[학술논문] The Experimental Spirit in Canadian Poetry: Margaret Atwood, Eli Mandel, George Bowering, and the Experimental poets Thereafter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovative, Innovative methods and techniques of Canadian poetry try to engage the signifier of the poetic sparks as an open space of polyvalence beneath which the potential signifieds of meaning and signification slide, thereby transforming themselves into sliding signifiers of revolution. History of Canadian literature demonstrates one of the exemplars for the signifying chain of this openness, and we can find the origin of the experimental spirit when we go back and trace the process of defining Canadian literature which was revealed in the history of Canadian literary criticism. \nMy main objective in this paper has been to picture the developmental aspects of duplication and multiplication in contemporary poetry seen from the perspective of Canadian literary criticism. I argue that recent Canadian poetry reflects this fragmentary nature of cultural scene, and that Paul de Man's and Linda Hutcheon's concepts of duplication and multiplication provide a theoretical grid for filtering various kinds of methods and techniques in understanding contemporary poetry in Canada. It is my contention that Canadian poetry reflects the ironic and fragmentary narratives of duplication and multiplication revealed in Canadian literary criticism. \nMargaret Atwood's and Eli Mandel's poetry reveal the aspects of the duplication of Canadian poetry, by poetizing ironic aspects of human existence and ironic duplicity of language respectively. In contrast, George Henry Bowering and Robert Kroetsch take over what Atwood and Mandel left behind. They investigate the age-old problematics of form and content, and search for the possibility of multiplication in the forms of allegorical displacement, by experimenting fragmentary forms in their poetry, executing postmodern parody, and deconstructing such monolithic traditional concepts of subjects, language, meaning, and image. \nIn addition to Bowering and Kroetsch, there are many other experimental poets who also contribute to the event of the multiplicity in Canadian poetry by means of innovation and experiment. They have made every effort to innovate their poetry in the forms of open form poetry, long poems, continuing poems, and concrete poetry including visual poetry and sound poetry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".