Notice bibliographique
Résumé
On Lucille Clifton's Children's Books Anthony Madrid (bio) I'm guessing most Lucille Clifton fans know next to nothing about her books for children. I've never heard of anyone's being passionately devoted to any of these. I just reread, for the third time, the entire Everett Anderson series of eight books, and in my judgment they are, for the most part, much more interesting than actually good. Probably the only people examining these artifacts in 2023 are people like me, who can't know enough about Clifton's personality. Such investigators will not find the books disappointing. I should say, straight-up, I've not read all her children's books. Some are hard to get. Also there's just too many of them. One's choices are to either order a snowcapped mountain of material, omitting nothing from the inaccurate and misleading bibliographies on Wikipedia and in the back of Clifton's Collected (2012), or confine oneself to an arbitrary selection. I have taken the latter course. The Lost & Found HQ still needs to get some search parties together. We need to get a grant so we can order some the scarcer items (All of Us Come Cross the Water, 1973: cheapest copy online this morning = $75). No need at this point to do Clifton's poetry-poetry any favors; I doubt her reputation has ever been higher. And it's been high. National Book Award, multiple nominations for the Pulitzer. Her memoir/family history, Generations (1976), was just reprinted by New York Review Books. I would say she's pretty firmly on the Required Reading list. However, unlike most people on that list, she deserves it. I'll try to explain. Two points, the more important first. Her poetry is founded on epigram. That means quick in, quick out. It also means aim and shoot. Clifton always uses a telescopic sight, with a red crisscross through the middle. She does not use a shotgun. Result: her stuff is clean, precise, and you don't need a tutor to help you understand it. Like all epigrammatists, she does a lot of portraiture. And everybody likes portraiture. Second point. From first to last, she was a poet of exemplary integrity. She [End Page 59] got away with a lot, presumably by insisting. All her first books are much shorter than what publishers usually demand (e.g., Generations is only thirty-seven pages of text; Good Times [1969], same). And (I am permanently amazed by this) she was never roped into producing reviews and essays. There is no book of her collected prose, because if there were, there would be nothing in it except for Generations and about twenty books not intended for adults. You can squeeze your brains to molecules before you think of even one other major American poet of whom the same can be said. Asked about her not writing reviews and essays, she said something to the effect of "not my business." If I had been the interviewer I would have pressed. "The fact of its not being a person's business doesn't stop most people. How did it come to stop you?" But, see, that is always the bottom line with Clifton: She was a jeweler. She considered being in control of her materials essential. What she cannot do justice to, she does not handle. And that's the epigram thing again. Use what ya got. And no more. She made her own way. This makes her pleasant to contemplate. She wrote two kinds of books: poetry for grown-ups, and children's books. And thirty-seven pages of memoir. And that's it. I'm told that, in Canada, Clifton's writing career would not seem as unusual as it does here. Supposedly, serious Canadian poets very frequently do children's books as a side hustle. For some, it's where their real money comes from. I badly want this to be true, so I'm not interested in statistics or any counter-evidence of whatever kind. Canada, that superior place, has solved the problem of how poets can make a living without being professors. Clifton, however, lived in Maryland...
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) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,008 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».