I posted about the graphs essay of Franco Moretti’s Graphs Maps Trees back in June last year. Nothing like taking my time to get through a slim book with only three essays in it!
I got to the maps essay over the weekend and was a bit disappointed because I’m not quite clear on how mapping a novel as Moretti does it, is really that useful. Moretti uses the example of village stories as exemplified by Mary Mitford’s Our Village published in several volumes from 1824 to 1832. The map Moretti creates shows that the characters lives are conducted within concentric circles that spread out from the center of the village. He has found by mapping other village stories that they almost always all map out in concentric circles. Interesting, but it doesn’t tell us much really.
Moretti then goes on to discuss systems of geography, maps of ideology and maps of menalité. I must admit, he lost me a bit here. But even so I followed well enough to continue wondering, yeah, so?
Maps provide a visual representation of the space of the novel, social geography, relationships between inside and outside, positive and negative. But so? Moretti explains:
[T]hey are a good way to prepare a text for analysis. You choose a unit – walks, lawsuits, luxury goods, whatever – find its occurrences, place them in space . . . or in other words: you reduce the text to a few elements, and abstract them from the narrative flow, and construct a new, artificial object [. . .]. And with luck, these maps will be more than the sum of their parts: they will possess ‘emerging’ qualities , which were not visible at the lower level.
I like the “with luck” clause. If you don’t have luck, your map will show you nothing and you will have wasted your time.
Moretti goes on to say that the map is not an explanation but only offers a model of the narrative that “may” reveal “hidden” patterns. Okay, but those of you who do literary criticism, would you find this helpful? It certainly isn’t a technique for the general reader.
The next essay in the book is on trees as used to organize and delineate a hierarchy and relationships. Hopefully I will get to it sooner than December.
Aw, this is disappointing because in theory I really like the idea that mapping physical spaces in books could reveal interesting patterns & be a useful analytical aid. Too bad Moretti didn’t provide more examples of instances in which mapping a narrative paid off in a concrete answer to that “so what?” question. I am such a non-spatial reader that it seems like the things maps could reveal would, pre-mapping, be VERY hidden to me personally – I would be extremely unlikely to just realize those things on my own through casually visualizing the town/neighborhood/castle/whatever as I read.
You’re right, it is not designed for the general reader. I read something yesterday in “The Cambridge History of Australian Literature” about this issue.
“The strength of academics is intellect, and it is in the nature of university English departments to intellectualise literature – the main reason why writers are wary of them. Academics are also students of literary tradition, and from this standpoint what is interesting will always be what is new. It is also in the universities’ nature to value what is complex and needs detection and explanation. For many people this analysis is one of the genuine pleasures of reading. Others will agree with Wordsworth that “we murder to dissect” and will feel browbeaten and intimidated” (Haskell, 2009, 466).
Moretti offers a new approach (which can be useful), but I think his work needs to be read in light of other current debates. I also think Haskell makes some great points, the general reader and the academic generally have different purposes in mind when approaching a text.
I think I’d have to read the book to know whether I thought it was useful, but I certainly think it might be interesting for some of our postgrad students. I shall have to get hold of a copy. Thanks for the pointer.
I’m not immediately drawn to the idea of a physical mapping as a way of understanding a text. It won’t surprise you to know that I prefer the idea of psychogeography – the notion that landscapes are imbued with emotions and memories, and that descriptions and journeys may offer revelations about the state of mind of the characters, or of the author of the piece. Plus, I’m not a good artist and have a nasty feeling that any map I drew would look like a plate of spaghetti!
Emily, I agree, in theory this seems like a great idea because I tend not to visualize the “space” in a novel either. To see it could be really interesting. But alas, Moretti’s examples weren’t very useful in either explaining how to make a map or how such a thing could really be used.
Fiona, you and the fantastic quote are quite right. Readers and academics have different motives. I can’t help but think though what a shame that is because in the end, academics end up writing then just for themselves and leave the general reader who might truly be interested in winkling out all the meaning she can from a novel high and dry. Shouldn’t academics somehow be there to assist those who wish to become better readers do just that? Just thinking out loud.
Annie, if you get your hands on a copy of the book I will be quite interested to find out what you make of it.
Litlove, I can totally understand the benefits of mapping a psychogeography, this could definitely reveal some interesting things not noticed just by reading the text. Though I suppose if your map looks like spaghetti, either you or the characters are in trouble
I like the idea of mapping stories very much, but you are right about there needing to be a larger purpose, and I agree with Emily that Moretti should have offered some examples where mapping offered a big payoff. I think this is something Nabokov would have liked, as he drew maps and charts in his Lectures on Literature. But he showed the reason for the drawings and they had a pay-off.
Dorothy, I’ve really got to get around to reading Nabokov’s lectures.
Somehow I think this would be helpful with the Hazzard book. I was thinking how I need to make a flow chart of it to make sure I understand what is going on. Not that that is going to help, but it will make me feel better. Had to chuckle over your first paragraph–our reading choices may not always overlap, but we are definitely on the same wavelength when it comes to books in general! It always makes me feel better that I am not the only one who does these things (am thinking now of poor Anthony Powell who has sat unread for a few months, but I WILL pick him back up and finish).
Pingback: Franco Moretti on Trees | So Many Books