AUTHORIAL IDENTITYAND AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL WRITING OF MICHAEL ONDAATJE: THEORETICAL ASPECTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper examines the main theoretical aspects of literary autobiography. To achieve this aim, the general context of modern biographical writing development was studied, and critical articles, reviews and researches, both Ukrainian and foreign, were analyzed. Additionally, in order to defi ne biography and autobiography, intersection points of autobiography and postmodernism, as well as the peculiarity of fact and fi ction interrelation in postmodern autobiographical and memoir literature have been revealed. The methodology of the article is based on exploring the aesthetic and literary component of biographical works, namely on studies by P. Holden, P. Lejeune and P. Ricoeur’s identity analysis of “Oneself as Another”. Moreover, due to the fact that it is very important to assess the writer’s identity in two ways – from the point of view of the Other and from the point of view of the person’s inner Self – and to provide an understanding of how the past life experience of writers aff ects their current worldview and literary works, the biographical method has been chosen. Since autobiographical writing and memoirs reproduce the process of author’s self-refl ection about himself/herself and others, the particular attention is focused on the concepts of identity and autobiographical memory of the author. Accordingly, life and narrative identity correlation of the author’s fi gure constitute a relevant issue for the analysis of autobiographies and memoirs. It is shown that the autobiography of Michael Ondaatje, a Sri Lankan-born Canadian writer, is connected with the principles of postmodern and postcolonial literature. Finally, referring to interviews with the writer and his works of fi ction, as well as taking into account critical studies of his literary works, it is concluded that his authorial identity combines the features of the dual postcolonial identity of a Canadian cosmopolitan writer who preserves the cultural memory of Sri Lanka. Key words: autobiographical writing, authorial identity, autobiographical memory, postmodernism, postcolonialism, Michael Ondaatje.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".