Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:55:15.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Think Small: On Literary Modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Andrew Piper
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Literary studies continues to have a penchant for great men. In 2015, for example, 20% of authors listed as subjects in the MLA International Bibliography accounted for just under 60% of all articles or book chapters published that year. Just the top 1% of authors, or 33 in total, accounted for 1,302 works, or 20.8% of the total. Four of these authors were women, and one was not white (W. E. B. Du Bois). Those numbers are even slightly more concentrated than in 1970, when 1% of authors accounted for 15.9% of all articles and book chapters. In that year, only one of the most frequently mentioned authors was a woman (George Eliot), and all were white.

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 132 , Issue 3 , May 2017 , pp. 651 - 658
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Modern Language Association of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Bailer-Jones, Daniela M. “When Scientific Models Represent.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 17, no.1, 2003, pp. 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. “Informational versus Functional Theories of Scientific Representation.” Synthese, vol. 172, no. 2, 2010, pp. 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contessa, Gabriele. “Scientific Representation, Interpretation, and Surrogative Reasoning.” Philosophy of Science, vol. 74, no. 1, 2007, pp. 48–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Erik. TechGnosis: Myth, Magic, and Mysticism in the Age of Information. Harmony Books, 1998.Google Scholar
English, James F., and Underwood, Ted, editors. Scale and Value: New and Digital Approaches to Literary History. Special issue of Modern Language Quarterly, vol. 77, no. 3, 2016.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur. “Fictionalism.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 1, 1993, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, Roman. “Fiction and Scientific Representation.” Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science, edited by Frigg, and Hunter, Matthew, Springer, 2010, pp. 97–138.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. “Using Models to Represent Reality.” Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, edited by Magnani, Lorenzo et al., Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, 1999, pp. 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge UP, 1983.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. I. G. “Models and Representation.” Philosophy of Science, vol. 64, no. 4, 1997, pp. S325–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Matthew C. “Experiment, Theory, Representation: Robert Hooke's Material Models.” Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science, edited by Frigg, Roman and Hunter, , Springer, 2010, pp. 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancashire, Ian, and Hirst, Graeme. “Vocabulary Changes in Agatha Christie's Mysteries as an Indication of Dementia: A Case Study.” Nineteenth Annual Rotman Research Institute Conference, 8–10 Mar. 2009, Intercontinental Centre Hotel, Toronto.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods. Translated by Porter, Catherine, Duke UP, 2010.Google Scholar
Long, Hoyt, and So, Richard Jean. “Literary Pattern Recognition: Modernism between Close Reading and Machine Learning.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 42, no. 2, 2016, pp. 235–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Deidre Shauna. Loving Literature: A Cultural History U of Chicago P, 2015.Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. “Operationalizing; or, The Function of Measurement in Literary Theory.” New Left Review, no. 84, Dec. 2013, pp. 103–20.Google Scholar
Newman, M. E. J. Networks: An Introduction. Oxford UP, 2010. Oxford Scholarship Online, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206650.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, Andrew. Data for “Think Small: On Literary Modeling.” Figshare, 15 Feb. 2017, doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4653913.vLGoogle Scholar
Piper, Andrew. “Novel Devotions: Conversional Reading, Computational Modeling, and the Modern Novel.” New Literary History, vol. 46, no. 1, Winter 2015, pp. 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, Andrew. “There Will Be Numbers.” Cultural Analytics, May 2016, doi: 10.22148/16.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. 1966. U of Chicago P, 2009.Google Scholar
Said, Edward W. On Late Style: Music and Literature against the Grain. E-book, Pantheon Books, 2006.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Ben. “Do Digital Humanists Need to Understand Algorithms?” Debates in Digital Humanities, 2016, dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Tyler T. “‘Womanish’ and ‘Wily’: The Poetry of Wanda Coleman.” Obsidian III: Literature in the African Diaspora, vol. 6, no. 1, 2005, pp. 120–41.Google Scholar
Stewart, Susan. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, and the Collection. Duke UP, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez, Mauricio. “Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 17, no. 3, 2003, pp. 225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, Ted. “The Life Cycles of Genres.” CA: Journal of Cultural Analytics, May 2016, culturalanalytics.org/2016/05/the-life-cycles-of-genres/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaihinger, Hans. The Philosophy of “As If”: A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965.Google Scholar
Wellmon, Chad. “Sacred Reading from Augustine to the Digital Humanists.” Hedgehog Review, vol. 17, no. 2, Fall 2015, pp. 70–84.Google Scholar