Reinventing India through “A quite witty pastiche”: Reading Tom Stoppard's <i>Indian Ink</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his play Indian Ink (1995), Tom Stoppard's juxtaposition of different time-periods from colonial and postcolonial India and Britain to make past and present indistinguishable, his collapsing of spatial particularities, and the insertion of conflicting conversations through a “quite witty pastiche” are elements that aim to dismantle rigid boundaries between India and its empire and critique exclusionary identity politics in post-imperial Britain, especially during the Thatcher years. Such engagement with the colonial past places Indian Ink among historical fictions that aim to destabilize colonialist myths, examine contradictory outcomes of colonialism, and interrogate the “impartial” claims of history. Yet, I argue in this article, that such strategies of representing colonial history, which obscure questions of power that are germane to postcolonial societies, remain inadequate for acknowledging the uneven outcomes of imperialism and transform the play primarily into a theatrical show that represents the empire as a benign enterprise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".