MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016384622 · doi:10.1353/esc.2011.0029

Frye in the Classroom: Teaching Shakespeare with Northrop Frye and Harold Bloom

2011· article· en· W2016384622 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish studies in Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleasureCriticismPsychologyFeelingAsideLiterary criticismLiteratureAestheticsPsychoanalysisArtSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frye in the Classroom:Teaching Shakespeare with Northrop Frye and Harold Bloom Paul Hawkins (bio) As frye observed in the "Polemical Introduction" to The Anatomy of Criticism, teaching literature is actually the teaching of criticism of literature and aims at developing in the student a fluency in terms, categories, and critical approaches that permit a vision of the coherence of literature. But how do you do this without relying excessively on secondary sources and displacing the primary text? At the same time as one is setting out to accomplish lofty goals, a major challenge in college-level teaching is practical: how do I encourage students to read and make sense of the primary text without their feeling that they need the guidance of secondary sources in order to understand it? This is perhaps especially acute with a writer like Shakespeare, whose language can be difficult for many of us without the benefit of explanatory notes. Above all, I want students to read and take naïve pleasure in the stories, characters, and themes of the [End Page 131] plays, to discover literature itself and its intense pleasure and not simply other people's readings of literature, and to experience what overreliance on secondary material can shut students' minds to: the liveliness of the text right here, right now, in this classroom, and inside our own minds, and the openness of great literature to competing interpretations unprompted by secondary material. Aside from their both being major critics, and Frye the major influence on Bloom's own criticism, Northrop Frye and Harold Bloom are both useful in the college classroom because they focus on literature and the aesthetic, because their central critical insights are easy to summarize and share with students, and further because these insights can be keys that help students unlock the primary texts for themselves. Frye and Bloom offer the teacher a way of introducing criticism while keeping the primary text primary. Frye's criticism is everywhere rich in flexible schemes and categorizations (presented with Frye's habitual great wit) that can open our imaginations to literature, and many such schemes are condensed in Fools of Time, on Shakespeare's tragedies, and A Natural Perspective, on his comedies and romances (and on which I focus below). In turn, Bloom's criticism in Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human can generate exciting debates. Bloom is a passionate and opinionated reader whose insights are crystallized in helpful sound bites that students can then argue for or against. For all the interconnections of their work, Frye and Bloom also strongly contrast. Bloom's focus is character rather than the play, and he treats the characters as real people, while Frye describes the dramatic structure of the comedies and romances considered as a whole, and he warns of Bloom's kind of inquiry that "criticism devoted to the vividness of characterization in Shakespeare may get out of proportion ... Shakespeare tells a story that stylizes his characters" (13-14). In short, whether I want a discussion within or outside of proportion, Harold Bloom and Northrop Frye are my constant companions when I teach Shakespeare. The opening of Frye's A Natural Perspective begins my unit on As You Like It and Twelfth Night. Scholars often approach subjects making broad distinctions, Frye says, and while acknowledging that "these statements are clearly oversimplified, rhetorical rather than factual," he makes a similar broad distinction when it comes to literature and literary criticism: "All literary critics are either Iliad critics or Odyssey critics. That is, interest in literature tends to center either in the area of tragedy, realism, and irony, or in the area of comedy and romance" (1), and "This distinction rests on a much broader one, the distinction implied in the traditional view of the function of literature as twofold: to delight and to instruct. On the most [End Page 132] naïve level of literary study there is the contrast between the person who reads to improve his mind or his command of the language and the person who reads detective stories in bed" (1-2). Shakespeare's comedies and romances belong to the Odyssey/delight/reading-detective-stories-in-bed/concern-with-form side...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish studies in CanadaSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207