MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984765046 · doi:10.1353/mfs.2007.0061

Passionate Collaborations: Learning to Live with Gertrude Stein (review)

2007· article· en· W1984765046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georgia Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueModern fiction studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Politics, and Modernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPICASSOPortraitModernism (music)Art historyScholarshipPoliticsArtHistorySociologyPaintingLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Passionate Collaborations: Learning to Live with Gertrude Stein Georgia Johnston Karin Cope. Passionate Collaborations: Learning to Live with Gertrude Stein. Victoria, BC, Canada: ELS Editions, 2005. 343 pp. Karin Cope's new book on Gertrude Stein could not have been written without earlier thought-provoking representations of Stein as an important modernist who stretched language and genre. Scholars of Stein's work, such as Ellen Berry, Clive Bush, Harriet Chessman, Marianne DeKoven, Elizabeth Fifer, Elizabeth Meese, Lisa Ruddick, Juliana Spahr, and Catharine Stimpson, have developed ways of reading Stein that elucidate her texts as deliberate, political, smart, and literary. Cope adds to this forceful critical work. Her book is a welcome addition to the scholarship on Stein—more than welcome; her book is a tour de force—an insightful, stagy presentation of Stein in terms of collaboration. In Cope's own words, Passionate Collaborations"explores some of the material traces of Stein's historical collaborations," including those with Picasso, with Toklas, and with the World War II Vichy government (18). Cope explores "what those collaborations appear to have required and produced," both textually and in the "history of modernism" (19). Cope begins with Stein's portrait of Picasso and Picasso's portrait of Stein. They become, in Cope's hands, markers of larger literary and artistic shifts in literature and art. Cope shows how central the portrait is for Stein and Picasso. Using theories of abjection and psychology, she examines the personal responses that the collaborations created. For example, Picasso's responses to Stein and Stein's to Picasso, she argues, must have included denigration and abjection, which fuel a "showing forth of insecurity, confusion, and error as privileged sites of creativity and production" (58). These feelings reverberate with "defacement," "deformation" (55), and "error" (46). When Cope asks, "What did Picasso confront in Stein that caused him to change the manner in which he painted female figures?" she traces a collaboration that shows that "Stein seduced Picasso in some way with her presence," while, simultaneously, that seduction could not fit his "heterosexual desire" (94). Throughout her discussions of Picasso and his work, Cope weaves Stein's texts, revealing that Stein created "something quite untoward, quite unprecedented" (96). In the center of this book about Stein's accomplishments through collaboration, Cope reproduces debilitating harangues directed at Stein over this past century. One writer saw Stein, her body, and her work as "vegetable accumulation" (140). Others revile Stein for "a tricky disguise of Nature, that she was of the company of Amazons," insist on her "arrested-development," and accuse her of a "loafing mind" (152, 148,144). Cope is extraordinarily nonconformist in her presentation of these critical writings, placing them in the margins [End Page 605]of her own commentary, not in quotation marks or italicized but simply in a different font. That decision about this book's space is an ingenious one, because the placement in the margins reiterates an understanding that these past critical writings are always in our critical margins, here literally. These combined responses to Stein, from authors like Wyndham Lewis, B. L. Reid, Ezra Pound, Robert McAlman and Kay Boyle, Katherine Anne Porter, and even Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, astound and shock, especially in the context of Cope's own insights about Stein and her work, which reiterate Stein's textual genius. By representing this "Case Against Gertrude Stein"—what she calls a "revenge on Stein by belittling her" (20)—in the margins of her own writing, Cope peculiarly, effectively, and powerfully underscores how changing critical focus affects meaning. This chapter elucidates criticism's effects on literary texts and their receptions—and the importance of reading practices. As Cope traces Stein's collaborations within her historical period, she also explores how readers collaborate with Stein. She posits that Stein's texts interpellate—hail and name—readers—even if those readers do not yet exist. Theories of interpellation are nothing new; for example, Catherine Belsey presented the case in 1980 that the nineteenth-century realist novel interpellates a reader who believes she is autonomous and uniquely individual, thus buttressing a dominant realist ideology that needs such subjects for capitalism. Susan Lanser wrote in 1988 and...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern fiction studiesSame topicArt, Politics, and ModernismFrench-language works237,207