MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380880795 · doi:10.3138/ctr.114.006

Judith Thompson’s Ghosts

2003· article· en· W4380880795 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Claudia Barnett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)ArtAmbiguityAestheticsLiteraturePhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Death wears many guises in Judith Thompson’s plays. In The Crackwalker (1980), one character tells another, “[B]ein dead ain’t no different from livin [...]. It’s just like movin to Brockville or Oshawa or something. It ain’t that different.” The second character disagrees, “I know it’s different” (45), but by the end of the play, the characters have reversed their positions: the second kills his own infant son and fails even to register the death, merely saying, “It’s okay it’s not crying anymore” (65), while the first remarks, “I think it’s better off dead” (70), thus implying that being dead must be different. Life and death form a complex dialectic in this play and throughout Thompson’s writing. Being dead may or may not be different from living – and it also may or may not be worse. In her early plays, mysterious forces such as a talking dog, an “animal” behind a wall, and even the darkness of an epileptic seizure, compel the characters to act; because they occur off-stage, they may be real or imagined. In Thompson’s more recent plays, these forces are personified, taking on physical presence witnessed by characters and audience alike. These forces are corporeal ghosts who look and act just like human beings, only better. Unlike the early shadows, these corporeal ghosts lack ambiguity and are often well-intentioned. Thompson’s dead characters try to improve the lives of the living – not only the living characters within the plays, but also the live audiences who observe them. For instance, Isobel, the dead girl who haunts Lion in the Streets (1992), concludes the play by addressing the audience: “I want you to have your life” (63). By breaking the fourth wall with this imperative appeal, Thompson transforms the dialectic between life and death into a dialectic between life and theatre. By creating characters who are ghosts, Thompson aligns herself with tradition while posing the same questions as contemporary feminist theory. “Theatre ... has had a long romance with ghosts,” writes Peggy Phelan, who names the ghost of Hamlet’s father as the birth of Western theatre’s “sustained conversation with the incorporeal” (Mourning 2). Thompson recognizes her own plays as part of this tradition, recalling classical tropes while subverting them. Hamlet fears that his father’s ghost may be an agent of the devil and therefore he flounders in doubt. The characters in Thompson’s Perfect Pie voice the same apprehension: “And I believe in God again,” says one, while the other remarks, “Oh to me that’s just the devil playin’ with you” (18). In spite of Thompson’s humorous touch (her characters are talking about the stomach flu), such concerns are the serious subject matter of her plays; she poses them as essential dialectics: god and the devil, self and other, life and death, and she creates corporeal ghosts to embody such contradictions. Elizabeth Grosz defines the human body in terms of binary pairs that destabilize it: “The body is neither – while also being both – the private or the public, self or other, natural or cultural, psychical or social, instinctive or learned ...” (23). With her creation of ghosts, Thompson comments on the meaning of the body, aligning herself with Grosz and other feminist theorists: the body is a mass of contradictions, necessarily physical yet fundamentally abstract, the key element and also the essential challenge of theatre and performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0140.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.233
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207