Selbstreflexives Erzählen und die Dekonstruktion von Autorschaft in David Cronenbergs Naked Lunch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naked Lunch (Canada/UK 1991, David Cronenberg) is a film based on William S. Burroughs’ infamous novel of the same title as well as on factual events of Burroughs’ life around the time of the creation of the novel. It serves as an example for self-reflective narration on at least two levels. On one more obvious level the narration focuses on the process of artistic expression through writing. One another level the process of narration itself is reflected by the film’s specific narrative strategies. This paper tries to show how these specific strategies (a major one is the transgression of the boundaries between different narrative levels) are used to construct or de-construct certain concepts of authorship represented by the film’s artist-hero. Cronenberg’s film thus develops its own position towards artistic production and to the process of creating art. Certain theoretical concepts on authorship as well as basic knowledge about William S. Burroughs’ life and literary themes (sexuality, drug abuse, paranoia) are essential for this analysis. As a result it can be said that authorship in Naked Lunch is shown as necessarily coming with destruction of self and others.Writing is described as work which derives from complex inner processes and physical experiences – both in some way drug related – rather than from intellectual reflection and rational thought.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".