MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056217413 · doi:10.1353/mdr.2007.0020

The Cambridge Companion to Edward Albee (review)

2007· article· en· W2056217413 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norma Jenckes

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Drama · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryEnvironmental ethicsPsychoanalysisPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Cambridge Companion to Edward Albee Norma Jenckes Stephen Bottoms , ed. The Cambridge Companion to Edward Albee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. vii + 263 , illustrated. $65.00/£45 (Hb); $25.99/£15.99 (Pb). When Edward Albee's plays first broke upon the American national consciousness in the 1960s, they were greeted with a hyperbolic recognition of their uniqueness and of Albee's artistic genius. Immediately, critics rushed to publish scores of studies to explain this new prodigy of the American theatre and heir apparent to O'Neill. Now, more than forty years later, the playwright has not faltered, and the work still provokes and amazes audiences, but the flow of scholarship is uneven and spasmodic. Yet, in the past decade, Albee has reclaimed his position as the dominant force on the American stage and has seen new plays win yet another Pulitzer and coveted international awards. So this collection of essays is overdue and welcome. The valuable Cambridge Companion series has delivered an extremely varied and provocative volume of essays from distinguished Albee scholars. Thoughtful editing by Stephen Bottoms has allowed the shape of the playwright's career to emerge more clearly and the once gleefully noted "critical failures" in Albee's body of work have been recuperated with great ingenuity and perspicacity. Having written an introduction that is a model of clarity, Bottoms's own contribution on Albee's adaptations supplies a singularly even and original reading of those plays that have often been castigated or neglected. Since the plays are discussed in rough chronological order, the first two essayists face the challenge of saying something new about the earliest and most familiar works. However, Philip Kolin finds a way to add something about The Zoo Story when he stresses the play's connections to Beat culture. He also makes strong claims for the overlooked play The Death of Bessie Smith. Matthew Roudane, in the second essay, defends his thesis that Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is Albee's most affirmative play and also makes valuable connections [End Page 109] between Albee and the work of Antonin Artaud. Entering the more contested realm of Albee's portrayal of sexuality, John M. Clum speculates that it is Albee's seeming inability "to read his own sexual desires and experiences into his heterosexual characters, which creates a nonerotic coolness"(59). Clum's provocative essay gives powerful evidence for a paradoxical thesis that Albee's plays are surprisingly chaste and are more about lack and loss of desire than about sex. He also offers a different reading of the perennial problem play, Tiny Alice, which he treats as another version of the Albee marriage play, and poses some probing questions about Julian's age that might set some director thinking of an unconventional casting for the play. Thomas P. Adler looks at the Pulitzer-prize-winning plays and demonstrates the wealth of Albee's range and his constant reinvention through "beginning again." Brenda Murphy treats as "threnodies" or plays of lamentation for the dead four plays (Box-Mao-Box, All Over, The Lady from Dubuque, and Three Tall Women) that, grouped together, illuminate each other. The little performed or discussed Box-Mao-Box benefits most from this grouping. Gerry McCarthy contributes an insightful essay that reminds us of the ways that audiences make plays' meanings. His perspective enables him to make exciting connections among Chekhov, Beckett, and Albee, especially in the dramatic presentation of "premature grief," which he defines as "a human capacity to feel loss before its onset" (120). One of the rewards of reading this collection is discovering essays that provide a new lens through which to view Albee's work. Focusing on the post-1980s work, Christopher Bigsby's contribution moves through Albee's most recent plays. He concludes a valuable discussion of Occupant, Albee's depiction of the creative life of the artist Louise Nevelson, with one of his masterful summations: "[Albee] is prepared to settle for 'a little bit of light' generated by an acknowledgment of the truth of the human condition, an acceptance of pain as well as pleasure (this being part of the contract), and recognition that art is evidence...

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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