Abstract
In contemporary debates about World literature, Franco Moretti’s method of enquiry called “distant reading” has attracted considerable attention. Many have hailed it as a genuine method, and many have criticized different aspects of it. This essay tries to provide a close analysis of distant reading, and points out a number of misconceptions in it. Starting by an overview of the current discussions regarding Moretti’s method, the essay makes a detailed scrutiny of some of its practical examples. After illustrating the main problem of his method, i.e. not differentiating between two different kinds of noncanonical literature, few methodological suggestions will be offered to help distant reading avoid the current problematic condition.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cohen uses this term in a more restricted sense than Moretti. For her, the great unread, or as she also calls it, hors d’usage refers to the literary archive. But as we shall see in the following pages, Moretti expands this term to describe the portion of World literature that remains outside the canonical focus.
References
Arac, J. (2002). Anglo-globalism? New Left Review, 16, 35–45.
Auerbach, E. (2003). Mimesis: The representation of reality in western literature (W. R. Trask, Trans.). Princeton: Princeton UP.
Basalla, G. (1998). The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Cohen, M. (1999). The sentimental education of the novel. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Damrosch, D. (2003). Comparative literature? PMLA, 118.2, 326–330.
Damrosch, D. (2006). World literature in a postcanonical, hypercanonical age. In H. Saussy (Ed.), Comparative literature in an age of globalization (pp. 43–53). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Editors. (2009). Close reading: A preface. SubStance, 38(2), 3–7.
Ferguson, F. (2008). Planetary literary history: The place of the text. New Literary History, 393, 657–684.
Kristal, E. (2002). ‘Considering coldly…’: A response to Franco Moretti. New Left Review, 15, 61–74.
Moretti, F. (1998). Atlas of the European Novel, 1800–1900. London: Verso.
Moretti, F. (2000a). Conjectures on world literature. New Left Review, 1, 54–68.
Moretti, F. (2000b). The slaughterhouse of literature. Modern Language Quarterly, 61.1, 207–227.
Moretti, F. (2005). Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary Theory. London: Verso.
Moretti, F. (2006). The end of the beginning: A reply to Christopher Prendergast. New Left Review, 41, 71–86.
Moretti, F. (2009). Evolution, World-Systems, Weltliteratur. In D. Damrosch, et al. (Eds.), The Princeton sourcebook in comparative literature (pp. 399–408). Princeton: Princeton UP.
Moretti, F. (2011). Network theory, plot analysis. New Left Review, 68, 80–102.
Orsini, F. (2002). India in the mirror of world fiction. New Left Review, 13, 75–88.
Parla, J. (2004). The object of comparison. Comparative Literature Studies, 41(1), 116–125.
Prendergast, C. (2001). Negotiating world literature. New Left Review, 8, 100–121.
Prendergast, C. (2005). Evolution and literary history: A response to Franco Moretti. New Left Review, 34, 40–62.
Acknowledgments
I’d like to thank Dr. Albert Braz, University of Alberta, for his meticulous comments and benevolent discussions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khadem, A. Annexing the unread: a close reading of “distant reading”. Neohelicon 39, 409–421 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-012-0152-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-012-0152-y