MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4400773668 · doi:10.1525/ch.2024.101.3.96

Review: <i>The Most Beautiful Place on Earth: Wallace Stegner in California</i>, by Matthew D. Stewart

2024· article· en· W4400773668 sur OpenAlex

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.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCalifornia History · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueEcocriticism and Environmental Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEarth (classical element)HistoryArt historyEnvironmental ethicsGenealogyPhilosophyPhysicsAstronomy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In The Most Beautiful Place on Earth Matthew Stewart describes Wallace Stegner as a “mid-century liberal realist and meliorist,” (140) whose writing staged a “revolt toward order and tradition” (8). Although Stewart never explicitly says so, his study of Stegner in California seems aimed at readers like me—people from the sixties counterculture whom Stegner largely despised and who returned the favor. In those Vietnam years, our avowed enemies were not conservatives, people whom we dismissed, but liberals like Stegner who seemed to control the country. After reading Stewart’s original, compelling, and thought-provoking book, I am ready to admit that Stegner deserves another look. I certainly underestimated his originality and importance.Stewart focuses largely on the novels Stegner wrote while he lived in Los Altos Hills, the San Francisco suburb where he spent most of his adult life. Los Altos Hills was more than a beautiful place from which Stegner wrote and the barely disguised site of some of his novels. It became the locus of his hopes—a site that could combine access to the wild with a community imbued with intellectual life and the arts—and his disappointments.In his books Stegner struggled with both his personal and the larger American estrangement from community, the natural world, and the past. He sought a way to repair a nation living in an “amputated present” (5). The books can be read as political interventions in the social and cultural battles between Stegner and the California counterculture, which he thought embodied “the amputated present.” Stegner first struggled with the counterculture in All the Little Live Things (1967), where the hippie character Jim Peck was modeled after people he knew “who didn’t have any notion of what went on but thought they did” (83).The books were political, but they were also much more. Stegner’s body of work, conventional on the surface, was anything but traditional in its blending of history, fiction, and memoir.Stewart, who is versed in western history as well as the literary criticism about Stegner, argues that Stegner used fiction as a way of thinking, particularly about the West: he meant his fiction “to serve, build, and protect Western places as places.” Stegner conceived of a place as more than a location; it was an aggregation that could only be built over time. He longed for a stability and community his own family and westerners as a whole had failed to achieve, which led him to idealize traditional rooted communities.Despite Stegner’s hopes, Los Altos Hills became an example of the western “formless non-communities” that he sought to escape and replace (85). It became a far less beautiful place after he and his neighbors occupied it. Stegner never succeeded in either his life or fiction in transforming space into place. Los Altos Hills stands as a paradoxical failure, symbol of western failure in a state that Stegner denied was part of the West. Although if California is not western, I, at least, am hard put to say what it is.Stewart devotes most of his attention to Stegner’s fiction, but he regards Wolf Willow (1955)—at once a fiction, a memoir, and a history—as Stegner’s paradigmatic book. It captured how he thought about the West and contained all his most “anguished questions” (55). It encapsulated Stegner’s West as the site of a primal conflict between “sticking” and moving.Strikingly and persuasively, Stewart claims that much of Stegner’s writing sprang from a Wenner-Genn Foundation for Anthropological Research grant in 1953 and a slightly later fellowship year he spent at the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Science (CASBS) at Stanford. Both fellowships involved a study of village democracy in Saskatchewan, New England, and Denmark. Stegner never completed the study, but he mined this material repeatedly in later writings.All the Little Live Things was the first of Stegner’s grumpy narratives featuring “cranky narrators,” but Angle of Repose, his Pulitzer Prize–winning 1971 novel, was the most successful and prominent among them (114). The book incorporated, sometimes without credit, the writings of the nineteenth-century writer and illustrator Mary Halleck Foote. Stegner’s fictional narrator is a historian with a failed marriage who recounts a story of the failure of his grandparents’ marriage. Both the narrator and his grandparents wrestle with the “tensions of selfhood” in the formless western non-communities that so appalled and fascinated Stegner (123). They struggled against their fate, which in Stegner’s eyes, at least, made them superior to the counterculture of the 1960s, which he identified with western rootlessness and ahistoricism.Stegner never sank to mere polemics. He was capable of wrestling with the other half of his dichotomy of stickers and rootlessness. In The Spectator Bird (1976) he tracks the dangers of stasis with the “inbred arrogance, the caste consciousness, pride of place, [and] incestuous exclusiveness” that follows (149). Still, hippies and rootlessness remained his favored target.Stewart tries to reconcile Stegner’s plea for preserving wild country, particularly in the West, as part of, in his most famous phrase, “the geography of hope” with his life in Los Altos Hills and his writing. “Did the ‘geography of hope,’” Stewart asks, include Los Altos Hills, California (170)? In 1988, at a lecture delivered at the University of Colorado, Stegner not only excluded Los Altos Hills but pretty much the entire West from the “geography of hope.” Westerners seemed incapable of building healthy communities that could encompass three generations, let alone preserve wild places.Stegner tempered his pessimism, though. He was generous toward and hopeful on account of the western writers who followed him—Ivan Doig, Bill Kittredge, Louis Erdrich, Scott Momaday, Rudolfo Anaya, and others. His sense of community and continuity became centered on the East, in New England small towns such as Greensboro, Vermont, the site of his last novel, Crossing to Safety. It is easier to idealize what you do not know well.Ultimately, Stegner’s strength may be less his skill as a novelist, or as a historian (which to the best of my knowledge he never claimed to be), but as what most critics never recognized him to be: a writer who moved across genres in pursuit of a single and persistent problem. He is certainly worthy of reevaluation beyond his identity as an environmentalist and a victim of eastern condescension toward western writers, intellectuals, and the West. He was far more complicated and interesting than that. Stewart contextualizes, interprets, and illuminates an important writer, environmental activist, and intellectual upon whom verdicts may have been delivered too soon.Stegner stuck in Los Altos Hills, for all the good that did him. When he died, he had his ashes scattered in Greensboro, Vermont, a place far from the West and the kind of New England town where many of the earliest westering Americans fled.

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 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 consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,786
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

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 technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,006

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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,191
Écart entre enseignants0,180 · 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