MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006933929 · doi:10.1353/mdr.2011.0038

Another Part of a Long Story: Literary Traces of Eugene O'Neill and Agnes Boulton (review)

2011· article· en· W2006933929 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tamsen Wolff

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Drama · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemoirLiteraturePortraitCriticismLiterary criticismArt historyArtPhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Another Part of a Long Story: Literary Traces of Eugene O'Neill and Agnes Boulton Tamsen Wolff William Davies King . Another Part of a Long Story: Literary Traces of Eugene O'Neill and Agnes Boulton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010. Pp. xix + 299. With Another Part of a Long Story, William Davies King offers the first considered account of the marriage between Eugene O'Neill and the writer Agnes Boulton, which lasted over a decade and produced two children. King illustrates how Boulton has been misrepresented in biographies of O'Neill, not to mention dismissed with regard to her own life and literary achievements. Her memoir about her life with O'Neill, Part of a Long Story, from which King takes his title, was criticized mainly because it contradicted popular understandings of the playwright. Published in 1958, two years after O'Neill's autobiographical Long Day's Journey into Night received its posthumous, critically heralded premiere, Boulton's book painted a very different portrait of a young O'Neill. Most critics rejected her version, and a few even denounced the book as a cheap attempt to exploit the playwright's death. King effectively refutes this criticism and identifies the ways in which Boulton was a successful writer in her own right. He writes, It would be silly to pretend that her life demands a telling the way his does. And yet it is somehow because she did not accumulate that mantle of literary history herself, because she has never been a topic of biographical interest except in relation to O'Neill, and because it seems dubious, that it ought to be done. (20) [End Page 395] King's reclamation of Boulton is valuable, in part because of her talents but also because, in closely examining her life, King provides significant insight into some of the particular challenges facing a liberated woman writer in the early twentieth century. At the same time, the book is devoted equally to O'Neill and his writing over the course of his relationship with Boulton. The chapters are organized chronologically, examining biographical developments alongside the literary output of the two authors. King emphasizes that Boulton and O'Neill addressed marriage in stories and plays while self-consciously reflecting on the practice and institution in their life together. In the mid-1920s, for instance, O'Neill and Boulton participated in the pioneering study A Research in Marriage, conducted by neurologist Dr. Gilbert Hamilton. Even as O'Neill responded to the study's lengthy questionnaire on marriage, he was producing drama on the subject. As King's subtitle suggests, he reads all of O'Neill and Boulton's literary work (as well as diaries and correspondence) for information about the marriage. This approach to the literature is most instructive when the pair actually worked on something together, as was the case with the revision of a play O'Neill first wrote in 1917 entitled The Guilty One and Beyond the Horizon (1920). Here, King provides evidence of an exchange between the couple, written on and about a specific text. Literary collaboration of any kind between O'Neill and Boulton was unusual, however, so King often pursues a kind of conjectural detective work in their drama and fiction. Analysing the earlier years when Boulton was most productive, for example, King describes her stories in great detail in the hunt for clues about her life. In one instance, he places parenthetical queries beside the names of fictional characters in her story (is X the real-life counterpart? Or is Y?), which underscores how speculative this endeavour is (61). Toward the end of the book, King speculates in a different fashion: "Doing some aggressive editorial work," King changes the notes that Boulton wrote on the occasion of O'Neill's death in order to create improved, "lovely lines" of poetry (210). Doing so allows him to make a perfectly feasible connection to a poem O'Neill had written in 1919 and to suggest the possibility that O'Neill's original poem was written with Boulton in mind. Nonetheless, this is a move that highlights the creative leaps necessary to draw some of the book's conclusions...

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)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern DramaSame topicCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary ResearchFrench-language works237,207