American and Chinese Confessional Poetry: A Case of Cross-Cultural Intertextuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western literature has a history of more than 1,500 years. It registers the trail of Western civilization from the religious rule to secularization and to modernity. The flooding of Western literature into China in the early twentieth century inspired a mode of literary expression that had been subdued or laid dormant in indigenous Chinese cultural tradition. History repeated itself in the 1980s in the aftermath of Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Almost 25 years after the critical discovery of the American school of poetry, this form also emerged in contemporary China. In 1981 two of Robert Lowell's poems appeared in the Chinese authoritative journal Poetry (Shikari). Large-scale introduction and translation of American poetry followed in the official and unofficial circuits, especially in China's southwest Sichuan province. Plath's poetry has been singled out in this cross-cultural literary communication as an eye-opener for Chinese poets who were then still struggling to divest themselves of ideological baggage. Sichuan-based Zhai Yongming created her groundbreaking poem series Woman (Niireri) under the spell of Plath. The official publication of Zhai Yongming's Woman in 1986 attracted crowds of imitators, thus sparking the phenomenon of the Plath tornado. Afterwards, Chinese critics indiscriminately imposed the tag of confessional on women poets, which has belittled their creativity. This paper submits a quick historical survey of the emergence of the American poetry school and treats of its reception in contemporary China. I am particularly interested in how individual preferences have occasioned the formation of a Chinese poetics. I do not restrict myself to
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".