Imperialistic Representations and Spectatorial Reception in <i>Shakespeare Wallah</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent scholarship has sought to revise critical claims regarding the universal and transcendental status accorded to Shakespeare in India through an examination of three important aspects pertaining to the construction and representation of the bard: first, situating the history of Shakespeare in the context of colonial power relations, scholars have shown us the reasons for the literary and cultural authority attached to Shakespeare. Alternatively, scholars have discussed the anti-colonial responses as seen, for instance, in the drama of Utpal Dutt, and in Bharatendu Harishchandra's Durlabh Bandhu (based on The Merchant of Venice), which exemplify the unique local appropriations of Shakespeare (Loomba, Gender; Jha; Trivedi; Bharucha; Singh; Green; Bhatia, "Codes of Empire"). Thirdly, critical work has focused on Shakespearean adaptations, which may or may not be oppositional but reflect the inevitable process of cultural hybridization that confounds claims regarding strict segregation of British and Indian cultural traditions. To this end, Ania Lomba's discussion of Kathakali Othello, Phillip Zarrilli's work on Kathakali King Lear, and Balwant Gargi's elaboration of King Lear as an Indian Maharaja remind us of the cultural flows and interactions resulting from Indian mediations of Shakespeare and demand that we understand that because of the historical interventions of British imperialism, both Western and Indian influences will exist on the global stage. Taken together, such scholarship has facilitated an academic mode of understanding the relationship between Shakespearean drama and Indian culture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".