Rhetorical
Precis
Timothy Burke,
in his essay “Book Notes: Franco Moretti's Graphs, Maps,
and Trees” (2006), claims that Morretti’s ideas are useful in all areas of
literary study and analysis; however, he also claims that there are problems
and gaps in Moretti’s work that should be addressed. Burke supports this claim
by explaining three specific observations and concerns that he noted in Moretti’s
work, as well as suggestions for improvement. His purpose is to acknowledge the
value of Moretti’s work, but to also acknowledge its shortcomings. He writes in
a casual tone that also includes scholarly jargon for other scholars who may have
similar experiences and questions in reading Moretti’s work.
Presentation
Timothy Burke
begins his essay, “Book Notes: Franco Moretti's Graphs,
Maps, and Trees” by pointing out that Moretti’s ideas in Graphs, Maps, and Trees are valuable to
all areas of literary study; however, all aspects of Moretti’s work may not all
apply to all areas of literary scholarship. In some areas, it may be necessary to pare down
and/or adapt his ideas. Burke explains some of the valuable aspects of Moretti’s work, but quickly
moves on to address the problems and gaps he identifies in Moretti’s work and
his suggestions for enhancing Moretti’s work.
The majority of
Burke’s essay focuses on three specific concerns that he identifies in regard
to Moretti’s work. First, Burke notes that “counting publications only scratches
the surface of the totality of cultural production in any given post-Gutenberg
moment” (43). Here Burke points out that Moretti may be only counting formal
publication in his work; however, formal publication does not include many
other types of work that are produced. Beyond formal publication there are many
different types of work that have been lost over time. The second issue Burke notes is that “we know quantifying
publication and quantifying discrete elements (tropes, places, and so on) within
publications doesn’t tell us half as much as we might think about the
quantification of readership and circulation” (44-45). Burke explains that
studying the history of readership shows that there is a significant difference
in the numbers of publication and the actual numbers of readers. This occurs as
a result of how texts travel through groups of readers. At this point, Burke
suggests Moretti’s work might be complemented by the sociology of authorship and
publication. Lastly, the third, and most important, concern noted by Burke is
that Moretti has “a difficulty explaining rupture, breach, or novelty” (45).
Burke explains that a divergent tree of literature does not accurately show the
creation of truly new forms or genres. Burke claims that Moretti’s trees world
be improved by acknowledging these types of works under headings such as “emergence”
or "complexity theory.”
In the end,
Burke concludes his essay by suggesting that the accidental and emergent have
the possibility of reopening creative doors as well as the will of the author
and reader. Burke also reminds readers that there is value in Moretti’s work in
all areas of literary studies and suggests that “you can reconcile the agency
of authors and readers with Moretti’s graphs, maps, and trees, but it does take
coloring outside the lines to do so” (48).
Works Cited
Burke, Timothy.
“Book Notes: Graphs, Maps, and Trees.”
Reading Graph, Maps, Trees: Responses to
Franco Moretti, edited by Jonathan Goodwin and John Holbo, Parlor Press,
2011, 41-48.
Comments
Post a Comment