Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T10:06:49.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Doxa of Reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020


Reading Franco Moretti's Graphs, Maps, Trees as a late-stage graduate student in 2008 was invigorating. Here was an approach to literary history free from the pieties of close reading, committed to empiricism, seeking to fulfill, with its “materialist conception of form,” the promise of the sociology of literature (92). And, at the time, it seemed natural that the way to follow the path laid out by Moretti in Graphs and in the essays he had published over the previous decade was to go to my computer, polish my rusty programming skills, and start making graphs. Yet reconsidering Moretti's Distant Reading now, one is struck by how nondigital the book is. In fact, the meaning of distant reading has undergone a rapid semantic transformation. In “Conjectures on World Literature,” originally published in 2000, Moretti introduces the phrase to describe “a patchwork of other people's research, without a single direct textual reading” (Distant Reading 48). Today, however, distant reading typically refers to computational studies of text. Introducing a 2016 cluster of essays called “Text Analysis at Scale,” Matthew K. Gold and Lauren Klein employ the term to speak of “using digital tools to ‘read’ large swaths of text” (Introduction); in his contribution to the cluster, Ted Underwood embraces “distant reading” as a name for applying machine-learning techniques to unstructured text. Discussions of distant reading have become discussions of computation with text, even if no section of Distant Reading features the elaborate computations found in the Stanford Literary Lab pamphlets to which Moretti has contributed.

Theories and Methodologies
Copyright © 2017 The Modern Language Association of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Works Cited

Algee-Hewitt, Mark, et al. “Canon/Archive. Large Scale Dynamics in the Literary Field.” Stanford Literary Lab, pamphlet 11, Jan. 2016, PDF download.Google Scholar
Best, Stephen, and Marcus, Sharon. “Surface Reading: An Introduction.” Representations, vol. 108, no. 1, Nov. 2009, pp. 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bode, Katherine. “The Equivalence of ‘Close’ and ‘Distant’ Reading; or, Toward a New Object for Data-Rich Literary History.” MLQ, vol. 78, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 77106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Translated by Emanuel, Susan, Polity Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Cecire, Natalia. “Ways of Not Reading Gertrude Stein.” ELH, vol. 82, no. 1, 2015, pp. 281312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Daniel J., et al. “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History.” Journal of American History, vol. 95, no. 2, Sept. 2008, pp. 452–91.Google Scholar
DeWitt, Anne. “Advances in the Visualization of Data: The Network of Genre in the Victorian Periodical Press.” Victorian Periodicals Review, vol. 48, no. 2, Summer 2015, pp. 161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
During, Simon. “Katherine Mansfield's World.” Journal of New Zealand Literature, no. 33, 2015, pp. 3366.Google Scholar
Gold, Matthew K., and Klein, Lauren, editors. Debates in the Digital Humanities, 2016. U of Minnesota P, 2016, Scholar
Gold, Matthew K. Introduction to “Forum: Text Analysis at Scale.” Gold and Klein, Debates, Scholar
Griswold, Wendy. “American Character and the American Novel: An Expansion of Reflection Theory in the Sociology of Literature.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 86, no. 4, Jan. 1981, pp. 740–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jockers, Matthew L. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History. U of Illinois P, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd ed., Sage Publications, 2013.Google Scholar
Long, Hoyt, and So, Richard Jean. “Literary Pattern Recognition: Modernism between Close Reading and Machine Learning.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 42, no. 2, Winter 2016, pp. 235–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, Meredith L.Echocriticism: Repetition and the Order of Texts.” American Literature, vol. 88, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan Cottom, Tressie. “More Scale, More Questions: Observations from Sociology.” Gold and Klein, Debates, Scholar
Mitrić, Ana. “Jane Austen and Civility: A Distant Reading.” Persuasions, no. 29, 2007, pp. 194208.Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. Distant Reading. Verso, 2013.Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History. Verso, 2005.Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. “Literature, Measured.” Stanford Literary Lab, pamphlet 12, Apr. 2016, PDF download.Google Scholar
Mufti, Aamir R.Global Comparativism.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 31, no. 2, Winter 2005, pp. 472–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radway, Janice. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. U of North Carolina P, 1984.Google Scholar
Schulz, Kathryn. “What Is Distant Reading?The New York Times Book Review, 24 June 2011, Scholar
Underwood, Ted. “Distant Reading and Recent Intellectual History.” Gold and Klein, Debates, Scholar
Underwood, Ted, and Sellers, Jordan. “The Longue Durée of Literary Prestige.” MLQ, vol. 77, no. 3, Jan. 2016, pp. 321–44.Google Scholar
Wilkens, Matthew. “The Geographic Imagination of Civil War-Era American Fiction.” American Literary History, vol. 25, no. 4, Winter 2013, pp. 803–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar