MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071985036

Verses Nature: Heterogeneity and Dialogism in the Novel

2017· dissertation· en· W7071985036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Critical Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemioticsPluralRepresentation (politics)Reflexive pronounOrder (exchange)Point (geometry)Natural (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present thesis argues for heterogeneity and dialogism as inherent strategies at work in novel-writing as praxis. It provides a bifurcated response to the question: how can I write a novel in such a way that it remains true to my sense of form, my sense of language, to the limitations of both, and to my understanding of plural subjectivities? 
\nThe first part of the response takes the literary form of a novel, entitled Verses Nature, a postmodern, rebellious conglomerate of genres, in which I put heterogeneity and dialogism to the test. The intention is to sound out the breaking point of the novel, not only to underline
\ncertain limits of the novel as a literary form, but also to explore how this particular literary form positions us as readers.
\nIn order to explore the limits of representation and interpretation, I sought a way to use Verses Nature to break into our coding system to change it from the inside. Codes are not natural, but made. As the title of my work suggests, Verses Nature sets out to interrogate the seemingly natural. What is a novel? What is a genre? What does it mean to read? How do I read? How am I a reader? What do I expect from myself and from the author? I sought to demonstrate that for each of these questions, there is no straightforward answer and that we must first recover from our assumptions. The open-ended structural and semiotic propositions in Verses Nature refuse to play to such assumptions, soliciting instead various levels of surprise. Due to these shattered expectations, readers find themselves having to reposition, to redefine and thus relocate themselves into new narrative/interpretive spaces. Such deliberately loose, at times overlapping, structures render the notion of dialogism and heterogeneity alive. The intention is to agonize the reader so that she accepts that the novel is out of my hands and becomes her responsibility. If the reader fails to see my female protagonist, Carmina, in all her complexity, seeking instead to reduce her to a woman whose racial profile is more pronounced so that she fits ready-made (and white-ordained) notions of blackness, this reader must accept the responsibility for her expectation and hopefully
\ninterrogate why this expectation exists in the first place. If the reader is given no clear point of entry into a text, but must decide for herself where she must place her eyes on the page and where to go from there, this reader must accept responsibility for how she makes meaning from the text. If the reader finds herself constantly rethinking, renaming the place this work occupies – is it a novel? Is it erotica? Is it feminist literature? – then because I have not alleviated her of the responsibility to decide for herself what she wants to see. This reader must acknowledge, by virtue of her doubts, that such classification is not quiet, but always on
\nthe move. Not silent, but noisy. By deliberately writing a work with numerous dynamic interfaces and by testing out the various levels and limits of their co-existence in my mind and in that of the reader, I hope to not only provide initial answers to my research question, but to make a contribution to an ongoing discussion about the properties of the novel. This contribution, like the spirit of my research question, seeks to remain open and dynamic. The second part of the response takes the form of a commentary, by means of which I present and analyse samples of my novel-writing as praxis with a view to demonstrating the routes
\nand measures taken to expose what I consider the inherent structural heterogeneity of the novel and its dialogical dynamics, as informed by Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Derrida. Here, I also examine how a close reading of ‘writing in the feminine’ as exemplified by a passage in
\nNicole Brossard’s Fences In Breathing (2007), further refines my understanding of heterogeneity by allowing me to probe a theme that is common to both our work: how the
\nbody interacts with generic structure to create/advocate new reading realities/subjectivities. I come to the conclusion that both Nicole Brossard, a Canadian feminist lesbian writer, and I, make valuable contributions to an on-going discussion about the properties of writing. Neither the potential heterogeneity of the novel nor the multiple reader stances it permits have been sufficiently recognized. The novel, notwithstanding its highly elastic properties, still has room for considerable structural innovation. Verses Nature may be seen to demonstrate something of the immense heterogeneity potentially at work within the novel form. In so doing, it is hoped that this novel may invite readers to renegotiate the borders of the novel as a genre and reanimate an understanding of what the novel may do.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBangor University Research Portal (Bangor University)Same topicFrench Literature and Critical TheoryFrench-language works237,207