MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953122944 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2018.0017

Making Oscar Wilde by Michèle Mendelssohn

2018· article· en· W2953122944 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John G. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiographyPoetryAestheticismArt historyLiteratureArtHistoryClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Making Oscar Wilde by Michèle Mendelssohn John G. Peters Making Oscar Wilde by Michèle Mendelssohn; pp. 360. Oxford UP, 2018. $33.05 cloth. Michèle mendelssohn has written a useful, clear, and engaging biography of Oscar Wilde. Making Oscar Wilde adds productively to other Wilde biographies because of its emphasis on Wilde’s early life and in particular on how those early experiences contributed to Wilde the public figure and Wilde the aesthete author he would later become. [End Page 150] As do other biographers, Mendelssohn begins with Wilde’s early years (1854–81) but emphasizes how his very early experiences would influence Wilde’s later career. She then moves to Wilde’s lecture tour of America and spends roughly two-thirds of the book on this single year (1882) of Wilde’s life. Mendelssohn spends the final part of her book on the last seventeen years of Wilde’s life, often pointing back to Wilde’s experience in America to show the origins of Wilde’s mature literary production. Despite this seemingly unbalanced coverage, Mendelssohn generally justifies such emphasis on a single year of Wilde’s life, as she shows how Wilde’s various experiences during his lecture tour were crucial in his development as an author and personality. Furthermore, Mendelssohn is particularly thorough in her research and has the advantages of Internet archives and resources that only in the past decade or so have been widely available to biographers. She makes good use of these sources in carefully documenting the evidence in support of her various conclusions. While reading, I felt fully convinced of her conclusions, especially her major argument concerning the crucial role Wilde’s lecture tour had on his later literary works. I do, however, have several minor reservations. First, although Mendelssohn effectively supports her conclusions, I sometimes wondered about the direct relevance of some of the chapters in part 2 (the chapters covering Wilde’s lecture tour in America). These chapters are well written and interesting, but a few seem rather tangentially relevant to Mendelssohn’s main argument. I wonder whether the chapter on Jefferson Davis, the chapter on the lynching in Louisiana, and even the chapter on Wilde’s views on Irish politics, for example, really further Mendelssohn’s main argument concerning the role the lecture tour had on Wilde’s later literary career and celebrity status. Second, part 3 of Making Oscar Wilde moves almost directly from Wilde’s return to the United Kingdom in January 1883 to the latter part of the decade with very little discussion of the intervening years. Finally, Mendelssohn’s biography takes the reader (relatively quickly) through Wilde’s mature literary period as well as his trial and death a few years later. Again, all of this is well written and of interest, but, since this biography is about the making of Oscar Wilde, a discussion of Wilde in his mature state would seem to go beyond the scope of Mendelssohn’s main argument. The author does at times point back to Wilde’s earlier experiences and their role in making Wilde’s mature period, but I still felt that much of this section of the book was a little tangential to Mendelssohn’s main purpose in writing this biography. In the end, though, these are minor quibbles with a very fine work of biography that will be of value to scholars for many years to come. [End Page 151] John G. Peters University of North Texas Copyright © 2019 Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207