MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087968846 · doi:10.1353/mdr.2006.0011

Arthur Miller: A Critical Study (review)

2005· article· en· W2087968846 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey D. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Drama · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillerHistoryDramaScholarshipArt historyClassicsArtLiteratureLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Arthur Miller: A Critical Study Jeffrey D. Mason Christopher Bigsby . Arthur Miller: A Critical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. 514. £19.99/ $29.99 (Pb); £60/ $85 (Hb). For over four decades, the core of Arthur Miller scholarship has consisted of a number of book-length studies entitled Arthur Miller (with occasional subtitles), each seeking to treat all of his plays to date, sometimes with commentary on his other writings. Authors have included Dennis Welland (1961, 1979, 1983. , and 1985), Sheila Huftel (1965), Edward Murray (1967), Leonard Moss (1967, 1980), Benjamin Nelson (1970), Ronald Hayman (1970, 1972), Neil Carson (1982), and June Schlueter and James K. Flanagan (1987). Others have covered Miller's oeuvre with edited collections of essays: Robert W. Corrigan (1969), James J. Martine (1979), Robert A. Martin (1982), Harold Bloom (1987), Steven R. Centola (1995), and Harold Bloom again (2000). Christopher Bigsby offers a new entry, eighteen years after Schlueter and Flanagan, and brings his own considerable work on Miller to a culmination, with the magisterial Arthur Miller: A Critical Study. Bigsby treated Miller in Confrontation and Commitment (1967), the second volume of A Critical Introduction to Twentieth-Century American Drama (1984), and Modern American Drama, 1945–2000 (2000), and he edited both Arthur Miller and Company (1990) and The Cambridge Companion to Arthur Miller (1997). In brief, Bigsby offers a close reading of every one of Miller's fictional works, ranging from the well-known and much-studied plays produced between 1947 and 1968 (All My Sons to The Price) to the short stories and unpublished early plays. He unpacks characters, story, action, and ideas, sometimes referring to choices in prominent productions and commenting on their critical reception. He organizes the material chronologically (following [End Page 609] the example of every one of the Miller studies mentioned above), interrupting the flow only to insert, at appropriate points, chapters on special topics: Miller's use of time and history in relation to the American experience, tragedy in Miller, the problem of creating literature in response to the Holocaust, and Miller as a Jewish writer. The through line is Miller himself. Bigsby becomes his virtual Boswell, explicating not the playwright's life (although including connecting narratives to trace his career from play to play) as much as his work and his working process. Whenever possible, Bigsby returns to unpublished drafts of the plays in order to explain Miller's choices, sifts through the playwright's notebooks, and cites Miller's own comments on shaping the material. Clearly, Bigsby sees the plays not as isolated phenomena but as the careful expressions of one man's developing sensibility, and that man's mind provides the connecting thread that gives a logic to the whole. Those who know Bigsby as an American studies scholar, as the author of works on Albee, Mamet, and many others, will not be surprised that he draws multiple connections between Miller and other writers. For example, the chapter on Death of a Salesman refers to Mark Twain's The Gilded Age, Theodore Dreiser's Sister Carrie, John Updike's Angstrom novels, Eugene O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh, Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire, William Inge's The Dark at the Top of the Stairs, David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross, William Faulkner's Light in August, Henry James, Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving, Benjamin Franklin, Horatio Alger, Jr., Friedrich Nietzsche, F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, Albert Camus, Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot and Krapp's Last Tape, and Miguel de Unamuno. Bigsby's approach suggests that we can best understand Miller's work by considering its relationships with other literature. Bigsby draws on impressive resources and on his ongoing contact with Miller himself (apparently initiated some time in the 1970s). He cites at least seven personal interviews with Miller, refers to unpublished texts held at the University of Michigan and the University of Texas at Austin, and quotes from typescripts of unpublished works that Miller made available to him (Resurrection Blues, Finishing the Picture, "The Turpentine Still," and the novel version of The Man Who Had All the Luck). Bigsby does not engage with the scholarly...

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0090.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.266 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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