MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4386335665 · doi:10.1353/chq.2023.a905630

Positioning Pooh: Edward Bear after 100 Years ed. by Jennifer Harrison (review)

2023· article· en· W4386335665 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Minslow

Notice bibliographique

RevueChildren's Literature Association quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScholarshipCriticismInnocencePower (physics)EthosArt historySociologyPsychoanalysisArtLiteraturePhilosophyLawPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Positioning Pooh: Edward Bear after 100 Years ed. by Jennifer Harrison Sarah Minslow (bio) Positioning Pooh: Edward Bear after 100 Years. Edited by Jennifer Harrison. University Press of Mississippi, 2021. This collection of essays offers a reflection on and extension of much of the existing scholarship on A. A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh stories by scholars such as Paula Connelly, Peter Hunt, Ann Thwaite, and Daphne Kutzer. As Harrison points out in the introduction, which also serves as an overview of existing Pooh scholarship, most Pooh criticism has focused on biographical approaches, revealing hidden meanings, language play, power dynamics related to gender and colonization, in particular, and the role of Disney in transforming and perpetuating the legacy of the characters who inhabit the Hundred Acre Wood. As Harrison points out, [End Page 106] this book offers new approaches that highlight the relevance of Milne’s tales “not only because of their enduring place in popular culture but also because they encourage and present diverse, unstable, and flexible perspectives, interpretations, and modes of being in keeping with the global, postmodern, posthuman ethos of the twenty-first century” (xii). Several of the chapters examine the role of nostalgia for childhood innocence and play and the ways in which Derrida’s concept of “hauntology” bears on the stories of Winnie the Pooh and friends. David Rudd explains that the concept suggests we cannot possess things, “we only ever possess traces of things” (7). Zoe Jaques analyzes two recent cinematic versions of Pooh—Goodbye Christopher Robin (Fox Searchlight 2017) and Christopher Robin (Disney 2018)— through a similar lens of the perpetual image of a boy and his bear playing in the enchanted woods. Jaques argues that “Both films enact a form of rereading, or returning, to this text from a new position—a reorientation of the stories and their foundations” and offer readers what she calls “spectral nostalgia . . . a wistful looking back to the past, certainly, but via a backward glance that is specifically attentive to its hauntings and echoes” (49, 50). Niall Nance-Carroll examines two book adaptations, Return to the Hundred Acre Wood (2009) and The Best Bear in All the World (2016). Nance-Carroll argues that The Best Bear in All the World suggests a “more cyclical relationship with time” and fulfills some “yearning for return to an unchanging place” that could be called “restorative nostalgia” as opposed to “reflective nostalgia” (68). The restorative nostalgia found in The Best Bear is due to the fact that the narrative does not offer a conclusion and Christopher Robin does not grow up. As Nance-Carroll explains, “None of these stories challenge the continuity of the world established in the series, and none of them expand it” (71). This chapter also provides some insights into how the introduction of new characters, Lottie and Penguin, attempt to “add something that was missing from the early Pooh stories” (75). While the dynamics between characters are examined in Nance-Carroll’s chapter, Sarah E. Jackson explores how the rhetoric of classification is used throughout the original stories “to both colonizing and anticolonizing ends” (152). Jackson explains that the characters use classification “to appear knowledgeable and therefore in control of their environment; to establish a hierarchy; and to exert power over others” (152). Her most convincing example is an episode when Rabbit tries to “unbounce” Tigger, the newcomer, but is forced to realize with Pooh’s help that as long as Tigger is bigger than Rabbit, Rabbit “cannot truly control the other animals” (161). Several chapters focus the dynamics outside the book, between child and adult, reader and author, and humans and non-humans. Varga argues that “the anthropomorphizing of Winnie [Winnipeg, the real bear] has resulted in the substitution of her corporal and sentient being with cartoon imagery” and as a result “place[s] limitations on how humans [End Page 107] think about them [real bears]” (20–21). Varga encourages readers to consider that many of the festivals held in Canada in honor of the real bear who inspired the Pooh stories have worked to minimize her life so that now she is more of an “anthropomorphized commodity” (28). This critical animal studies approach...

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,341
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

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 Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · 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
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueChildren's Literature Association quarterlyMême sujetGothic Literature and Media AnalysisTravaux en français237 207