MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379433049 · doi:10.1353/see.2009.0009

The Absurd in Literature by Neil Cornwell (review)

2009· article· en· W4379433049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roger Keys

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Slavonic and East European Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSamuel Beckett and Modernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsurdismAbsurdityRhetoricDramaLiteraturePhilosophyExistentialismArtArt historyTheologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

reviews 733 factsand belongmore properly to the genreofpublitsistika, perhapseven zhurnalisitika, thanstylistics, rhetoric or linguistics. Thisperhapsill-advised theoretical packaging shouldnot,however, detract from thisfascinating study oflanguagethatforms thecoreofPöppePsbook. Department ofRussian andSlavonic Studies JohnMurray University ofDublin Cornwell, Neil.The Absurd inLiterature. Manchester University Press, Manchester and NewYork,2006.xiv+ 354pp. Bibliography. Index.£55.00;£17.99. This is an ambitious book whichaims to do forprosefiction whatMartin Esslin'sTheatre ofthe Absurd (NewYork,1961)did fordrama,namelyto show therelevanceofthephilosophical conceptof 'absurdity' to literature. Now, Esslin'sbook,whilebeinga history of thesubjectfromwhathe conceived to be itsoriginsin 1896 withthe premièreof Alfred Jarry'sUbuRoi,was also a contribution to the understanding of drama contemporary to him, especially the workof Beckettand Pinter.Despite Cornwell'snods in the direction ofTom Stoppardand othermiddletolatetwentieth-century writers (manyof whom,likethewriters of the MontyPythonsketches, mightbe surprised tofindtheir workfiguring inan academicenterprise ofthisnature), the main focusof his book is on modernist and existentialist writers from earlierin thecentury, suchas Kafka,Sartreand Beckett, withitsgaze fixed also on nineteenth-century 'proto-absurdist' predecessors likeSchopenhauer and Nietzsche,Kierkegaardand Dostoevskii.Nor are the literature and piiiiosopiiy 01 aie previous iwo iiimcimia ignored ^ Rabelais,Shakespeare, and so on). In hisprefaceCornwellaccurately defines thesec projectas follows: 'The presentbook,whileendea oopnocies, /'iisiopiianes, )pe and limitations ofhis vouringto present, to a degreeat least,a historical survey ofabsurdist writing and itsforbears, does notaspiretobeinga comprehensive history ofabsurdism. Ratheritpauseson certainhistorical moments, artistic movements, literary figures and works, beforemovingon to discussaspectsofthe oeuvres of a smallselectnumber of"specialauthors"[.. .] perceived, in theauthor'sviewas key[.. .] figures within thedesignation "theabsurd'"(pp.x-xi). The book is dividedintofourparts.The first presents thephilosophical and theoretical background to theabsurdand thenproceedsto examineprecursorsof the concept amongstliterary practitioners, fromthe ancients, through Shakespeare, Swift, Sterneand theGermanRomanticwriter known as 'Bonaventura', to Gogol', Dickens,Lautréamont, Carrolland Dostoevskii. Parttwofocuses on twentieth-century writers suchas Conrad,Hofmannsthal, HenryJames,Ford Madox Ford, Pessoa, Artaudand Camus, while also treating movements and methods,Italian Futurism, Russian zaum' Dada, Surrealism, OBERIU and theabsurdist dramaof,amongstothers, Ionesco, Genet,Pinterand Albee,highlighted by Esslin.Partthreeconcentrates on those'specialauthors' signalled byCornwell inhispreface - Kharms,Kafka, 734 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 2OOg Beckettand Flann O'Brien. PartfouranalysesAmericanabsurdist fiction, particularly JosephHeller'sCatch-22, and offers somesummary conclusions. Corn well beginshis introductory sectionon the theoretical background by averring thatthe'absurd''appearsnotto be, as such,a fully accredited philosophical category' and that,as a term,it enjoysTar morecurrency in literature' and literary studies.He adduces variousdictionary definitions, includingthatto be foundin the Concise Oxford Dictionary ofLiterary Terms which explainsthe absurd as a 'termderivedfromthe existentialism of Albert Camus,and often appliedto themodernsenseofhumanpurposelessness in a universe without meaningorvalue' (p. 2). He thenproceedsto analysethe links withassociatedconcepts likeexistentialism and nihilism, as wellas with jokes,humour,nonsenseand thegrotesque. CornwelPs methodhere,as in some ofhis otherworks, is to presenta veritable cornucopiaof definitions and examplesofa givenliterary conceptor phenomenon and leave itto his readers totakefrom itwhatisofthegreatest useorinterest tothem.Attimes thebookreadsmorelikewhatone might call a 'narrated bibliography', and thisis a positiveconcept.One is constantly amazed by thebreadthof the author's erudition and bytheinexhaustible stream ofhints fordirected readingwhichhe vouchsafes hisreader.Take hisdetailedrehearsal oftheabsurd elements in Gogol''s story'The Nose', forexample,and theextraordinary excursusaccompanying it on 'nosology'(in Sterne,of course,but also in Bakhtin,'Bonaventura',Shakespeare, Joseph Roth, Ionesco) (pp. 46-47). Similarassociative toursde forceare to be foundaproposofDostoevskii in CornwelPs ramifying accountofthemotif ofthedoubleinEuropeanliterature (pp.51-53)or,aproposofKharms'sso-called'Ryzhiichelovek', hisoutlining oftheredhairmotif intexts as widely separated as theBibleand The Adventures ofSherlock Holmes (pp. 169-74).We catchsighthereof the author'sendless serendipity whichis, however,farfromrandomand a constantsourceof insight tothereader.Allinall,Cornwell hasproducedan extremely enjoyable accountofhissubject,and one whichwillbe ofconsiderable value bothto thespecialist and to thegeneralreader. Department ofRussian R. J. Keys University ofStAndrews Clayton, J. Douglas (ed).La Russie etlemonde francophone. Le Groupeen études slavesde l'Université d'Ottawa,University ofOttawa,Ottawa,2007.v + 304 pp. Notes.Priceunknown. The mainquestion thatkeptoccurring tomewhilereading La Russie etlemonde francophone was 'Why?'.There is an abundanceoffascinating information in thiscollective volumepublished inthewakeofwhatwas surely an interesting conference heldat theUniversity ofOttawainApril2006,butitis often difficult to understand whythisinformation matters or whatitproves.Despite thefactthatcontributions weremade byscholars fromninedifferent countries , manyofthearticles follow a narrative style lacking a perceptible lineof argument anda conclusion thatmaintains thatitssubject issignificant because ...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Slavonic and East European ReviewSame topicSamuel Beckett and ModernismFrench-language works237,207