MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890440814 · doi:10.1093/fs/kny202

<i>Lectures croisées de l’œuvre de Michel Houellebecq</i> . Sous la direction d’ <scp>Antoine Jurga</scp> et <scp>Sabine van Wesemael</scp> <i>Lectures croisées de l’œuvre de Michel Houellebecq</i> . Sous la direction d’JurgaAntoine et van WesemaelSabine. (Rencontres, 174; Littérature des <scp>xx</scp> <sup>e</sup> et <scp>xxi</scp> <sup>e</sup> siecles, 26.) Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2017. 301 pp.

2018· article· fr· W2890440814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Russell Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Critical Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonaArt historyArtHumanitiesPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the publication of his novel Soumission on the same day as the Charlie Hebdo massacre (7 January 2015), Michel Houellebecq has come to play an increasingly significant role in the contemporary French socio-political, as well as the cultural, imagination. Indeed, the name ‘Houellebecq’ has become synonymous with provocatively profound pessimism about the future of multiculturalism in secular France. This collection of essays explores the operation of the Houellebecq signifier both within literature and in media in France and around the world. This volume is of perhaps questionable use to researchers looking to deepen their understanding of the content of Houellebecq’s novels, but will be valuable for those interested in the Goncourt-winning author as contemporary phenomenon. As the editors note, this volume ‘élargit la considération que l’on peut apporter à l’œuvre de cet écrivain — de plus en plus traduit dans le monde — à travers des regards multiples et internationaux’ (p. 9). The editors’ contributions are among the most rewarding here. Antoine Jurga captures the distinct texture of Houellebecq’s writing and explores the extent to which he can be understood as belonging to two different literary traditions, speculating ‘serait-il un écrivain du xixe perdu au xxie siècle?’ (p. 15). Sabine van Wesemael presents a rich consideration of ‘la lignée houellebecquienne’ (p. 32) of contemporary writers who have been directly inspired by the work and persona of Houellebecq himself, focusing in particular on Marc-Édouard Nabe, Philippe Djian, and Pierre Mérot. Ania Wroblewski compares Houellebecq’s literary posture with that of another contemporary provocateur, Richard Millet, and examines how the pair articulate confrontational visions of French nationalism in their fiction and essays. Emmanuel Buzay continues the volume’s comparative focus, highlighting structural similarities based on computational algorithms in Houellebecq’s La Possibilité d’une île (2005) and Aurélien Bellanger’s La Théorie de l’information (2012). Samuel Estier provides an interesting contribution to scholarly discussions of Houellebecq’s style through a consideration of various writerly attempts to parody and pastiche his prose, and demonstrates how these challenge the notion that the author’s work is marked by an ‘absence de style’ (p. 50). The second half of this volume is given over to mostly informative chapters on the critical reception of Houellebecq’s work overseas, notably Canada, Argentina, Spain, Columbia, Mexico, Italy, Russia, Norway, and the USA. This section contains insights into sales, national book markets, local translation politics, and media reviews, but the selection of countries explored seems a little arbitrary. It would, for example, have been most interesting to have given readers an understanding of how Houellebecq, notorious for his anti-Islamic sentiments, is read, reviewed, and received in the Arab world. Nonetheless, a study of the overseas reception of Houellebecq is a useful addition to the body of work around the author, not least since — as Alice Bottarelli here shows with reference to La Possibilité d’une île — the critical discourse that surrounds his work is often folded back into it, forming a vital strand to his 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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench StudiesSame topicFrench Literature and Critical TheoryFrench-language works237,207