Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: Merits of Distance Reading?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Posts
    20

    Merits of Distance Reading?

    In one of my classes, our professor had us analyze Middlemarch using a technique called distant reading. We constructed models of different aspects of the novel and used these models as the basis for our class discussions. I appreciated the approach as a way of looking at literary works through a new lens, but an article in the New York Times seems to imply that the pioneers of distant reading want their models to replace other critical approaches like close readings of the text. Does anyone here agree with the idea that distant reading should be the dominant approach to literary criticism? As a first-year student at my university, I really have no idea how popular this approach is or how often it is used in academic writing on literature.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    919
    Blog Entries
    6
    I really have no idea what you mean by distance reading. Can you give an example of a distant reading of part of the text? Also, what do you mean by "constructed models of different aspects of the novel"? Could you elaborate on that as well? Finally, I don't see any new fad/mode of reading coming along and revolutionizing the way we read or teach our students to read. That being said, while one can read a novel closely, one can't really give it the same kind of close reading one gives a poem. They're just too long; so, even close reading isn't the ultimately accepted way to closely read a novel.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Posts
    20
    One example of a distant reading approach was how we looked at the Act V in Macbeth. We made a diagram with characters as the different nodes and placed lines between characters who spoke to each other. Using that diagram, we found out that Macbeth's conversations in Act V seemed to consist of separate interactions with various servants or enemies, creating a sort of hub-and-spoke visual in our diagram. On the other hand, the characters in the army that defeats Macbeth are more closely interconnected, creating more of a web-like pattern. Another approach to Macbeth involved looking at where the word "bloody" appeared and in what context. Additionally, we made a graph charting the frequency of bloody over each act of the play. And if you're interested in seeing the article I referred to in my first post, the title is "What is Distant Reading?" For some reason, the site isn't allowing me to directly link to the article.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    919
    Blog Entries
    6
    I'm sure your professor is a smart guy, or woman, and I don't want to take away from his attempts to be innovative. However, I can't say I like it, nor would I ever do this with my own students. The problem with this "approach" is it avoids doing the most important thing in understanding the text, reading the language...particularly with a writer with language as exquisite as Shakespeare. I think the modeling and analysis you are doing could help supplement and enrich the reading of the text, but it could never replace it. Anyway, I hope it was fulfilling and enjoyable for you.

  5. #5
    Registered User kiki1982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Saarburg, Germany
    Posts
    3,105
    All literary theory is like Bach numbers: it provides no additional understanding because it applies a pre-conceived thought deemed to be 'the truth' to a text, which is then 'proven' through quotes. It either states the obvious or otherwise claims something so outlandish that even if it can be 'proven' with quotes, it is still untrue. The misogynist nature of Hardy, for example, purely because his plots are miserable is so outlandish that the average clued up person would start laughing very hard.

    Maybe some of this modelling would give you some interesting patterns in addition to close reading (to help you interpret), but I fail to see how it could give you more understanding of any work. Also, computer models are still written by people, so therefore the criteria the model uses to analyse are still pre-defined by people, so therefore the outcome of any analysis is still going to be pre-defined, again, by people. OK, maybe you could identify the hero of Vanity Fair, despite its author saying it didn't have a hero, but then how does that give you more understanding of the novel in the first place? It's all very interesting and fun, but what's the use of knowing who the real hero of VF is exactly? Or how does the status of a book being either Gothic or Victorian affect its understanding? Irish or American, or both?
    I can't imagine that discounting the content of any contact would i any way improve your understanding. Let's say an author were to write a book about a married couple where the man was leading a double life, but the man would have more conversations with his wife than with anyone else, what would the model conclude? Come to think of it: what conclusion does the model draw from Pride and Prejudice?
    One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.

    "Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)

  6. #6
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by kiki1982 View Post
    All literary theory is like Bach numbers: it provides no additional understanding because it applies a pre-conceived thought deemed to be 'the truth' to a text, which is then 'proven' through quotes. It either states the obvious or otherwise claims something so outlandish that even if it can be 'proven' with quotes, it is still untrue.
    That is how I see most theories being used. They are not set out as falsifiable statements, but as doctrines to be believed.

    I had not heard of "distant reading" before but this link connects it with "close reading": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_reading

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by kiki1982 View Post
    Maybe some of this modelling would give you some interesting patterns in addition to close reading (to help you interpret), but I fail to see how it could give you more understanding of any work. Also, computer models are still written by people, so therefore the criteria the model uses to analyse are still pre-defined by people, so therefore the outcome of any analysis is still going to be pre-defined, again, by people. OK, maybe you could identify the hero of Vanity Fair, despite its author saying it didn't have a hero, but then how does that give you more understanding of the novel in the first place? It's all very interesting and fun, but what's the use of knowing who the real hero of VF is exactly? Or how does the status of a book being either Gothic or Victorian affect its understanding? Irish or American, or both?
    I can't imagine that discounting the content of any contact would i any way improve your understanding. Let's say an author were to write a book about a married couple where the man was leading a double life, but the man would have more conversations with his wife than with anyone else, what would the model conclude? Come to think of it: what conclusion does the model draw from Pride and Prejudice?
    I definitely agree that distant reading could never replace other forms like close reading, but I do think that it could be a valuable supplementary method. In the example you're giving, I can imagine that there could be some use in knowing that the man spends more time talking with his wife than anyone else. Suppose the book was so crowded with other conversations that it was difficult to know who spent more time with whom. I think that knowing who characters interact with more could be useful to know. Maybe this would be harder to model in a novel, but it might be more useful in something like a play or film.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    919
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by kiki1982 View Post
    All literary theory is like Bach numbers: it provides no additional understanding because it applies a pre-conceived thought deemed to be 'the truth' to a text, which is then 'proven' through quotes. It either states the obvious or otherwise claims something so outlandish that even if it can be 'proven' with quotes, it is still untrue. The misogynist nature of Hardy, for example, purely because his plots are miserable is so outlandish that the average clued up person would start laughing very hard.
    First of all, your statement is, itself, one of literary theory since you assert a theoretical stance on understanding literature. So, your statement is effectively self-negating. Secondly, there is no way of understanding art in any discursive or comprehensive way without some informed "theory." Otherwise, any random observation--like "dogs are nice, therefore pictures of dogs playing cards is the highest art"--could be true, and there could be no effective discussions about art since no statement could be more legitimate or effective than the other.

    Also, critical theory/aesthetic criticism does not claim to be "true;" no non-scientific aesthetic or philosophical statement can be fully true. It attempts to elucidate comprehension of and/or evaluate an art medium or art form. As to all critical theory statements being outlandish, that is entirely inaccurate and unsupported in any way and shows a lack of understanding of such substantial modern theorists as: Barthes, Derrida, Moi, Morrison, Kristeva, Butler, and Zizek. If you could make an actual criticism of one of these--or other--modern literary theorists, I would love to read it.

    Finally, literary theory is a long tradition, including excellent works by brilliant authors, works I doubt you would consider "outlandish." Here are some.

    Aristotle's Poetics
    On the Beautiful and the Sublime by Immanuel Kant
    The Birth of Tragedy by Friedrich Nietzsche
    "On the Sublime and Beautiful" by Edmund Burke
    Biographica Literaria by Samuel Coleridge
    Poetry, Language, and Thought by Martin Heidegger
    Essays in Criticism by Matthew Arnold
    The Dialogic Imagination by Mikhail Bakhtin...and many more

    So, by mistakenly dismissing theory, you're not only dismissing brilliant, useful works of modern theory/theoretical criticism, you are dismissing a long, rich tradition of theoretical criticism. Anyway, I'm looking forward to some of your criticisms of some theorists; I'm sure they will be interesting.
    Last edited by Pike Bishop; 04-19-2015 at 11:36 AM.

  9. #9
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartlebooth View Post
    I definitely agree that distant reading could never replace other forms like close reading, but I do think that it could be a valuable supplementary method. In the example you're giving, I can imagine that there could be some use in knowing that the man spends more time talking with his wife than anyone else. Suppose the book was so crowded with other conversations that it was difficult to know who spent more time with whom. I think that knowing who characters interact with more could be useful to know. Maybe this would be harder to model in a novel, but it might be more useful in something like a play or film.
    I am no expert in this, but in looking more carefully at "distant reading" (in particular this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/bo...anted=all&_r=0), I suspect that distant reading and close reading are the same technique from different perspectives which have been used by commentators on religious texts for some time.

    For example, the close reader will select a few verses from Genesis and write a commentary or sermon that is supplemented with "distant" data about the entire book. The close part focuses on the few verses. The distant part focuses on data about the language used or how this section fits into the general flow of the text or how the few verses support a larger theological perspective.

    As someone who enjoys reading different sacred texts, I look for a believer, a close/distant reader who can comment of that text to guide me through it. For example, I did not understand the Bhagavad Gita until I read Eknath Easwaran's three volume commentary on it. Nor did I understand Genesis until I read Kent Hughes' commentary. In both cases Easwaran and Hughes were believers (the "distant" part) who commented on short passages (the "close" part) and that is what I was looking for.
    Last edited by YesNo; 04-19-2015 at 09:49 PM.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    As someone who enjoys reading different sacred texts, I look for a believer, a close/distant reader who can comment of that text to guide me through it. For example, I did not understand the Bhagavad Gita until I read Eknath Easwaran's three volume commentary on it. Nor did I understand Genesis until I read Kent Hughes' commentary. In both cases Easwaran and Hughes were believers (the "distant" part) who commented on short passages (the "close" part) and that is what I was looking for.
    That certainly seems like a valuable use of the technique. But how does being a believer fulfill the "distant" aspect of reading a religious text? Do you mean that a believer would have a more comprehensive understanding of the work's religious context and would be able to apply the findings of closer readings to the text as a whole through this knowledge?

  11. #11
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Yes, and a believer has more commitment to bring to the short text. Just like the person who enjoyed, say, Pride and Prejudice has more commitment to that text than one who did not enjoy it.

    I hope the believers would also use any computer generated data to help them just as the distant readers of literary texts would do. The religious belief compares to the literary theory the distant readers use to guide them in interpreting whatever data is available.
    Last edited by YesNo; 04-19-2015 at 10:52 PM.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    919
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Yes, and a believer has more commitment to bring to the short text. Just like the person who enjoyed, say, Pride and Prejudice has more commitment to that text.
    I disagree. Some of the best and most renowned biblical readers/scholars are non-believers. Some of the most renowned scholars of Buddhist and Hindu texts are also non-believers. Excellent close reading demands just that: the close reading of the text. While some believers can bring their valuable perspective of the believer to sacred texts, many others cannot keep their belief from prejudicing their readings. That's why the more objective readings of non-believer can be particularly valuable. Either way, all close readers still need some knowledge of the cultural and historical background of the sacred text to make those close readings complete.

  13. #13
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I partially agree. I agree that all close readers need that distant reading knowledge of the cultural and historical background of the text.

    However, I don't trust non-believers. I want to understand why someone values this text. I am not interested in a polemic against the religious or literary belief. This is not to say that anything that a believer says is better than what a non-believer has to say.

    You mentioned, "Some of the best and most renowned biblical readers/scholars are non-believers." What are some examples?

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    However, I don't trust non-believers. I want to understand why someone values this text. I am not interested in a polemic against the religious or literary belief. This is not to say that anything that a believer says is better than what a non-believer has to say.
    But couldn't non-believers also value the text? They might not necessary follow its religion, but they could certainly appreciate its intellectual and aesthetic value.

    Also, if anyone is interested, here is another article which goes into more detail about how distant reading addresses texts.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    919
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    I partially agree. I agree that all close readers need that distant reading knowledge of the cultural and historical background of the text.

    However, I don't trust non-believers. I want to understand why someone values this text. I am not interested in a polemic against the religious or literary belief. This is not to say that anything that a believer says is better than what a non-believer has to say.

    You mentioned, "Some of the best and most renowned biblical readers/scholars are non-believers." What are some examples?
    Your not trusting non-believers to well read religious texts is like non-believers not believing religious people can comprehend secular atheist texts by authors like Freud, Marx, Camus, Sartre, Derrida, and McCarthy. It mistakenly presumes belief in a particular ideological element of a text is required for understanding, and it's not. As Bartelbooth mentioned, one doesn't have to accept that ideology to appreciate and understand the text's aesthetic, intellectual, and philosophical value. Also, your presumption that non-believers would all make polemics against the religious text is also incorrect. Many, if not most, non-believing serious readers of religious texts are as respectful of those texts they read as they are of non-religious texts, as they legitimately value those texts as much. I, myself, am a atheist, non-believer literary scholar who has greatly valued the religious texts I have read. Some of them have been:

    The Bible
    St. Anselm's Basic Writings
    St. Augustine's Confessions
    Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica
    Martin Buber's I and Thou
    Soren Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death
    The novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky...and many more

    As to outstanding scholars of religious texts in which they didn't believe:

    John Hillis Miller
    Harold Bloom
    Jacques Derrida
    Martin Buber
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    Arthur Schopenhauer
    GWF Hegel
    Sigmund Freud
    John D. Caputo
    Thomas Aquinas
    Mark C. Taylor and many more.
    Last edited by Pike Bishop; 04-19-2015 at 11:34 PM.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The merits of translation
    By Robert007 in forum General Literature
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-14-2015, 01:43 PM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-28-2011, 02:50 PM
  3. The distance between us
    By angliholic in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-01-2010, 06:02 AM
  4. Distance
    By Hawkman in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 03:59 PM
  5. Distance between YOU & ME
    By blazeofglory in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 10:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •