Representing Alterity: The Temporal Aesthetics of Susan Howe and Charles Olson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Emmanuel Levinas and Elizabeth Grosz both question what it means to experience time, as well as what it means to exist with others and what it means to posit the new or unknown. These concerns are also central to issues of American identity, and in the poetic and scholarly works of Charles Olson and Susan Howe, the artist is compelled to explore such an individual relationship to time even as he or she struggles to meaningfully express that relationship. They confront a tradition of American poetics and history that is framed in masculine, patriarchal terms, based on the continual tension between self and other that results in acts of colonization but also fosters innovation. This essay examines Howe’s and Olson’s explicit attempts to explore the nature of individual death, the experience of time and the alterity of the future, and the artistic other. They mitigate the unknown by affiliating themselves with artistic precursors (Melville and Dickinson, among others) and influence contemporary poetics, in turn.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".