than the editors might have intended (and the frequent references to The Adolescent might confuse readers not familiar with Dostoevskii’s arguably least-known novel), Dostoevsky at 200 is an important addition to Dostoevskii scholarship. By eschewing psychological or strictly narratological analyses, the contributors espouse a turn to the external world, whether this signifies Dostoevskii’s engagement with science, his characters’ reactions to the material world, or their positioning within societal structures. Rather than limiting their focus to Dostoevskii and modernity, the authors collected in this volume achieve something else: they offer different assessments of the writer’s experience of reality and its reinvention in his novels in order to describe how realism succeeded in making ‘the fantastic and imaginary more real’ than the everyday (p. 120). As this volume argues, Dostoevskii’s fictionalization...

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: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,663
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,718

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 technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,289
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · 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