Romans à clés: les ambivalences du réel <i>Romans à clés: les ambivalences du réel</i> . Sous la direction de A <scp>nthony</scp> G <scp>linoer</scp> et M <scp>ichel</scp> L <scp>acroix</scp> . (Situations, 2.) Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège, 2014. 203 pp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is difficult not to welcome a reflection on the much-maligned roman à clés, as the preferred spelling has it nowadays, particularly when conducted within a postmodernist perspective committed to demonstrating that conventional definitions of the genre beg important questions. These articles stem from a one-day seminar inspired by a special issue of Lettres classiques (2005), edited by Mathilde Bompart and Marc Escola, and the groundbreaking study by Sean Latham, The Art of Scandal: Modernism, Libel Law, and the Roman à Clef (Oxford University Press, 2009). They include a relentless but revealing sociological investigation by Bompart into the negative view of the roman à clés propagated in France during the past decade (in response to a flurry of examples pertaining to the worlds of the media, politics, the intelligentsia, music, and literature) and the reproduction, in translation, of Latham's introduction. (The translator's allusion to the ‘novelist’ T. S. Eliot is an obvious misinterpretation of Latham's reference to the author of Middlemarch.) Yet the volume overall, despite the presence of a model in the form of Michel Lacroix's central, if arguably slightly arid, contribution, fails to constitute un travail collectif that consistently addresses the same, fundamental, questions. The impression gained of unmediated diversity is less the result of the inclusion of drama (a play by the québecois playwright Normand Chaurette) and film (Woody Allen's Manhattan, 1979) or the occasional apologetic reference to poetry, and more the result of disruptive shifts between very different fields of cultural production. More seriously, some of the articles only gesture towards the advertised subject and present analyses that, while not necessarily lacking in worth, depend little on critical engagement with the specificity of the roman à clés. Anne Strasser, for example, asks pertinently whether Les Mandarins is a roman à clés (a label contested by Beauvoir but implicitly exploited by Gallimard) or autobiography, only to slide promptly into straightforward consideration of it as an ‘autobiographie déguisée’. Similarly, it is not clear how far re-evaluation of the roman à clés is advanced by Anthony Glinoer and Vincent Laisney's in itself excellent study of the ‘roman cénaculaire’ (Balzac, Murger, the Goncourts, and Zola); by Denis Saint-Amand's entertaining piece on ‘les micros-fictions du Petit Bottin des Lettres et des Arts’; or by Michael Finn's informative discussion of Rachilde. It is the authors of the final two contributions, Mathilde Barraband and Alexandre Gefen, who grasp the nettle most firmly. In her very interesting piece on novels of May 1968 (or, more specifically, ‘romans de la gauche prolétarienne’), Barraband keeps firmly in sight her question ‘est-ce qu'un roman à clés s’écrit ou se lit?' In his acute analysis of Jean-Benoît Puech's L'Apprentissage du roman, Gefen challenges head-on the notion of the roman à clés as a conservative genre. Other contributions, too, suggest that contemporary writing provides an especially rich corpus, in Quebec as well as in France. The discussions of earlier authors invariably leave conventional definitions disappointingly intact. The exception is the fine essay on Proust by Elisheva Rosen, who responds imaginatively to her brief throughout.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".