Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exemplary works of hypnotic dramaturgy in Samuel Beckett’s work include three plays enjoying special attention at present: Not I (1972), Footfalls (1976), and Rockaby (1981). Historically, hypnosis was used in the clinics of Jean-Martin Charcot and Josef Breuer, among others. Hypnotically compromised characters from the psychoanalytic corpus, such as Anna O. and Blanche Wittman, demonstrate parallels with the protagonists of Beckett’s three plays. I argue that Beckett develops a hypnotic dramaturgy that simulates hypnotic character worlds in order to stage the affective problems of verifying the truth of memory. Specifically, theatrically simulating hypnotic situations draws spectators into intimate, sensory contact with the human subject’s ultimately false self-witnessing. My firsthand experience of the three plays in production provides a contemporary context to consider memory and the subject in Beckett’s theatre. In particular, actor Lisa Dwan and director Walter Asmus’s Royal Court production in 2014 signals the plays’ capacities for eliciting an affectively prone, empathic spectatorship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".