MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964549259 · doi:10.1353/ecf.2011.0006

Le Roman véritable: stratégies préfacielles au XVIII e siècle (review)

2011· article· fr· W1964549259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joanna Stalnaker

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemoirHumanitiesInterpretation (philosophy)ArtHistory of literaturePhilosophyNousLiteratureHistoryClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Le Roman véritable: stratégies préfacielles au XVIIIe siècle Joanna Stalnaker (bio) Jan Herman, Mladen Kozul, and Nathalie Kremer. Le Roman véritable: stratégies préfacielles au XVIIIe siècle. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2008. ix+335pp. £65;€90;US$135. ISBN 978-0-7294-0947-6. Le Roman véritable offers a new perspective on the relationship between fiction and reality in the eighteenth-century French novel. The authors question the received idea that in presenting their works as authentic documents (memoirs, collections of letters, found manu scripts, historical accounts), eighteenth-century novelists were seeking to trick their readers by creating an illusion of reality. Taking issue with George May's characterization of the credulity of eighteenth-century readers (May, Le Dilemme du roman au XVIIIe siècle [Paris: PUF, 1963]), the authors of Le Roman véritable argue that eighteenth-century prefaces served to establish a new reading pact that, paradoxically, "ne nie pas le caractère fictionnel du discours mais au contraire le met en évidence. Ce pacte est celui du 'roman véritable,' qui semble à première vue reposer sur une impossibilité logique. Il s'agit de montrer ici que cette impossibilité logique est une des 'possibilités' de la littérature" (3). The purpose of the book, then, is to offer a new interpretation of the problematic status of fiction in the eighteenth century. Although the authors build upon May's classic study, they nonetheless question his central thesis. Perhaps, they argue, the dilemma of the novel should be understood not, as May saw it, as a conflict between competing aesthetic and moral demands (realistic representation versus moral edification), but in epistemological and pragmatic terms. Did fiction present itself as such in the eighteenth century, and how did it achieve legitimacy in a cultural landscape that was largely hostile to the novel? The book is organized not chronologically but around the different levels on which the preface operates. The first part serves as an état présent of relevant scholarship and as an extended introduction to the authors' argument and methodology. Mladen Kozul offers a detailed exposition of May's study and a threefold critique of his argu ment: first, the conflicting poetic and moral demands that for May constituted the novel's dilemma were in fact "les composantes essentielles de tout discours critique ou poétique à l'âge classique" (31); second, the neoclassical notion of vraisemblance had an ethical dimension and thus cannot be understood simply in terms of realistic representation; third, poetic mutations during the period were such that moral concerns were gradually subsumed to the relationship between a work and its reader (around notions such as sympathy and interest). This last claim serves as a justification for what the authors refer to as their pragmatic approach to the study of the novel. [End Page 574] The second part of the book focuses on the narrative dimension of the preface, which encompasses fictions pertaining to the origin of the text or the identity of its author. In chapter 4, Jan Herman addresses the problem of authorship facing eighteenth-century novelists, not only because of the fragile status of the novel as a genre, but also because of the taboos surrounding self-expression during the period. In chapter 5, he argues that the reliance on commonplaces (such as the motif of the found manuscript) in the preface was such that the claim "ceci n'est pas un roman" paradoxically became a marker of fiction. In chapters 6 and 7, Kozul shows how the novel established itself in a discursive landscape that was hostile to it, by integrating features of theological discourse and contesting the orthodox critique of the novel from within. The preface maintained a particularly complex relationship to the notion of seduction, Kozul argues, because it had to draw readers in even as it contested the orthodox accusation that the novel was a seductive genre that led readers astray. In the third part of the book, Nathalie Kremer focuses on the self-reflexive dimension of the preface, which encompasses discussions of the verisimilitude, veracity, or moral exemplarity of the text and reflections on its potential...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207