La caída del dictador en la novela El rey de las ratas de Ednodio Quintero
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El dictador, confiado en su superioridad, narra su historia, y al narrar es víctima de su confianza. El lector, seguro bajo su anonimato, las convenciones literarias y su superioridad ética frente al dictador, lee la novela del dictador y es víctima de su seguridad. Esto, que podríamos llamar un fenómeno de "doble caída", se realiza con gran maestría en las novelas de dictaduras publicadas en la década los setenta. Algunos ejemplos de ello son, El otoño del patriarca, Yo el supremo y El discurso del método. En este artículo queremos analizar este mismo fenómeno literario en la novela El rey de las ratas de Ednodio Quintero, publicada en 1994. Creemos que esta novela escenifica con gran éxito la "doble caída" del dictador y del lector. Nuestro objetivo será, por lo tanto, describir dicho fenómeno al interior de la trama, revelar también sus posibilidades y carencias como herramienta crítica ante la dictadura. The dictator, believing he is superior, starts telling his story and in doing so he becomes the victim of his self-confidence. The reader, safe under his/her anonymity, the literary conventions and his/her ethical superiority in regards to the dictator, reads the dictator’s novel and becomes the victim of his/her self-confidence. This combination of literary events, that we can refer to as “double fall” is treated with great skill in the dictator novels written during the seventies. Some of the best examples are: El otoño del patriarca, Yo el supremo and El discurso del método. In this article, we wish to analyze this “double fall” in relation to Ednodio Quintero’s novel, El rey de las ratas, published in 1994. We believe that this novel enacts with success the fall of the dictator and the reader. Our aim is thus to describe this enactment within the plot, and to reveal its success and failures in criticizing dictatorship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".