Bibliographic record
Abstract
A book devoted solely to Shakespeare's comedy has been long overdue.Kent Cartwright's thought-provoking study of this dramatic kind is thus a welcome contribution to Shakespearean scholarship.The concept of "enchantment" covers a wide range of topics; it is an incommensurable holder of theoretical possibilities, of objects of study, and of emotional reactions.Cartwright expands the critical use of the Aristotelian notion of enchantment based on the direct cause-and-effect rule, by arguing that "[e]nchantment […] constitutes the cause of Shakespearean comedy" (1).His book reveals that enchantment also constitutes the effect of Shakespearean comedy in text and on stage.Cartwright also associates enchantment with wonder and wandering.Enchantment (as wonder) has been employed successfully to interpret the prose romance of the early modern period, but it has not attracted the study of comedy, romance's literary twin.Yet, as Cartwright demonstrates persuasively, Shakespeare's comedies abound in different forms of enchantment.In comedy, enchantment works as the literary and theatrical reaction to disenchantment, recognized in the proto-capitalist and mercantile, rationalistic, and proto-scientific "set of […] values and trends" (11).His choice of the flexible concept of enchantment as the critical lens through which to study the imaginative richness and theatrical possibilities of Shakespeare's comedy, illuminates both the aesthetic and cognitive power of the comedy, and of the recipients' experiences of it.Cartwright sees enchantment in the key structural elements in Shakespeare's comedies: fools and clowns, errors and deceptions, magic and miracles, fairies, faraway places (often in the Mediterranean), uncanny paradoxes, and strangeness of language and agency, the revenant motif, and in often puzzling and unexpected endings in comedies.Cartwright uses enchantment to write about various experiences within and of the comedy; and he employs doubleness-another critical keyword in the book-to interpret a dominant structural feature of Shakespearean comedy.Cartwright mines the well-known theories of comedy, from classical to Italian, to show his readers the solid critical ground on which he builds his widening argument about how, by way of enchantment and doubleness,
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.021 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".