Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".