Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although British playwright Edward Bond is well known for his early plays during the 1960s–80s, his later works, from the late 1990s onward, have been relatively overlooked and underexplored. In this article, I aim to bridge these two phases and propose a theoretical framework to approach Bond’s evolution as a playwright. I will first examine Bond’s critical engagement with Brecht, and then I will proceed to analyse Bond’s evolving dramaturgy of the Holocaust, which will help to demonstrate how Bond has developed what we might call his post-Auschwitz dramaturgy. While criticizing Brecht’s theatre for being the “Theatre of Auschwitz,” Bond bases his post-Brechtian dramaturgy on his specific understanding of the infamous Nazi concentration camp. Bond regards Auschwitz as not only a localized historical event but also a trans-historical structure of biopolitics, manifested in both the camp and an ensuing neoliberal capitalist system. By drawing on two pivotal passages of the Palermo improvisation (which took place in 1983) and the Russian guard’s story, both of which Bond describes in “Commentary on The War Plays” (1991), I will elucidate how these examples herald a “post-Auschwitz” dramaturgical model that can be understood through Emmanuel Levinas’s ethics and Giorgio Agamben’s biopolitics. Building on this analysis, I will analyse Bond’s plays The Crime of the Twenty-First Century (1999) and Born (2006) to argue that it is the dissonance between the biopolitical paradigm exemplified in Auschwitz and the human subject’s fundamental creativity that defines Bond’s later works.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".