Narrative Time and Speculative Fiction: Reflection of Social Conditions in Temporal Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speculative fiction, with elements of fantasy integral to narrative, has developed as a literary genre with some underlying postulates and textual strategies that challenge the boundaries of narrative realism. It is often examined as a search for the definition of human beings and their status in the universe and an impact of scientific and technological advances upon human beings. It is believed that the world view created by development of science and technology at a particular period influences the choices made for various narrative devices, such as point of view, narrative time sequence, plot structure, character and language in speculative fiction. This paper examines temporal implications of the plots in two speculative fiction novels, Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange (1972) and William Gibson’s Neuromancer (1984), written in two different periods which are about ten years apart. Using Ricoeur’s (2002) distinction between episodic and configurational dimensions for the conception of time, the paper aims to uncover different ways of using narrative temporality in the configuration of plots in these two novels, and relate these differences to broader social conditions happening at the two respective stages in the postmodern age. Key words: Narrative Time; Plot; Temporal Implications; Social Conditions, Speculative Fiction
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".