Surrealist Sabotage and the War on Work by Abigail Susik (review)

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Michael Löwy
{"title":"Surrealist Sabotage and the War on Work by Abigail Susik (review)","authors":"Michael Löwy","doi":"10.1353/mod.2022.0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"889 seems like a concrete timeline, the concept is complicated. After all, “[t]imeline, time as a line, a line of time: in every case, it’s an image invented so that an abstraction can seem concrete” (170). The first date is not when Ulysses as a concept was formed, or even when the first materials that would become the novel were written. Furthermore, revisions to the text continued well into 1922. Bulson creates his own compelling timelines that cross-reference known events that took place in relation to the novel, Joyce’s own discussions of the novel in his correspondences, and what previous scholars have asserted. It’s messy, and that’s okay. What is perhaps more important is that Joyce felt compelled to situate his text in a specific time spectrum that aligns with “a highly personalized timeline with historical, biographical, and other symbolic correspondences” (201). Ulysses by Numbers is a fascinating study of what computational analysis can bring to our understanding of Joyce’s style, characters, and innovations on time in narrative. While I do have some reservations about some of Bulson’s methodological decisions (such as his definition of the paragraph, which collapses dialogue into paragraphs in a way that is not always consistent), I am simultaneously appreciative of the transparency that allows me to make that assessment. By being transparent about the methodology (and his own qualms), Bulson is also transparent about the benefits and downfalls of computational analysis. His “3pilogue” is a frank discussion of the potential for “miscounts” and “missed counts.” Raw data, after all, is never simply raw data; it is defined by human-constructed parameters. And I did notice, in a lovely moment of near selffulfilling prophecy, Bulson’s work included a (very) minor discrepancy between a figure and the written text. In the text, he describes ninety-seven common acquaintances between Molly and Leopold Bloom, but his figure lists ninety-eight (130, 131). It’s almost a delight to discover, since Bulson has also called out other examples of people who have miscounted Ulysses, including Jacques Derrida miscounting “yes”es and even Joyce miscounting characters in an episode—so Bulson is in good company. Flawed data, he argues, is better than no data. Acknowledging the potential for flaws makes the literary analysis portion of computational analysis vital to this study. Bulson ultimately argues that the numbers in Ulysses are a central symphony, adding complexity and depth to the work. The numbers are “not just data; they’re music” (38). To echo Leopold Bloom, “Numbers it is.”","PeriodicalId":18699,"journal":{"name":"Modernism/modernity","volume":"29 1","pages":"889 - 891"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modernism/modernity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/mod.2022.0045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

889 seems like a concrete timeline, the concept is complicated. After all, “[t]imeline, time as a line, a line of time: in every case, it’s an image invented so that an abstraction can seem concrete” (170). The first date is not when Ulysses as a concept was formed, or even when the first materials that would become the novel were written. Furthermore, revisions to the text continued well into 1922. Bulson creates his own compelling timelines that cross-reference known events that took place in relation to the novel, Joyce’s own discussions of the novel in his correspondences, and what previous scholars have asserted. It’s messy, and that’s okay. What is perhaps more important is that Joyce felt compelled to situate his text in a specific time spectrum that aligns with “a highly personalized timeline with historical, biographical, and other symbolic correspondences” (201). Ulysses by Numbers is a fascinating study of what computational analysis can bring to our understanding of Joyce’s style, characters, and innovations on time in narrative. While I do have some reservations about some of Bulson’s methodological decisions (such as his definition of the paragraph, which collapses dialogue into paragraphs in a way that is not always consistent), I am simultaneously appreciative of the transparency that allows me to make that assessment. By being transparent about the methodology (and his own qualms), Bulson is also transparent about the benefits and downfalls of computational analysis. His “3pilogue” is a frank discussion of the potential for “miscounts” and “missed counts.” Raw data, after all, is never simply raw data; it is defined by human-constructed parameters. And I did notice, in a lovely moment of near selffulfilling prophecy, Bulson’s work included a (very) minor discrepancy between a figure and the written text. In the text, he describes ninety-seven common acquaintances between Molly and Leopold Bloom, but his figure lists ninety-eight (130, 131). It’s almost a delight to discover, since Bulson has also called out other examples of people who have miscounted Ulysses, including Jacques Derrida miscounting “yes”es and even Joyce miscounting characters in an episode—so Bulson is in good company. Flawed data, he argues, is better than no data. Acknowledging the potential for flaws makes the literary analysis portion of computational analysis vital to this study. Bulson ultimately argues that the numbers in Ulysses are a central symphony, adding complexity and depth to the work. The numbers are “not just data; they’re music” (38). To echo Leopold Bloom, “Numbers it is.”
阿比盖尔·苏西克的超现实主义破坏与工作战争(综述)
889似乎是一个具体的时间线,概念很复杂。毕竟,“时间线,时间是一条线,一条时间线:在任何情况下,它都是一个发明的图像,这样抽象就可以看起来具体”(170)。第一个日期不是《尤利西斯》作为一个概念形成的时间,甚至不是成为小说的第一批材料的写作时间。此外,对案文的修订一直持续到1922年。布尔森创造了自己令人信服的时间线,这些时间线交叉引用了与小说有关的已知事件、乔伊斯自己在通信中对小说的讨论,以及之前学者的断言。这里很乱,没关系。也许更重要的是,乔伊斯觉得有必要将他的文本置于一个特定的时间范围内,该时间范围与“具有历史、传记和其他象征性对应关系的高度个性化的时间线”相一致(201)。《数字尤利西斯》是一部引人入胜的研究,研究了计算分析可以为我们理解乔伊斯的风格、人物和叙事中的创新带来什么。虽然我确实对布尔森的一些方法论决定有一些保留意见(例如他对该段的定义,该段以一种并不总是一致的方式将对话分解为段落),但我同时也对允许我进行评估的透明度表示赞赏。Bulson对方法论(以及他自己的疑虑)是透明的,他对计算分析的好处和缺点也是透明的。他的“3pilogue”坦率地讨论了“错误计数”和“遗漏计数”的可能性。毕竟,原始数据从来都不是简单的原始数据;它是由人工构造的参数定义的。我确实注意到,在一个近乎自我实现的预言的美好时刻,布尔森的作品中有一个(非常)小的数字和文字之间的差异。在文本中,他描述了莫莉和利奥波德·布鲁姆之间的九十七个普通熟人,但他的数字列出了九十八个(130131)。这几乎是一个令人高兴的发现,因为布尔森还列举了其他错误计算《尤利西斯》的人的例子,包括雅克·德里达错误计算“是”,甚至乔伊斯在一集中错误计算角色——所以布尔森是很好的伙伴。他认为,有缺陷的数据总比没有数据好。承认潜在的缺陷使得计算分析的文学分析部分对本研究至关重要。布尔森最终认为,《尤利西斯》中的数字是一首中心交响乐,为作品增添了复杂性和深度。这些数字“不仅仅是数据,它们是音乐”(38)。正如利奥波德·布鲁姆所说:“数字确实如此。”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Modernism/modernity
Modernism/modernity HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Concentrating on the period extending roughly from 1860 to the present, Modernism/Modernity focuses on the methodological, archival, and theoretical exigencies particular to modernist studies. It encourages an interdisciplinary approach linking music, architecture, the visual arts, literature, and social and intellectual history. The journal"s broad scope fosters dialogue between social scientists and humanists about the history of modernism and its relations tomodernization. Each issue features a section of thematic essays as well as book reviews and a list of books received. Modernism/Modernity is now the official journal of the Modernist Studies Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信