Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of Tom Stoppard’s critics have tried to assess his greatness in terms of his conserving and developing the tradition of British high comedy. Thus, his Arcadia (1993) has been largely acknowledged as the best of high comedy, with “a quality of high Englishness” (Kelly, Introduction 17). In fact, as a major British playwright, he has experimented with dramatic strategies to lure his audience into a series of critical engagements with British politics and culture. As for his politics, critics have argued that he is not a radical but a conservative. This study, however, will argue that he is revolutionary and subversive b y pointing out how he has taken a l ine of f light f rom being a “molar” major writer. It can be argued that Stoppard, a Czech Jew, writes, as Deleuze puts it, “like a foreigner in [his] own language” (Deleuze and Parnet 4), with a political purpose of deterritorializing the dominant Oedipal system, like Kafka, who was admired by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari as a great minor writer (Deleuze and Guattari, Kafka). The Czech-born English playwright has left some clues in his plays as to how they may be read as a form of minor literature whose main characteristic is political (Deleuze and Guattari, Kafka 18). Especially his play Arcadia, which is in the form of a seemingly traditional high comedy, shows how to “minorate” this traditional form of major literature (Deleuze, “One Less Manifesto” 243). Thus, as Deleuze tries to do with Shakespeare, this reading will subject Stoppard, who is considered a major contemporary writer, to “a minor author treatment” in order to rediscover his potential for becoming minor (243). In other words, it will extract his development or process of becoming in antithesis to the major tradition in order to recover the active force of the minority in Stoppard.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".