Bibliographic record
Abstract
MLR, 104.2, 2009 561 embodying a tantalizing danger for themodern artist, echoing Joyce'sown thoughts about the perils of the twentieth century. University of Lethbridge Craig Monk Some Versions ofEmpson. Ed. byMatthew Bevis. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2007. xiii+341 pp. ?50. ISBN 978-0-19-928636-2. At the opening of thisfine collection of essays,Matthew Bevis pays stylistichomage to the cultivated amateurism of Empson's mature prose style:we are treated to 'a tour round some of the tricks of his critical and poetic trade* (p. 4), and invited 'to end with a sort of final canter round the field' (p. 17). But Bevis is careful to remind us of the ethical commitments that inform the 'figuresof turning (p. 4) towhich 'Empson's imagination and wit were frequently drawn' (ibid.). His introduction emphasizes Empson's commitment to seeing things in the round' (p. 7), whereby 'disagreement is a sort of compliment' (p. 14), and even a kind of sympathy. Lest the celebration of dissent turn sentimental, we are reminded that 'disagree ment' may be 'on occasion, a form of complicity' (p. 14), and indeed that Empson 'does not always do justice to his opponent's position' (ibid.). Yet more striking is the acknowledgement that 'looking "all round" may be something of a luxury' (p. 7). This commentary on Empson's concession that '"mostmen don't feel free to look all round a question, unless their position is comfortable enough" (UB 156)' illuminates the rare pleasure afforded by this collection. It is common practice for editors to begin by issuing inflated claims as to their volume's importance, citing 'recent developments' and 'new directions'. As manifestations of discomfort, such boasts confer no merit on the condition of comfort, but they do distinguish the work of scholars who hold their nerve, such as to acknowledge predecessors?as Bevis does here?and to reopen rather than 'discover' fields of enquiry. Some developing themesmay be identified.Matthew Creasy writes on 'Empson's Tact', or rather, on a lack of it that expresses concern about theway that 'tactics' threaten sincerity. The point relates to Bevis's opening reflections on Empson's methods of giving a party: 'playing the not-quite-genial host to differentgroups and interests,encouraging the openness of "talk" yet defending the need to get "techni cal"' (p. 1). Discussed in the semi-domestic context of'argufying', these concerns arise inDeborah Bowman's account of the generation gap' that conditions Emp son's sympathy for theDevil, and his taking issue with the Symbolists. They also emerge inAdam Piette's and Hugh Haughton's differing accounts of the child logic' and nonsense that attracted Empson to Lewis Carroll's Alice books. The openness thatKaty Price finds in Empson's efforts tomodify the isolation of lovers, and to prove a love triangle between Joyce'sBloom and Stephen, relates to the same spirit of generous disagreement. Finally, JasonHarding identifies intriguing linksbetween the ethics of argufying and Empson's encounter with the otherness ofChina. The two essays most practically involved with this spirit of argument are charac terized by an effortof sustained disagreement. Seamus Perry offersa subtle critique of Empson's late views on 'The Ancient Mariner', noting thatwhile in certain re 562 Reviews spects 'brilliantly astute', his 'insistence that Coleridge was writing a downright Unitarian poem that somehow got contaminated by Christianity seems a simpler [. . .] kind of reading than the earlier Empson would have appreciated' (p. 128). By far the fiercest contribution comes fromEric Griffiths,who mounts a combative defence ofChristianity against Empson's charge of sacrificial cruelty. Other contributors include Paul Fry on the 'Wimsatt Law', Peter Robinson on Empson's translations of Chiyoko Hatakeyama, Christopher Norris on Empson as philosopher-critic, and Susan Wolfson on pregnant language. Empson himself gets the lastword, with an interview published for thefirsttime,here carefully annotated by JohnHaffenden and introduced byDavid B.Wilson. Both in its individual parts, and taken as a whole, this collection represents an admirable piece ofwork, com prising contributions of a consistently high standard. Moreover, its appearance is most timely, in that itprovides a fittingcritical accompaniment to the two-volume biography and letters recently published byHaffenden with OUP: William Empson: Among the Mandarins...
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.021 |
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".