Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 2, 2018

A report on the reports of the stanford literary lab: A reason why the digital humanities may find it difficult to change literary history

Daniel Candel EMAIL logo
From the journal Semiotica

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.Search in Google Scholar

Doležel, Lubomír. 2010. Possible worlds of fiction and history: The postmodern stage. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

McKeon, Michael. 2005. The secret history of domesticity: Public, private, and the division of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Search 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

Published Online: 2018-08-02
Published in Print: 2018-09-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 27.11.2022 from frontend.live.degruyter.dgbricks.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2016-0223/html
Scroll Up Arrow