Narrative Tradition on the Border: Alexander Veselovsky and Narrative Hybridity in the Age of World Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of narrative hybridity was central to the work of the Russian literary theorist Alexander Veselovsky (1838 – 1906), particularly to his unfinished work Historical Poetics. For Veselovsky and the Russian theorists who followed him, including Mikhail Bakhtin and Yuri M. Lotman, the boundary rather than the center is the site of hybridization and thus literary and cultural transformation. This article argues that this model of hybridization on the border can point in the direction of a synthesis between the theoretical impulse of contemporary attempts to conceive of a world literary system, with their scale and their concern with models of circulation, and those of postcolonial criticism and creolization theory, with their focus on hybridization and literary and cultural transformation on the periphery and mistrust of centripetal accounts of literary and cultural history. The article examines how Veselovsky's account of the role of narrative tradition and narrative hybridization on the periphery demonstrates the potential of geographic borderlands and periods of historical transition and borderline genres and is a useful touchstone for the work of scholars arguing for the redefinition of traditional understandings of center and periphery in literary history.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".