Finance Capital and the Time of the Novel or, Money Without Narrative Qualities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amplified by recent economic crises, the engagement with the logic of finance capital has in the past few years frequently been carried out on the plane of time. Works such as Franco Berardi’s The Soul at Work and After the Future, Slavoj Žižek’s Living in the End Times, Christian Marazzi’s Capital and Language, Bernard Stiegler’s For a New Critique of Political Economy, and of course the recent work of Paul Virilio are but a few of many examples of a wider theoretical interest in the relation between finance capital and the modalities of thinking time it requires (and abolishes) that directly mirror a distinct formal and narratological shift in recent novelistic production. Yet, the essay shows, the contemporary novel has for about fifteen years been able to generate precisely those answers other forms of thought have as of yet failed to produce, illustrating rather surprisingly that, in contrast to the novel, theory and criticism has added little to our analysis of the actual structural and epistemological foundations of a crisis often merely described and taxonomized, yet not more rigorously understood than that which Fredric Jameson already cursorily diagnosed in 1994 as a “weakness in imagination,” existing “for whatever reason.” Recent changes in novelistic form, in particular since the novel’s artistic function and ontology consists precisely in being a form of questioning time, allow us to illustrate the precise relation between structural and epistemological form that undergo a distinct change as we move into full finance capital and to understand the resulting epistemological crisis that is often mischaracterized as a crisis of time (hence falsely universalizing and ontologizing time and ultimately exempting time from time).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".