The Alchemy of Laughter: Comedy in English Fiction by Glen Cavaliero (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
MLR, 97.4, 2002 925 eloquent tribute to Scottish folk-song, not as the artless expression of some primitive innocence but as a modern form of giedd. University of Ottawa Andrew Taylor The Alchemy of Laughter: Comedy in English Fiction. By Glen Cavaliero. Basingstoke : Macmillan; New York: St Martin's Press. 2000. xi + 255 pp. ?42.50. The advantage of the The Alchemy of Laughter is its freedom to range over a wide field of English fictional comedy, reminding us of the familiar (especially of the comic greats, Fielding, Sterne, Austen, Dickens, Thackeray, whose work understandably receives the largest proportion of Glen Cavaliero's attention) and of the less remembered (such as Peacock, 'Saki', Oliphant, and the elder Powys broth? ers), and alerting us to the comic pleasures to be found in those now obscure originals who have escaped our attention, or who rarely feature in books written for an academic readership. The book was written, says Cavaliero, 'simply for the pleasure of it' (p. ix), and certainly his reading for it, and the act of writing it, will have been keenly pleasurable. The disadvantage of the book is that it has nothing to say. What is crippling about studies that span is their tendency to deal with all readers as beginners. 'The medium of Tristram Shandy is the narrator's consciousness: time is internalised, events are described not as they chronologically occur but as they surface in Tristram's mind' (p. 64). Yes, so it is, and so they are. 'Whereas the marriage of Jane to Bingley is between two fundamentally complaisant people who match each other, that between Elizabeth and Darcy is between two who complement each other' (p. 47). Absolutely. Admirers of Thomas Hardy will probably be admirers of Walter Scott; those of Jane Austen, of Henry James. And those who enjoy Trollope are likely to appreciate the work of Evelyn Waugh, even though the two writers differ drastically in several ways' (p. 109). Good to get that one sorted out. Not that Cavaliero confines himself to bland statements of the obvious. There is controversy here. Can it really be asserted, forexample, that the 'world' of Three Men in a Boat is 'classless' (p. 11)? Can we really consent to view 'the eighteenth-century Enlightenment' and 'nineteenth-century Romanticism' as encouragements to people on the path to the 'twentieth-century convictions as to the human right to spiritual autonomy and the importance ofachieving personal fulfilment' (p. 241)? Is it all, then, thateasy? There is also absurdity. Mansfield Park, while 'not formally a comedy', is 'none the less comedic in its import': its ironies, 'with their exposure of human self-deception, are all directed towards what is essentially a religious vision, one of a truth that can be apprehended behind appearances and which reconciles the opposites which irony connects and displays in its effortsto control them' (p. 92). Comedic, then, like OedipusRex and KingLear? A wider frame of discussion, surely,is called forhere, and for Tristram Shandy, too: 'By qualifying the distinction between author and reader, it subverts the monolithic status of the artefact as object' (p. 63). Indeed, Cavaliero further cripplingly burdens himself by a decision not only to present comedy as participating in the rebellion against 'the monolith's restrictive pressures' (p. 3), but also to saddle that metaphor with the 'alchemy' of his title: 'this monolithic prima materia is embodied in four principal human concerns' (these four are, apparently, the past, the present, the future, and timelessness) 'much as that of the mediaeval alchemists was madeup of the elements of water, fire,earthandair' (p. 3). Meanwhile, why is Evelyn Waugh confined, largely, to fivepages towards the end? How can 'only two' of Forster's novels 'in any sense be described as comedies' (p. 119)? Where 926 Reviews are Goldsmith, Somerset Maugham, Muriel Spark, and Iris Murdoch? Where is Chaucer? University of Northumbria at Newcastle Allan Ingram The Writer and Religion. Ed. by William H. Gass and Lorin Cuoco. (International Writers Center Series) Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. 2000. xiii+157 pp. $I9-95This volume has a more international scope than many books that might appear under the title 'The Writer and Religion'. It...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».