MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316259288 · doi:10.1353/pan.2023.0000

“Who Knows What We’d Make of It, If We Ever Got Our Hands on It?” The Bible and Margaret Atwood ed. by Rhiannon Graybill and Peter J. Sabo

2023· article· en· W4316259288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shuli Barzilai

Bibliographic record

VenuePartial Answers Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyLiteratureHegemonyDystopiaObject (grammar)HistoryTheologyArtLawPoliticsPolitical scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: “Who Knows What We’d Make of It, If We Ever Got Our Hands on It?” The Bible and Margaret Atwood ed. by Rhiannon Graybill and Peter J. Sabo Shuli Barzilai Rhiannon Graybill and Peter J. Sabo, eds., “Who Knows What We’d Make of It, If We Ever Got Our Hands on It?” The Bible and Margaret Atwood. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020. xiii + 421 pp. The reiterated “It” in the main title of this book is identified in the subtitle: The Bible. Among its varied functions in Atwood’s writings, the Bible may represent a dangerous object, to be kept under lock and key from unauthorized readers. The referents of the reiterated “We” in the book title are such forbidden (mostly female) readers. Thus in Atwood’s dystopian 1985 novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, rather than regarding the Bible as a sacred text to be communally shared and interpreted, the totalitarian rulers of Gilead recognize its potential to undermine their hegemony. The narrator Offred’s ironic question — “Who knows what we’d make of it, if we ever got our hands on it?” — underscores her subjugation in Gilead as a “handmaid,” a two-legged womb, who is not allowed to read and write, even while designating the insubordinate thoughts that the regime has not succeeded in quelling or eradicating. In contrast to the Bible oppressively interpreted and utilized in Handmaid’s Tale, the Bible encompasses many texts for Atwood. As Rhiannon Graybill and Peter Sabo observe at the outset of their introductory essay, “The work of Margaret Atwood is full of Bibles” (1). Her biblically literate reach extends not only to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament but also to non-canonical texts. Atwood got her hands on it/them, so to speak, from the beginning of her decades- long career. As the contributors to The Bible and Margaret Atwood fully demonstrate, Atwood’s Bibles, including apocalyptic literature, provide a continual source of inspiration, appearing in multiple explicit references and allusions throughout her fiction, nonfiction, and poetry. Moreover, biblical texts are made to do different types of narrative work and perform wide-ranging functions. Atwood draws upon the Bible for themes, motifs, (in)tangible objects, storylines, subtexts, and more. The essays collected here substantiate the extraordinary frequency and variability of her uses of the Bible. However, despite the critical discussion surrounding Atwood’s works as well as the media attention focused on her public persona, this significant aspect of her literary production has been largely under-examined and neglected to date. The Bible and Margaret Atwood identifies and fills a gap in the existing scholarship. In addition to the editors’ excellent “Introduction” and “Afterword,” the collection contains fifteen essays equally divided among five parts. Each part bears the name of an Atwoodian work or phrase: “Surfacing,” “In Other Worlds,” “Don’t Let the Bastards Get You Down,” “Scales and Tails,” and “Negotiating with the Dead.” [End Page 173] The three essays presented in Part One, “Surfacing,” exemplify the informative and often innovative analyses presented in this collection. The section opens with Hannah Strømmen’s overview, “‘Always a Potent Object’?: The Shifting Role of the Bible in Margaret Atwood’s Novels,” which persuasively shows that from The Edible Woman (1969) to The Testaments (2019) Atwood’s fiction has reflected a variety of attitudes and approaches to the Bible in the modern world. Along with the secularizing trends that characterize contemporary culture, her novels also present the Bible as a powerful and potent factor on disparate individual, sociopolitical, and ideological levels. Strømmen’s definitive summation is corroborated by many of the essays that follow: “As Atwood’s characters find themselves constrained by different scripts — sexist, classist, nationalist, religious — their fictional lives demonstrate the possibilities of resisting and rewriting these scripts, sometimes through a rewriting of scripture itself” (49). In “Margaret Atwood’s Survival as Prophetic Canadian Nation-Building,” Sara Parks and Anna Cwikla assess Atwood’s impact as an expressly Canadian writer. Her early critical work revealed or even discovered a national literary pattern: an obsession with survival both in the literal sense, given Canada’s vast harsh wilderness, and in the sense of self...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.016

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartial Answers Journal of Literature and the History of IdeasSame topicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative FictionFrench-language works237,207