Entries to Intimacy: Shared Solitude in Garth Greenwell's What Belongs to You, Anne Carson's Nox, and Roni Horn's Another Water (The River Thames, for Example)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation studies three books that unfold as inquiries into the possibility of being in relation. I argue that Garth Greenwell’s What Belongs to You, Anne Carson’s Nox, and Roni Horn’s Another Water (The River Thames, for Example) attest to a form of togetherness that rests not on recognition or perception, but rather on the sense of a space that remains without relation. Readings these books in light of Michel Foucault’s description of the archive, and Giorgio Agamben’s theorization of thought, I show that this space marks the very place where relations emerge, a place, therefore, that exceeds both sight and thought. The books not only present modes of seeing, knowing, or thinking that turn towards this place, but also stage a sensuous engagement with the unseen, unsaid, or unthought. In each chapter, accordingly, I read scenes that both trace an experience that eludes the seeing or knowing subject, and bring the reader in touch with a space beyond relation. Drawing, in turn, on William Haver’s notion of an erotics of thought, Roland Barthes’ theory of photography, and Maurice Blanchot’s theorization of the essential solitude, I delineate the ways in which these exemplary scenes affirm the impossibility of resolving the question of how to be with others. To engage this impossibility, the books suggest, is to open up relations to possibilities unforeseen.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".