MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082151665 · doi:10.1353/sdn.0.0026

Thomas Hardy Reappraised: Essays in Honour of Michael Millgate (review)

2008· article· en· W2082151665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Green

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in the novel · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourHistoryInterpretation (philosophy)Context (archaeology)ClassicsSociologyTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Thomas Hardy Reappraised: Essays in Honour of Michael Millgate Laura Green Wilson, Keith, Ed. Thomas Hardy Reappraised: Essays in Honour of Michael Millgate. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. xxiii + 304 pp. $65.00. This collection’s subtitle straightforwardly characterizes its contents, a Festschrift for the distinguished Hardy scholar Michael Millgate. The first half of the title, however–Thomas Hardy Reappraised–is more ambiguous. As Keith Wilson writes in his preface, the biographical and historical work on Hardy that Millgate began publishing in the 1970s opened up “an essential context for serious discussion of Hardy’s work” (ix). Millgate himself thus “reappraised” Hardy in two ways: first, by replacing speculation and sensationalism about Hardy’s life with scholarly research; and second, by establishing Hardy’s work as deserving of critical attention. He was soon joined by other scholars, many of them featured here, so that Hardy now “occup[ies] an assured position at the very centre of contemporary literary and cultural studies” (xiii). If Hardy’s position is “assured,” then, in what sense does this collection “reappraise” him? Does the word suggest that it is time to decenter, recenter, or reconsider Hardy’s work or Hardy studies? Or does it signal an homage to and continuation of Millgate’s initial, generative reappraisal? These fifteen previously unpublished essays suggest the latter interpretation. They offer not radical rereadings of Hardy’s work or cultural location but rather careful reconsideration, by distinguished scholars, of its significant themes. The two opening essays, for example, consider Hardy’s relation to religion. Pamela Dalziel places a previously unpublished homiletic exercise, written by Hardy when he was eighteen, in the context of some of his other comments on religion to argue that his Christian convictions were more serious and longer-lasting than many readers have recognized. Mary Rimmer’s essay on Hardy’s “biblical and liturgical allusion” follows nicely from Dalziel’s, surveying Hardy’s poetry and fiction to produce a conclusion similar to Dalziel’s: “Few agnostics present such vexed and contradictory attitudes towards the sacred as Hardy” (32). In favoring such nuanced rereading over more radical claims, these essays typify the volume’s spirit. Wilson has sequenced the essays so as to highlight thematic or methodological connections. The four essays following Dalziel’s and Rimmer’s track allusions (to Hamlet, other poets, children, and stones) in groups of Hardy’s works; among these, Marjorie Garson’s, “Written in Stone: Hardy’s Grotesque Sublime,” stands out for its wide-ranging analysis of Hardy’s representation of stone as a medium that both expresses and resists human history. Drawing on Derrida and Darwin, Garson argues that for Hardy, “though human subjectivity is nothing but writing, it has evolved…in a universe that cannot be written upon,” a situation that “while it renders the human situation ironic, renders the poet’s apprehension of that situation sublime” (112). Each of the next five essays focuses on a single novel to discuss themes ranging from the “erotics of dress” (in Simon Gattrell’s essay on A Pair of Blue Eyes) to [End Page 383] Platonic idealism (in Jeremy Steele’s essay on The Well-Beloved). Of this group, three share a concern with the location of individuals on continuums of natural and social history that also links them to Garson’s essay. Hardy subtitled his second novel, Under the Greenwood Tree, “A Rural Painting of Dutch School,” and Ruth Bernard Yeazell analyzes the tension in the novel between the static scene-painting in Hardy’s description of a group, the Mellstock choir, on the one hand, and his growing “allegiance to plot” (149), adumbrated by the courtship narrative of an individual character, Fancy Day, on the other. J. Hillis Miller’s essay, which follows Yeazell’s, also analyzes a tension in Hardy’s representation of individuals. He juxtaposes Raymond Williams’s emphasis on community with Martin Heidegger’s celebration of radical individuality (“Dasein”) to conclude that Hardy’s pessimistic plotting, in The Return of the Native, endorses neither. The Egdon heath-folk are happy only in their ignorance of “humankind’s true conditions of existence,” but claiming individuality by “detaching onself from the community,” as do Eustacia Vye...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.012

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in the novelSame topicThomas Hardy Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207