Écrire l'écrivain: formes contemporaines de la vie d'auteur Écrire l'écrivain: formes contemporaines de la vie d'auteur. Par R <scp>obert</scp> D <scp>ion</scp> et F <scp>rances</scp> F <scp>ortier</scp> . (Espace littéraire). Montréal: Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 2010. 194 pp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The explosion of life-writing in French and, to a lesser extent, in other literatures since the 1980s provides the context within which this study explores the particular phenomenon of writers' lives by other writers. A corpus of some hundred texts illustrates the various ways in which ‘la figure de l’écrivain réel [est placée] à l'horizon de la pulsion scripturale de l'écrivain-biographe' (p. 13). The much-trumpeted return of the subject is demonstrated not just in the concern that these texts show with the person of the established writer, but in the presence and self-affirmation of the writing subject (exemplified in the L'Un et l'autre series edited by J.-B. Pontalis). A brief Introduction takes the reader through these points and sets up the framework for the ensuing survey. The basis for this is the principle of ‘transposition’, which Robert Dion and Frances Fortier present as the means whereby the original biographical données are handled by the écrivain-biographe. Their approach is broadly formalist and the four chapters outline the variants they find within each of the four transposing practices they identify. The analyses of individual works are not pursued in any great depth, their function being largely to justify and provide examples of the range of strategies within each of the four transpositional dimensions. The first of these is ‘le vécu transposé’, in which biographical subjects may be relocated to a different historical moment, ascribed fictional experiences, or appear in fictional versions of themselves. The second form is ‘la transposition de l’œuvre', where the writer-biographer's fascination with the writer-subject's work takes him (or occasionally her) from being reader to writer, and where ‘il s'agit […] de comprendre l’écriture de l'autre pour faire advenir la sienne' (p. 50), as in Philippe Sollers's Casanova l'admirable, or Dominique Noguez's Les Trois Rimbaud — though this last example could equally well be a candidate for inclusion in ‘la transposition du vécu’, as it could in the following mode, ‘la transposition critique’. Here the biographer-writer offers his or her account as a substitute for, or rather an improvement on, critical discussions of the work, implicitly denigrating the critics (as in the work of, Pierre Michon and Julian Barnes's Flaubert's Parrot) or playfully integrating critical strategies into their creative enterprise (Jean-Benoît Puech). The chapter on ‘la transposition générique’ explores the by now widely recognized fact that contemporary forms of life-writing blur generic boundaries or resuscitate older genres (‘lives’, tombeaux). This leads into a Conclusion which argues that the practice of writing the writer — ‘le processus intersubjectif […] qui lie, et fait advenir, deux écrivains’ (p. 169) — is a powerful affirmation of literature itself and a means of countering its ‘désacralisation’ (p. 175). Dion and Fortier have convincingly established the existence of a corpus — although it sprawls back in time (for example, to De Quincey's Last Days of Immanuel Kant) and across national boundaries in ways that call for further clarification — and their conclusion makes some suggestive points for continuing exploration. This could fruitfully move beyond formalist categorization and address more substantively what is at stake in the relation between the writer writing and the writer written about, and why France has been its epicentre.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".