MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366782186 · doi:10.29173/jjs221s

Review of We Are the Light: A Novel by Matthew Quick

2023· article· en· W4366782186 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dylan Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jungian Scholarly Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novels that convey with depth, sophistication, and creativity a distinctly Jungian vision of the psyche are rare indeed.We Are the Light by Matthew Quick is certainly one of them.The novel is epistolary in style-written as a series of letters by Lucas, the protagonist of the story, to his Jungian analyst, Karl.But the letters begin after something unspoken and horrific has brought the formal therapeutic relationship to a sudden end, which is the impetus behind Lucas writing the letters in the first place.The tragedy at the center of the novel is only glimpsed piecemeal over time as Lucas himself attempts to put together the fragments of himself shattered by the event that has left him simultaneously widowed and without his analytical confidante.What we learn over time is that a massacre has occurred in the local and beloved movie theater.A teenage gunman killed 17 people from the close-knit community of Majestic, Pennsylvania-including Darcy, Lucas's wife, and Leandra, the wife of his analyst.The gunman was himself a member of the community, and the last to die on the evening of the mass killing-at the hands of Lucas.Lucas has become a local hero for stopping the onslaught and saving countless lives.But Lucas's heroism is not as clear-cut as it may seem, particularly to Lucas himself.The killer, Jacob Hansen, was a student at the local high school, where Lucas was his high school counselor.The complex interconnection between the entire cast of characters comprises the exquisite tapestry of the story within which Quick weaves depth psychological insights from Lucas's analytical experiences with Karl.But there are two different angles from which these insights are threaded.In his letters, Lucas is often recapitulating what he has learned from Karl, not only about Jung's work, but also about the process of undergoing analysis-particularly about the sanctity of the psychological container established between analyst and analysand.From these descriptions, we are introduced to the experience of transference and countertransference, and the often indecipherable, inexplicable threads of unconscious and conscious intertwining that create a therapeutic bond.But as mentioned, the bond has been broken.All we know is that Karl sent Lucas a letter, after the massacre, communicating that he was ending their work together.The assumed explanation, though not explicitly articulated, is that Karl is grieving the death of his own wife.However, through hints and asides, it feels as if there is more behind the abrupt ending.Lucas's conveyance of his relationship with Karl and what he has learned

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)0.007
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 venueJournal of Jungian Scholarly StudiesSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207