Une poétique de l'histoire d'horreur : la vision de l'écriture et de l'horreur de Stephen King à partir d'écriture : mémoire d'un métier et d'anatomie de l'horreur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ: La problématique principale de notre mémoire est la suivante : quelle est la vision de l’écriture et de l’horreur de Stephen King, telle qu’elle est exposée explicitement et implicitement dans ses deux principaux essais : Écriture : Mémoire d’un métier et Anatomie de l’horreur ? Dans un premier temps, ce mémoire propose une synthèse de la poétique théorique exposée dans ces deux essais en examinant la notion de la « story », les différents mécanismes d’écriture proposés par King et les conseils qu’il prodigue aux écrivains. Dans un deuxième temps, ce mémoire développe une critique de la poétique de Stephen King à la lumière de certaines théories littéraires contemporaines : sémiotique, narratologie, théories des genres et théories de la création. Cette synthèse et cette critique fournissent une matière à réflexion aux théoriciens littéraires (principalement en théories des genres et en théories de la création) et des outils d’écriture littéraire aux créateurs d’horreur : des théories de la création et des mécanismes d’écriture modifiables, adaptables et applicables à une histoire d’horreur. -- Mot(s) clé(s) en français : poétique, horreur, genres littéraires, sémiotique, narratologie, Stephen King, mécanismes d’écriture, story. -- ABSTRACT: Here is the fondamental question to which we will seek answers in our thesis: what is Stephen King’s vision of writing and of horror, as outlined explicitly and implicitly in his two main essays : On Writing : Memoir of the Craft and Danse Macabre? Firstly, we will rigorously synthesize the theoretical framework that he exposes in his two essais through the concept of the "story", through the different writing mechanisms of horror the author exposes and through his writing advices to other writers. Secondly, we will mainly criticize it through the lens of specific contemporary literary theories in semiotics, in narratology, in theories of genres and in theories of creative writing. Overall, our synthesis and criticism of King’s theoretical framework provides food for thought to literary theorists (mainly to theorists working in the fields of the horror genre and of creative writing) and literary writing tools (interesting theories about creative writing and modifiable writing devices that are adaptable and applicable to a horror story) that writers of the horror genre could use. -- Mot(s) clé(s) en anglais : theoretical framework, horror, literary genres, semiotics, narratology, Stephen King, writing mechanisms, story.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".