Double Melancholy: The (Class) Politics of Loss in Jeanette Winterson’s <i>Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal?</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his essay ‘The “Uncanny”’, Sigmund Freud claims that ‘the double was originally an insurance against the extinction of the self’. The author suggests that literary writing, particularly memoir, can perform a kind of doubling, enacting this ‘self-preservation’ through ‘self-observation’. In her memoir Why Be Happy When You Can Be Normal?, Jeannette Winterson seeks to convey a ‘doubleness at the heart of things’. The author argues that this ‘doubleness’ functions on two levels, both of narrative and of politics—Winterson’s preoccupation with her subjectivity is informed by politics and her politics are structured around her subjectivity. In order to think through the text’s focus on what the author deems maternal melancholy and ambivalence, the author considers how political melancholy works through and against Winterson’s desires for self-creation. Attending to the themes of writing, loss, adoption and depression throughout, the author sustains a class analysis that is motivated by a queer feminist approach. The author argues that the text works to recall the poor/working-class body into the narrative of the bourgeois subject in order to legitimate the present self—the double—both as exceptional and as different from the other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".