Things That No One Can Say: The Unspeakable Act in Artaud’s <i>Les Cenci</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theories and lasting influence of Antonin Artaud have prompted two conflicting scholarly interpretations of his project. On the one hand, Artaud’s work can be viewed as the expression of a post-human, artistic visionary, providing radical insights into theatre that not only liberate the stage but potentially emancipate all subjective life. On the other hand, Artaud’s work can be read as the designs of a violent demagogue whose ideal Theatre of Cruelty attempts to excise all trace of individuality and lived personhood, both onstage and, disturbingly, in the place of the audience. This article argues that the two opposed interpretations of Artaud’s project, in fact, identify two irreconcilable facets of a single goal: the attempt to convey the force of trauma’s literally unspeakable subjective annihilation by performing it. Through a reading of Artaud’s dramatic work Les Cenci, this article explores the two-sided implications of the play’s traumatic re-enactment, ultimately suggesting that its annihilating force can be transfigured on the stage – and Artaud’s work can be extended beyond its self-imposed program of violence – if the Theatre of Cruelty is allowed to find its double in a Theatre of Dreams.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".