Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

A recent piece in The New Yorker () looks at Franco Moretti's notion that modern literary criticsm needs to focus on the scientific rather than the artistic elements - especially given the sheer volume of published literature that exists today. Do you agree that there is some value in bringing computer sciences to the literary arena? Or should literary criticism remain about the art?

Seriously? Maybe this isn't a discussion I have an indoor voice for.

Deborah wrote: "Seriously? Maybe this isn't a discussion I have an indoor voice for."

Ahhhh...there's the laugh I've been waiting for all day! :)

Does this belong to what Moretti is talking about:

(Click on another author to visualize shift -- I haven't checked difference, if any, for starting with the selected author)





On a more serious side, I do know that significant research on ancient documents has been aided by computer-aided textual analysis. But, my same comment -- I'm afraid I won't know what scientific literary criticism is without encountering a significant number of examples or perhaps reading Moretti's Distant Reading.

(I thought maybe this was going towards an exploration of the inclusion of "science" within literary training, ala the apparent push for curriculum shifts to teach students to more easily and capably read scientific and technical literature/documents. But the New Yorker article doesn't seem to be about such issues.)

One of the reviews of Distant Reading took me here:

Let me put it that way: I'm turning 24 this year, and have read around 2,000 books - speaking as a voracious reader. Only in the last few years have I learned to appreciate all the different connections that exist between books, all the tropes, plot devices, etc. I knew about these before, but experiencing them on your own is something entirely different.
Now transfer that to the life of a literary critic. How much have they read? 10,000 books? 15,000? How much is that anyway? The canon plus a bit? At some point, one human cannot comprehend the sheer mass of literature that is out there. Even if you specialize yourself on a specific topic - how narrow do you want to draw those limitations? "Gay Asian Fiction of the 1990s"? "Postcolonial Narratives in 19th Century Spain"?
Computers can help immensely with the task of connecting a plethora of works with each other. Sure, right now it is not possible to work as closely as a seasoned literary critic, but just give it some time. This does not take anything away from the enjoyment of reading, nor does it replace literary criticism. It just opens up the literary world to a new level of comprehensive analysis.

Deborah wrote: "Seriously? Maybe this isn't a discussion I have an indoor voice for."

This is quite funny, but I had just the same reaction :D

Sam wrote: "Let me put it that way: I'm turning 24 this year, and have read around 2,000 books - speaking as a voracious reader. Only in the last few years have I learned to appreciate all the different connec..."

2000! and a year younger than me :) Sam - you are cool :D very! you score so many respect points for this, haha :) I will always regret that I had dropped reading books for some 5-8 years during school.. I probably would have been at a similar number otherwise. But then again, glad to have picked it up. I know perfectly what you mean about all the different connections - it's like insiders for people who read books.. kind of like internet memes for people who browse a lot of 9gag (silly comparison though, I know..)...

I'm still not sure about the computer part, because books are for enjoying.. not for numerically checking for their 'compatibility' or something like that.. As long as we don't have an android that can enjoy a book and then evaluate it, it will be of no use, in my opinion. I know that many critics function more like computers than people and evaluate books based on things different from enjoyment.. But I still believe that even in the most calculating critic there will be a part that will add to or detract from a review based on if the book was simply enjoyable or not, aside from all the technicalities.

I was interested in finding out a bit more about the author of the article: "Joshua Rothman is The New Yorker’s archive editor. He joined the magazine in 2012, and is a frequent contributor to newyorker.com, where he writes primarily about the magazine’s archive and about books and culture. Rothman grew up near Washington, D.C., and graduated from Princeton University. Before coming to The New Yorker, he was a doctoral candidate in the English department at Harvard, an instructor in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and a columnist for the Ideas section of the Boston Globe."

At the end of the article, Rothman makes this interesting observation:

"By the end of his journey, Moretti may be able to see all of literature, but he’ll see it as an astronaut on Mars might see the Earth: from afar, with no way home. In 2006, the literary Web site the Valve hosted an online symposium on Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History with Moretti as a participant. In one of his responses, he asked, rhetorically, whether his approach “abolish[es] the pleasure of reading literature.� His answer:

'No—it just means that between the pleasure and the knowledge of literature (or at least a large part of knowledge) there is no continuity. Knowing is not reading.'

Perhaps it’s odd to feel gratitude for the work of a critic with whom you regularly disagree, but I feel grateful for Moretti. As readers, we now find ourselves benefitting from a division of critical labor. We can continue to read the old-fashioned way. Moretti, from afar, will tell us what he learns."

I'm a retired 73 year old English teacher who loved teaching BOTH literature and grammar. Does it matter that you know the various types of sentence structure, clauses, and phrases? Certainly not to most of my students. But for me, that knowledge deepened my own appreciation of the "art" of writing. So I'm glad Rothman left the end of the essay in a way that wasn't judging Moretti. An astronaut on Mars CAN contribute a view of the earth not found elsewhere, if that's his/her choice for POV. Grammar CAN deepen an appreciation of how language works, if a person cares to comprehend the intricate weaving of language.

What I appreciate most about Moretti's efforts is the awareness of global literature. I was raised in the classical canon, and if Moretti's work is able to draw global connections rather than just those of the Western world, more power to him.

This idea makes my brain hurt. And then I think about the charts and just think "Why???"
There is a place for science. This isn't it.

I think there is a little confusion about what is science (the application of rigorous logical methods to increase knowledge) and what is computer science (which is a very specific science). I presume the article and this discussion is really relevant mainly to English PhDs who need to do publishable research, and about applying computer software and scientific methods to do meta-analysis of literary patterns at a macro level. The results of this type of research may be more interesting to social scientists than to readers of literature.

Cat wrote: "The results of this type of research may be more interesting to social scientists than to readers of literature. ..."

Yes

Cat wrote: "I think there is a little confusion about what is science (the application of rigorous logical methods to increase knowledge) and what is computer science (which is a very specific science). I pre..."

LOL! I'd say, more than a little. I still haven't really figured out what this discussion is about. Cat, can you give us a few more words about "meta-analysis" and "macro level."? I am more familiar (and not very about those) with computer science techniques used for textual analyses, especially on ancient texts in attempts to trace or identify authors, sources, possible insertions,...

Could/would someone give us a link to an example of the type of criticism espoused, other than the projects at Stanford (@msg4)?

I think Cat has it right here -- computer science is the tool here, not the field of study. What Moretti is doing looks to me to be the Sociology or Anthropology of Literature, not really a form of literary study per se, although it might be relevant to the study of literature. Of course, since we really haven't figured out how to handle the social sciences very well (note: one of my degrees is in Geography), they are very prone to overreaching and trying to predict or explain too much. This may be very well what's going on here. I think I may pick up one or two of his books to see what I think. (He might be wrong, but I don't mind reading some interesting wrong work.)

Lily wrote: "Could/would someone give us a link to an example of the type of criticism espoused, other than the projects at Stanford (@msg4)?"

Here is an older piece from the New York Times which might be a little more helpful in the examples department:

If you really want to get lost in the weeds, you can also check out this [free] collection of critical responses to Moretti:

Julia wrote: "So I'm glad Rothman left the end of the essay in a way that wasn't judging Moretti. An astronaut on Mars CAN contribute a view of the earth not found elsewhere, if that's his/her choice for POV. Grammar CAN deepen an appreciation of how language works, if a person cares to comprehend the intricate weaving of language."

Julia, I like how you put it. After looking at the articles Daniel posted - including the weeds' one - I can see that Moretti's work is probably not going to capture my attention. Not because it doesn't add anything to the study of literature but because I don't have the desire to figure out what he is doing! But I can appreciate a desire for finding themes and detecting changes, if I am correct that such is what he is attempting to do. And I liked diagraming sentences, too! Sometimes I just enjoy immersing myself in the minutia -- such as future interests in my long ago law school property class!

Daniel wrote: "Lily wrote: "Could/would someone give us a link to an example of the type of criticism espoused, other than the projects at Stanford (@msg4)?"

Here is an older piece from the New York Times which ..."

Thank you, Daniel! At least I have some sense of the type of ball game being played! Now, the question becomes, do its rules make it a game worth watching or does one just let interested parties play so long as the sport can fund itself?

Linda wrote: "Julia wrote: "So I'm glad Rothman left the end of the essay in a way that wasn't judging Moretti. An astronaut on Mars CAN contribute a view of the earth not found elsewhere, if that's his/her choi..."

I agree, Linda. I won't be reading Moretti's work, but that doesn't mean I don't respect his efforts. This type of statistical analysis has its place in any discipline, even if I cannot follow that type of thought. In the same way, I can benefit from the thinking of people like Einstein and Hawking, while being aware that I cannot grasp the actual math/science background of their work, just as I can love the works of Mozart or Michelanglo while recognizing that their techniques are beyond my understanding.

I'm just glad to see curiosity at work, in whatever form it takes. I'd start my AP literature class with Einstein's quotation: "The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when contemplating the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of the mystery every day. The important thing is not to stop questioning; never lose a holy curiosity."
--from statement to William Miller, as quoted in LIFE magazine (2 May 1955).

So while I may not share the form which Moretti's curiosity takes, I very much respect his dedication to his idea.

Julia wrote: "Linda wrote: "Julia wrote: "So I'm glad Rothman left the end of the essay in a way that wasn't judging Moretti. An astronaut on Mars CAN contribute a view of the earth not found elsewhere, if that'..."

I'd absolutely agree with these opinions. It may not be something that interests me, but it may be something that ends up illuminating some aspects of literature. If not, it will pass from view the same way some of the more outré claims of postmodernism largely did. The poor Literature Studies students can wade through whatever the latest trends in literary analysis are, no skin off my teeth.

Julia wrote: "I'm just glad to see curiosity at work, in whatever form it takes. I'd start my AP literature class with Einstein's quotation: "The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when contemplating the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of the mystery every day. The important thing is not to stop questioning; never lose a holy curiosity."

Great quote! It so better expresses my commitment to life long learning, which is nothing more than somewhat focused curiosity!

The students and I would have a great discussion about the difference between regular curiosity and "holy curiosity". Einstein didn't mean "holy" in any religious sense, but they realized he meant that curiosity should contain a sense of awe. Marie Curie reaffirms this idea when she says: "Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."

When I retired suddenly, so a young teacher could keep his job, my friends asked what I planned to do. I just said, "I want to live the rest of my life in a perpetual sense of awe." :-)

So, I went off and read Distant Reading, Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History and Reading Graphs, Maps, and Trees: Responses to Franco Moretti, and I can say with confidence what Moretti is about has nothing to do with reading for pleasure or book reviewing and not that much with teaching literature (at least at the undergraduate level), but rather with the academic discipline of literary criticism. And there he has a point: every year more books are published about James Joyce then Joyce published in his lifetime; heck, on average there is a book published on Shakespeare every single day of the year! Moretti wants to move from on from the close reading of a narrow cannon to studying the other 99.99% of the books out there as well. It's an interesting project, although I'm not entirely convinced by the way he borrows methodology from the sciences sort of at random, and then attempts to apply them to literary analysis. (But as a geographer I'm charmed by his use of Central Place Theory (a classic early 20th century piece of economic geography) to analyze British Village stories, and I think his use of graph theory to examine plays might be very insightful.)

So there's nothing to worry about here, just some new approaches to problems that have nothing to do with reading for pleasure. And given the sheer mass of fiction being written these days, I don't see how literary theory can function without something like this approach. (And I'd love to see some quantitative analysis someday of fan-fiction -- I suspect that there's even more of that being written than formal fiction these days.)

Peter wrote: "(And I'd love to see some qualitative analysis someday of fan-fiction -- I suspect that there's even more of that being written than formal fiction these days.)"

Indeed!

As a computer programmer, let me say computers are really very dumb machines, but they could be used to analyze texts by literary critics. A programmer could input the complete work of Dickens and return lists of words he used over time and books with frequencies. It would be a near impossible task by hand, but only a few hours of work to a programmer. But Would that be helpful to literary critics? Maybe. Maybe not. Could a computer critique a character? I don't think so.

The truth is not democratic.