Survival, Identity, and Power Dynamics: A Comparative Analysis of The Marrow Thieves and Babel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how Babel by R.F. Kuang and The Marrow Thieves by Métis author Cherie Dimaline explore the intertwined themes of identity, survival, and power, arguing that both novels use speculative fiction to critique colonial systems that endanger cultural heritage and human dignity. I argue that these themes are central to the characters’ individual experiences and serve as tools for broader social critique within the speculative frameworks of each narrative. Babel critiques how institutional power can elevate and erase marginalised identities, using language as both a weapon and a site of resistance. In contrast, The Marrow Thieves centres identity in Indigenous traditions and ancestral memory, presenting survival as inherently tied to cultural preservation. While Babel situates power within scholarly and magical hierarchies, The Marrow Thieves frames it as a struggle for sovereignty and survival in the face of ongoing colonial violence. By comparing these narratives, this essay demonstrates how speculative fiction can illuminate the persistent effects of colonialism on identity formation and the fight for cultural survival. Keywords: speculative fiction; colonialism; translation; dystopian; power; control; survival; oppression; babel; the marrow thieves
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".