The
Moretti article presents the idea of using graphs to trace the rise of the
novel in a few different cultures (mostly European) and discusses how the graph
data has been used correctly or incorrectly for various interpretations. He
discusses how literary criticism- which has not really had a use for quantitative
analytics- could be enhanced and effected by incorporating this type of data.
He starts out by saying the traditional models of literary analysis (comparing
it to older methods of historical research) focused on exceptional events as
the primary area of focus, but Moretti is suggesting that is all the other
stuff- the not so extraordinary, the everyday and mass data- can be even more
useful. In this he is suggesting an opportunity for better, deeper
understanding.
He
describes the benefit of big data/graphs: “… a field this large cannot be understood by
stitching together separate bits of knowledge about individual cases, because
it isn’t a sum of individual cases: it’s a collective system, that should
be grasped as such, as a whole—and
the graphs that follow are one way to begin doing this.”
What
he is suggesting is that there is a greater value in looking at larger data
sets, rather than isolated incidents-more macro than micro- because the larger
data can reveal patterns and systems which are likely to be more useful and accurate
in research.
He
also (importantly) mentions that the gathering of such data is a collective and
shared effort, and that the scope of this kind of research benefits from collaborations
since results can be combined in multiple ways.
He
supports his ideas by examining the how rise and falls of genre novels can be
overlayed on the more general “rise of the novel” measures, and also how other
factors (politics, generational shifts, trends) can affect the preliminary
assumptions.
Because
the new scholarship he is discussing are graphs, I don’t see him as blowing up
any ivory towers. I can’t see any traditional humanities scholar being
horrified by this- it’s really just looking at the same information (the rise
of the novel) with fresh eyes (quantitative graphs)- taking into consideration
other relevant information. I would hope that a traditional humanist would see
it as an enhancement rather than a threat to traditional scholarship.
I
think students would be very receptive to multiple ways of analysis- especially
the ones with visualizations, but I think it’s important to have them stand in relationship
to other sources. Data is most useful when viewed through multiple contexts. For
example: English books imported in India as a graph relates one thing. Considering
other data like information of the political climate, the cost of paper at the
time, even sailing data patterns etc., changes the way we would read the data.
A
graph, although we like to think of them as neutral or unbiased is so open to
interpretation, if it’s isolated as a singular source. As pointed out in the
article, It’s the layering of information gathered by the graphs that provides
a real understanding.
