V. Pelevin and D. Cronenberg: points of intersection of domestic and Western postmodernism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION. Both Victor Pelevin and David Cronenberg are accomplished masters of their genre. No matter how critically reviewers respond to their work, the Canadian director enjoys the title of the king of biological horror, and the domestic postmodernist has repeatedly been called one of the most popular writers of modern Russian literature, and both artists have long found devoted admirers. In 2015, D. Cronenberg debuted with the novel “Consumed”, which allows us to compare the artistic worlds of famous creators in the literary plane. Despite the fact that, at first glance, V. Pelevin and D. Cronenberg have nothing in common, a detailed study reveals artistic principles typical of both writers. The purpose of the study is to search for similarities and common ideological and aesthetic solutions characteristic of domestic and Western postmodernism. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The empirical base is the great prose of V. Pelevin (works published from 1996 to 2023) and the novel by D. Cronenberg “Consumed”. Structural, motive and comparative methods of analysis were used. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. The emphasis is on the fabulation and poetics of otherness, as well as on the understanding of capitalism as a cultural and economic basis of the modern world and criticism of consumer society as signs of postmodernism. Special attention is paid to the study of the image of the protagonist, whose distinctive features include mosaicism, fragmentation and liminality, corresponding to the topographic organization of the text. CONCLUSION. The analysis reflected similar artistic solutions, including motives and topographic organization in the works of Pelevin and Cronenberg the writer, allowing us to talk about points of convergence and commonality of Russian and Western contemporary literary postmodernism.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".