The Criticism of Evasion: The Non-literary Margins in T. S. Eliot’s Early Criticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper traces the non-literary margins in the youthful criticism of T. S. Eliot, focusing exclusively on the early essays in which he assumes an aesthetic stand in his early years as a critic. In Tradition and Individual Talent, Function of Criticism, The Metaphysical Poets, besides other essays, Eliot pretends that literary appreciation/criticism can be practiced in isolation from any external influence, and that principles of criticism are purely literary in their origin as well as in their practice, that of establishing the value of the literary works. Relatedly, Eliot proposes that 'emotions', 'feelings' and 'experiences' in the literary work can be evaluated without connection to their non-literary margins. This paper explodes such claims by suggesting that non-literary margins dominated and shaped the early critical formulations and judgments of Eliot. Keywords: T. S. Eliot; Criticism; Literary Tradition; Margins Resume: Ce document retrace les marges non-litteraires dans les premieres critiques de T.S. Eliot, en se concentrant exclusivement sur les premiers essais dans lesquels il montre une position esthetique en tant que critique. Dans Tradition et talent individuel, Fonction de la critique, Les poetes metaphysiques et d'autres essais, Eliot pretend que l'appreciation/la critique litteraire peut etre pratiquee de facon isolee de toute influence exterieure, et que les principes de la critique sont purement litteraires non seulement dans leur origine mais aussi dans leur pratique, afin d'etablir les valeur des œuvres litteraires. En plus, Eliot propose que «emotions», «sentiments» et «experiences» dans les œuvres litteraires peuvent etre evalues sans connexion a leurs marges non-litteraires. Cet article etudie ces revendications en suggerant que les marges non-litteraires ont domine et faconne les premieres formulations de critiques et des jugements d'Eliot. Mots-cles: T.S. Eliot; critique; tradition litteraire; marges
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".