The Serpent's Part: Narrating the Self in Canadian Literature by David Lucking (review)
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.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
MLR, ioi.i, 2006 239 The Serpent's Part: Narrating the Self in Canadian Literature. By David Lucking. Bern, Berlin, and Brussels: Peter Lang. 2003. 211 pp. ?26. ISBN 3-03910Q39 -4David Lucking is concerned with 'the manner in which selfhood is constituted through language, through the forgingof names and the weaving ofnarratives' attesting to the importance of both in Canadian literature, 'as an existential strategy [. . .] and as an explicitly thematized concern' (p. 14). He assembles a range of readings of canonical texts from Moodie to Findley, including an initial exploration of Ondaatje, Kogawa, and Michaels. In all, he observes a common labour in the deployment of historian figures, striving to 'recuperate a past that has been lost to view, and to pro? vide a channel through which voices that have been silenced can once again be heard' (p. 38). Lucking overlooks the problems associated with this project of retrieval and the power dynamics involved, and fails to question the conditions under which such a project is initiated. Lucking offerssome detailed and focused readings of his chosen texts, but they are often immured in their own fascination with the minutiae of an intertextuality that makes forunexciting reading, as in the sections on O'Hagan's Tayjohn or Hodgins's The Invention of the World. This tendency is accompanied by an inattention to the moment of production, so the discussion can seem ungrounded and enclosed. The discussion of Bowering's Burning Water amounts to little more than a list of identified allusions. This may be useful ifcompiling a critical edition with the aim of orienting the reader, but otherwise is exemplary of an over-reliance on loosely aligned readings of intertextual connections and possible effects.Lucking does not really demonstrate how Bowering's text does what he says it does. Arguing that the litany of borrowings results in the casting of language 'adrift from its moorings in a stable historical and literary framework' because 'linguistic and literary conventions [are] dislodged from the contexts that give them their appearance of transparent meaning', thus rendering them 'opaque, transformed into objects of scrutiny in their own right, divested of any status they may lay claim to as the notation of a reality external to themselves', Lucking still fails to explain how Bowering's text achieves the kind of transformation he claims for it. His claim is also based on the idea of a universal reader with a ho? mogeneous set of reading practices. Such generalizations are not unusual. Discussing 'role-playing' in Robertson Davies's Deptford Trilogy, he surmises that 'the concept of role-playing is [. . .] so deeply embedded in ordinary discourse [. . .] that those who employ it are rarely conscious of its theatrical provenance' (p. 134). Hardly. Though the conundrums of naming and identity delineated are not new, Lucking succeeds in restating them in a manner that renders them banal. The conclusions reached for are less than surprising: the 'ultimate implication' of the trawl through Bowering's text 'being that no form of historiography can make any claim to greater objectivity' (p. 124), a claim explicit in earlier critical readings. The reading assembled on Moodie's Roughing it in the Bush ignores more recent critical interventions: not a crime in itself, but it contributes to the insular mood. Its dialogue with a series of 'master archetypes' and 'mythic allusions' is uninformed by Helen Buss's energetic account of the ambivalences mobilized by virtue of the narrative mode of (journal) writing adopted by Moodie and explored in Mapping Our Selves: Canadian Women's Autobiography (Montreal and London: McGill-Queen's University Press, [1993]). Manchester Metropolitan University Julie Mullaney ...
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 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle