MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4382044551 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2022.a900623

"Am I Not a Poetess?"

2022· article· en· W4382044551 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tricia Lootens

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePoetry Analysis and Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCriticismContradictionLiteratureHistoryTask (project management)PhilosophyArtEpistemologyEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

"Am I Not a Poetess?" Tricia Lootens (bio) Who needs Poetess studies? "No one!" I might have cried some forty years ago, brandishing my newly pirated photocopy of Aurora Leigh: "Enough of 'poetesses'! Time for feminist warrior poets! Find their forgotten forerunners!"1 Judging from the previous pages, the moment for such searching has yet to end.2 Still, in the intervening years, as the capacious, conflicted projects of nineteenth-century feminist criticism have changed, so have the subjects of Poetess studies. Indeed, if the preceding essays are any indication, such studies may even now be emerging as particularly revelatory, albeit risky—and, frankly, irritating—convergence points for powerful interdisciplinary debates. It seems fitting, then, that editor Marjorie Stone should have chosen to close this forum on a note of provocation. I'm grateful both for the invitation to strike that note and for the chance to do so in response to essays from which I've learned so much. "Woman/not Woman"; "Poetess/not a Poetess": here as elsewhere, it is on these edges that the shifting, potentially explosive instabilities of Poetess performance—including Poetess criticism—often play out. For here, if anywhere, students of poetics confront what Susan Brown rightly terms "the contradiction at the heart of feminist category work": the imperative need, that is, to "trouble and interrogate" the very "category, woman" that such work itself "necessarily invokes" (194).3 "Poetess": the very word invokes histories of category crisis.4 Here, my first task will be to insist that by now, such histories are always—always—potentially or actually racialized, in ways that matter to us all.5 [End Page 200] "Who made the Poetess white? No one; not ever"; thus echoing my own Political Poetess, let me begin. From history to mythology—from poetry's Phillis Wheatley to Germaine de Staël's fictional Senegalese anti-slavery poet Mirza, and from Pauline Johnson, Toru Dutt, and Frances E. W. Harper to Harper's own fictional poet-heroine Annette and beyond—Poetess histories have always exceeded and defied the "impossible purities" of feminine poetics written white (Lootens, Poetess 5–6, 9–11, 42–45; Harper).6 Still, even now, fuelled by late-Victorian histories of denial, the mythic Poetess lives on. Within popular Victoriana's evolving dream-poetics of nineteenth-century Woman,7 she retains her power as literary agent for the "racialized national and imperial functions of a poetics of separate spheres" (Lootens, Poetess 11).8 Indeed, thanks to her clichéd, imaginary avatars, "purely conventional poetesses," she stakes her untenable claims even within the margins of otherwise historically precise scholarship, where convenient, otherwise archaic foils re-emerge as long-honed weapons of epistemic violence.9 If, then, the Poetess is a "trope 'available for occupancy' yet also advertising its vacancy" (Prins 180; see Lootens, Poetess 3–5), hers is a space of highly charged, ongoing histories: histories that still prove to be as contested, and as explosively intersectional, as they are highly charged. "Am I not a poetess?": provoking in its very echoes, this question strikes straight to the heart of an epicentre of feminist category crises and adventures.10 Want to challenge sentimental imperialist fantasies of the "private feminine sphere"—whether within or beyond literary studies? As this forum makes clear, the strange, richly specific histories of actual Poetess performance offer one place to begin. With this in mind, turning from my own "political Poetess" perspectives—with thanks to colleagues who have highlighted their limits11—let me gesture toward a few striking patterns seen through the essays at hand. Constellation, not conflation is the aim; questioning, the mode; incitement to collaboration (and, with this, contestation), the dreamed-of result. sensory poetesses: fleshliness , collectivity, performance, platforms Caolan Madden's invocation of a "theatrical" Poetess whose "supposed 'emptiness' paradoxically teems with countless, variously embodied figures" (187); invitations to move through and across the personal/impersonal virtual spaces of the Orlando Project, Digital Victorian Periodical Poetry, and Christina Rossetti in Music, tracking graphs, charts, and lists; everyday experiences of the distances and intimacies of shared electronic archives: taken together, what conversations might these open up, and how? How might such conversations affect longstanding strains of...

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 consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,917
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,940

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 technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0610,000

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 Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian reviewMême sujetPoetry Analysis and CriticismTravaux en français237 207