Révision de Jane Eyre comme métacommentaire philosophique dans les romans d’Anita Brookner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although none of Brookner’s twenty-three novels to date actually re-write Jane Eyre as hypotext, Brontë’s novel is part of the pervasive intertextuality of Brookner’s text, addressed here as a monolithic fiction. This omnipresent intertextuality, which is the key to understanding the whole œuvre, serves to define the moral codes followed by the heroine and to make a philosophical metacommentary on contemporary culture. Brookner’s characters read and comment on Jane Eyre, the heroine takes Jane as a role model of virtue and the masculine characters are divided into those who resemble Mr Rochester and those who belong to the same category as St John Rivers. But Brookner’s text is a re-vision of Brontë’s novel, as of other novels set in the tradition of the classic realist text and of romance, which have Cartesian rationalism and Christianity as philosophical underpinnings. Brookner reverses the poetic justice of Jane Eyre, which is re-contextualised to fit a new moral landscape in which God is dead as ultimate justification for virtuous conduct. Whereas Jane Eyre can ultimately be read as a “Victorian romance” which preaches reason in the name of social order, by replacing the traditional happy ending by an unhappy ending in which virtue is punished and by foregrounding the disastrous effects of suppressing passion in the name of reason or self in the name of the other, Brookner announces the end of a philosophical humanistic tradition in which the subject / object or self / other opposition gives rise to a host of binary oppositions, the notion of centre validating the dominance of one of the terms of the hierarchy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".