rative templates. Three sub-genres of autobiography take center stage in the book’s final chapters, illustrating recent autobiographical trends. Illness narratives, explored by Neil Vickers, were comparatively rare before 1950, but skyrocketed in high and lowbrow forms in and beyond the 1970s. Just as Brooker finds with regard to the notoriety of literary memoirs, with illness narratives “celebrity remains the most important determinant of an illness narrative’s commercial success” (389). One illness narrative, however, soared to success without its author’s notoriety, achieving ignominy once it was proven that large portions of it were fabricated. James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces (2002), a story of the author’s addiction to alcohol and cocaine, was rejected in novel form, but when represented as a memoir, landed publication. The fake autobiography as a category of contemporary writing forms the subject of Roger Luckhurst’s essay. Hoax autobiographies, of which there have been many recent examples, break the central “pact” described by Philip Lejune, where the author and narrator of autobiography are the same, “thus guaranteeing its truth” (404). Luckhurst focuses less on fabrication as an issue, pointing to the will to dismantle narratives from a legalist standpoint as evidence of our increasingly fractured, contentious historical moment. He identifies “autofiction,” a blurred genre of autobiographical fact and faction, practiced by Philip Roth and J.G. Ballard, as a necessary response to this reality. Finally, Andreas Kitzmann considers what the most prolific, and newest genre of life-writing, the Facebook profile, tells us about autobiographical form. Situating the algorithmic, collaborative, constantly managed account of the self within contemporary debates about selfhood, Kitzmann extols the post-human feature of lives in social media. Even though autobiography on social media platforms “merges into ‘automated biography,’” this is not exclusively bad. It radically collapses the hierarchy of human and non-human identity so that the automated self “literally ‘thingifies’ the human subject and reconfigures . . . the great chain of being into circles where each link, each ‘thing,’ is as potentially relevant and capable of effecting change as the other” (428). For Kitzmann, this new concentricity promotes dialogue, but especially, humility.

中文翻译：

---

美国指南：联邦作家计划和美国文化的铸造

理性模板。自传的三个子类型占据了本书最后几章的中心位置，说明了最近的自传趋势。尼尔·维克斯 (Neil Vickers) 探索的疾病叙事在 1950 年之前相对较少，但在 1970 年代及以后以高尚和低俗的形式猛增。正如布鲁克关于文学回忆录的恶名所发现的那样，疾病叙事“名人仍然是疾病叙事商业成功的最重要决定因素”（389）。然而，一种疾病叙事在没有作者声名的情况下飙升至成功，一旦被证明其中大部分是捏造的，就名声大噪。詹姆斯·弗雷 (James Frey) 的《一百万小件》(A Million Little Pieces，2002 年) 讲述了作者对酒精和可卡因成瘾的故事，以小说形式被拒绝，但作为回忆录出版时，却获得了出版。假自传作为当代写作的一个类别，构成了罗杰·勒克赫斯特 (Roger Luckhurst) 文章的主题。恶作剧的自传，其中有许多最近的例子，打破了菲利普勒琼描述的核心“协议”，自传的作者和叙述者是相同的，“从而保证了它的真实性”（404）。Luckhurst 较少关注作为一个问题的捏造，他指出从法家的角度来看，拆除叙事的意愿是我们日益分裂、有争议的历史时刻的证据。他认为“自传小说”是菲利普·罗斯和 JG 巴拉德所实践的一种模糊的自传性事实和派别类型，是对这一现实的必要回应。最后，安德烈亚斯·基茨曼 (Andreas Kitzmann) 考虑了最多产、最新的生活写作类型，即 Facebook 个人资料，它告诉我们关于自传形式的哪些内容。Kitzmann 将算法、协作、持续管理的自我描述置于当代关于自我的辩论中，颂扬社交媒体中生活的后人类特征。尽管社交媒体平台上的自传“融入了‘自动传记’”，但这也并非完全是坏事。它从根本上瓦解了人类和非人类身份的等级制度，使自动化的自我“真正地‘物化’了人类主体并重新配置。. . 巨大的循环链，每个环节、每个“事物”都具有潜在的相关性，并且能够像另一个一样影响变化”（428）。对于基茨曼来说，这种新的同心性促进了对话，尤其是谦逊。基茨曼赞扬社交媒体中生活的后人类特征。尽管社交媒体平台上的自传“融入了‘自动传记’”，但这也并非完全是坏事。它从根本上瓦解了人类和非人类身份的等级制度，使自动化的自我“真正地‘物化’了人类主体并重新配置。. . 进入圈子的巨大链条，其中每个环节、每个“事物”都具有潜在的相关性，并且能够像另一个一样影响变化”（428）。对于基茨曼来说，这种新的同心性促进了对话，尤其是谦逊。基茨曼赞扬社交媒体中生活的后人类特征。尽管社交媒体平台上的自传“融入了‘自动传记’”，但这也并非完全是坏事。它从根本上瓦解了人类和非人类身份的等级制度，使自动化的自我“真正地‘物化’了人类主体并重新配置。. . 巨大的循环链，每个环节、每个“事物”都具有潜在的相关性，并且能够像另一个一样影响变化”（428）。对于基茨曼来说，这种新的同心性促进了对话，尤其是谦逊。它从根本上瓦解了人类和非人类身份的等级制度，使自动化的自我“真正地‘物化’了人类主体并重新配置。. . 进入圈子的巨大链条，其中每个环节、每个“事物”都具有潜在的相关性，并且能够像另一个一样影响变化”（428）。对于基茨曼来说，这种新的同心性促进了对话，尤其是谦逊。它从根本上瓦解了人类和非人类身份的等级制度，使自动化的自我“真正地‘物化’了人类主体并重新配置。. . 巨大的循环链，每个环节、每个“事物”都具有潜在的相关性，并且能够像另一个一样影响变化”（428）。对于基茨曼来说，这种新的同心性促进了对话，尤其是谦逊。