CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Fresh Complaint

Open-knowledge reference entry

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 20, 2026
Entity authorityQ55393479 ↗
Source-derived summary

Fresh Complaint: Stories is a 2017 collection of short stories by American writer Jeffrey Eugenides.

Contents

It comprises ten stories, eight of which had previously been "published in magazines and literary journals between 1989 and 2013".

Audiobook

The audiobook is read by Jeffrey Eugenides, Ari Fliakos, and Cynthia Nixon.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Fresh Complaint” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Fresh, Complaint and Open-knowledge, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2017, 1989, 2013—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 2017-01-01. For this dossier, Fresh, Complaint and Open-knowledge is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 20, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q55393479. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2017, 1989 and 2013.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Fresh Complaint”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Fresh Complaint primary sources, Fresh Complaint archive and Fresh research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Fresh Complaint”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Fresh Complaint” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.