MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591516586 · doi:10.1353/esc.2016.0010

Shakespeare and the Performance of Girlhood by Deanne Williams

2016· article· en· W2591516586 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Schechter

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish studies in Canada · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirlIdentity (music)Value (mathematics)ConversationSubject (documents)SociologyGender studiesHistoryAestheticsPsychologyArtDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Shakespeare and the Performance of Girlhood by Deanne Williams Laura Schechter Deanne Williams. Shakespeare and the Performance of Girlhood. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. 296 pp. $105. In her new book Deanne Williams helps to amend the traditional belief that medieval and early modern English families placed little value on girls. Indeed, while girls were certainly victimized within early modern patriarchal social structures, many enjoyed affectionate relationships with their kin. Girls were also productive, necessary members of domestic economies and, at times, at least minimally educated. More specifically, Williams corrects what seems to be an unbelievable omission: a total lack of lengthy academic studies on girlhood in William Shakespeare’s plays. Although billed as a book on Shakespeare, half of Williams’s work here draws connections to other early modern professional playwrights and, importantly, girls who wrote pieces for performance, placing Shakespeare’s work within a broader early modern conversation. [End Page 237] Although she insists on the unique place of girls in early modern theatre culture, Williams provocatively suggests expanding “the figure of the girl and the subject of girlhood” in order to make both “relevant beyond the limits of gender as well as age, accessible to boys and men,” all the while preserving a sense of girlhood as a special identity for women, an identity that need not be considered temporary and that need not be forsaken as part of a healthy development into adulthood (14). Even as Williams marks out a space for the girl as special and worthy of consideration, she productively suggests that the flexible connotations of the term allow for a range of readings in dramatic work. Importantly, Williams draws attention to the sixteenth century as a period in which “girl” began to refer solely to a female child. During the medieval period, “girl” could be used to describe a child of either sex. The term could imply the expected qualities of sweetness and innocence in an early modern female child, but it also carried connotations of eroticization and sex work, a point confirmed by contemporary dictionaries and their inclusion of terms such as “harlot” and “trull” as synonyms for “girl” (5). Shakespeare’s plays appeared at a moment when the gendered identity attached to girls was in flux, especially given the early modern practice of having boy actors play girls’ and women’s roles. Working with the plasticity in the term “girl” encourages a more complicated understanding of Shakespeare’s characters, however. Take Joan of Arc’s position in Henry VI, Part 1, for example: Joan la Pucelle (pucelle another term that simultaneously carries connotations of innocence and experience) is given the moniker “girl” at two points in the play. One of the references to the character as a “girl” can be found as York and Warwick debate the merits of Joan’s pregnancy claim, a conversation that supports Williams’s sense of the term as both virginal and sexualized for the early modern mind (24). A consideration of this sexual duality and the gendered uncertainty inherent in the word “girl” allows for a broader, more engaging reading of the often androgynous Joan’s relationship to men and to larger structures of authority. Shakespeare includes the term approximately sixty-eight times across his various works, usually in moments “when a character’s relationship to authority is complicated or troubled,” according to Williams, who sees the playwright’s use of “girl” shift within larger changes in his social milieu (3, 4). In her initial discussion of Shakespearean texts, Williams attaches keywords to specific girl characters, the keywords also selected from each respective play. Silvia is “perverse” in The Two Gentlemen of Verona, while The Taming of the Shrew’s Kate is “froward,” and Romeo and Juliet ’s heroine [End Page 238] is “wayward” (43). All three terms are associated with religious disruption and upheaval, a point that Williams opens up in somewhat limited ways. Most exciting in her work on Shakespeare is Williams’s discussion of Richard II’s Isabelle de France. Generally staged as an adult woman, despite the fact that the historical figure was a child who married at seven, Isabelle has overwhelmingly been treated by critics as...

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish studies in CanadaSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207