Abstract
The present article studies eight of the twelve reports of the Stanford Literary Lab (SLL) to understand why the revolutionary practices of the lab, and by extension of the digital humanities, have not yet changed literary history, as the lab itself admits. The article examines the reports with two related cultural-semantic tools, each of which is introduced via the Pixar movie Brave. First, the interpretations of the reports are placed within a basic semantic grid organized into four quadrants by a nature-society axis and a past-present axis, which shows that the interpretations are invariably situated in the present-society quadrant. This analysis, while necessary, merely proves that SLL operates within a certain cultural climate. The real test lies in ascertaining whether this cultural climate affects the interpretation of novel data. To do so, the article looks for the reaction of SLL to novel data in two reports. The reports are shown to domesticate novelty by explaining it through standard alethic/deontic patterns, even though the data are novel precisely because the patterns largely fail to explain them. The article closes by asking whether such patterns limit or enable thinking and what this means for the digital humanities.
References
Bode, Katherine & Paul Longley Arthur. 2014. Collecting ourselves. In: Katherine Bode and Paul Longley Arthur (eds.), Advancing digital humanities: Research, methods, theories, 1–12. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137337016Search in Google Scholar
Burdick, Anne, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner & Jeffrey Schnapp. 2012. Digital_humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9248.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Candel, Daniel. 2013a. Advanced literacy and the place of literary semantics in secondary education: A tool of fictional analysis. Semiotica 195(1/4). 305–330.10.1515/sem-2013-0031Search in Google Scholar
Candel, Daniel. 2013b. Moving possible world theory from logic to value. Poetics Today 34(1–2). 177–231.10.1215/03335372-2087572Search in Google Scholar
Candel, Daniel. 2013c. Literatur interpetieren – Ein Analysetool. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Search in Google Scholar
Candel, Daniel. 2016. Possible worlds in the history of the novel. Poetics Today 37(1). 107–136.10.1215/03335372-3452631Search in Google Scholar
Candel, Daniel, Marta Giuliani Pedraza, Slavka Madarova, Paula Rubio Cáceres, Marta Ruiz Sanz, María Victoria Troyano Fernández & Kristīne Treija. 2017. Analyzing the fictional worlds of Pixar with an eye on digital humanities. Semiotica 218(1/4). 91–117.10.1515/sem-2016-0081Search in Google Scholar
Carroll, Joseph. 2005. Human nature and literary meaning: A theoretical model illustrated with a critique of Pride and Prejudice. In: Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), The literary animal: Evolution and the nature of narrative, 78–106. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.10.2307/j.ctvw1d5h1.11Search in Google Scholar
Carroll, Joseph. 2013. Teaching literary Darwinism. Style 47(2). 206–229.Search in Google Scholar
Cunningham, Valentine. 2002. Reading after theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Curthoys, Ann & John Docker. 2006. Is history fiction?. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Search in Google Scholar
Curthoys, Ann & John Docker. 2013. The boundaries of history and fiction. In: Nancy Partner and Sarah Foot (eds.), The Sage handbook of historical theory, 202–220. Washington, DC: Sage.10.4135/9781446247563.n13Search in Google Scholar
Doležel, Lubomír. 1998. Heterocosmica: Fiction and possible worlds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801857492Search in Google Scholar
Doležel, Lubomír. 2010. Possible worlds of fiction and history: The postmodern stage. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.1353/book.455Search in Google Scholar
Doran, Robert. 2013. The work of Hayden White I: Mimesis, figuration, and the writing of history. In: Nancy Partner and Sarah Foot (eds.), The Sage handbook of historical theory, 106–118. Washington, DC: Sage.10.4135/9781446247563.n7Search in Google Scholar
English, James F & Ted Underwood. 2016. Shifting scales: Between literature and social science. Modern Language Quarterly 77(3). 277–295.10.1215/00267929-3570612Search in Google Scholar
Felski, Rita. 2008. Uses of literature. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444302790Search in Google Scholar
Felski, Rita. 2015. The limits of critique. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226294179.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Frow, John. 1986. Marxism and literary history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674332812Search in Google Scholar
Frow, John. 2010. On midlevel concepts. New Literary History 41(2). 237–252.10.1353/nlh.2010.0008Search in Google Scholar
Gold, Matthew K. 2012. Introduction: The digital humanities moment. In: Matthew K Gold (ed.), Debates in the digital humanities, ix–xvi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar
Griffin, Gabriele & Matt Hayler. 2016. Introduction. In: Gabriele Griffin and Matt Hayler (eds.), Research methods for reading digital data in the digital humanities, 1–15. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474409629Search in Google Scholar
Hunter, Ian. 2014. Hayden White’s philosophical history. New Literary History 45(3). 331–358.10.1353/nlh.2014.0023Search in Google Scholar
Jockers, Matthew L. 2013. Macroanalysis: Digital methods and literary history. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.10.5406/illinois/9780252037528.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kay, Christian. 2009. Historical thesaurus of the oxford english dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Klein, Julie Thompson. 2015. Interdisciplining digital humanities: Boundary work in an emerging field. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.10.2307/j.ctv65swxdSearch in Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2013. An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Alan. 2013. The meaning of the digital humanities. Prevention of Money Laundering Act 128(2). 409–423.10.1632/pmla.2013.128.2.409Search in Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 2007. After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Search in Google Scholar
McKeon, Michael. 2002. The origins of the English novel. 1600–1740. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801869952Search in Google Scholar
McKeon, Michael. 2005. The secret history of domesticity: Public, private, and the division of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.1353/book.3402Search in Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. 1988. Signs taken for wonders: Essays in the sociology of literary forms. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. 1996. The modern epic: The world system from Goethe to García Márquez. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. 1998. Atlas of the European novel: 1800–1900. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. 2000. The way of the world: The bildungsroman in European culture. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. 2005. Graphs, maps, trees: Abstract models for literary history. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. 2013. Distant reading. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Pihlainen, Kalle. 2013. The work of Hayden White II: Defamiliarizing narrative. In: Nancy Partner and Sarah Foot (eds.), The Sage handbook of historical theory, 119–135. Washington, DC: Sage.10.4135/9781446247563.n8Search in Google Scholar
Pyckett, Lynn. 2012. Sensation and the fantastic in the Victorian novel. In Deirdre David (.), The Cambridge companion to the Victorian novel, 211–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCO9780511793370.012Search in Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, Peter J & Corinne Bancroft. 2014. Euclid at the core: Recentering literary education. Style 48(1). 1–35.Search in Google Scholar
Reichl, Susanne. 2009. Cognitive principles, critical practice: Reading literature at university. Vienna: Vienna University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1968. Topics in philosophical logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-017-3546-9Search in Google Scholar
Scheinfeldt, Tom. 2012. Sunset for ideology, sunrise for methodology. In: Matthew K Gold (ed.), Debates in the digital humanities, 124–126. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0014Search in Google Scholar
Stanford Literary Lab. 2016. Pamphlets. https://litlab.stanford.edu/pamphlets (Accessed October 17, 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Sternberg, Meir. 2011. Reconceptualizing narratology: Arguments for a functionalist and constructivist approach to narrative.” Enthymema 4. 35–50. riviste.unimi.it/index.php/enthymema/article/view/1186/1395 (accessed 6 December 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Thomas III, William G. 2016. The promise of the digital humanities and the contested nature of digital scholarship. In: Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens and John Unsworth (eds.), A new companion to digital humanities, 525–526. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781118680605.ch36Search in Google Scholar
Van Zundert, Joris J. 2016. Screwmeneutics and hermenumericals. In: Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens and John Unsworth (eds.), A new companion to digital humanities, 331–347. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781118680605.ch23Search in Google Scholar
Von Wright, George H. 1951. An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Search in Google Scholar
Wheeler, Michael. 1994. English fiction of the Victorian period. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
White, Hayden. 1973. Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Search in Google Scholar
White, Hayden. 1987. The content of form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond. 1988. Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
