- Moretti starts the piece by pointing out the limitations of the way we read literature in academic settings and proposing “a more rational literary history.” What’s irrational about the way we construct the object of literary inquiry, the books we read, and the methodology of literary inquiry, the way we read them?
- Very quickly in the piece, we get into graphs that look very out of place, in a way, in a discussion of a literary topic like the novel. What strikes you about what we learn from these graphs? How is “reading” graphs different from reading novels, plays, and poems? Note Moretti’s comment on 2262 about how best to read the squiggles on his line graphs.
- Following the work of social historians, Moretti distinguishes between three temporal orders: the moment, the cycle, and the longue duree. Which of these orders is most central to Moretti’s method? What does this distinctive unit of time help us see that the others don’t?
- How does Moretti explain the appearance and disappearance of genres of the novel (gothic, historical fiction, etc.) in figure 9? What are some possible explanations, and what does he find to be the best and why?
- Towards the end of the piece, Moretti riffs on problems and solutions: how does Moretti attempt to explain “problems” embedded in quantitative data (e.g., the lack of success of Hollywood comedies abroad)? What broader points does he make about how problem-solving works in “distant reading”?
- What does Moretti reply, in effect, to literary historians who crow about “the rise of” X, Y, or Z (e.g., Alliston’s “The Great Gender Shift” of the mid-18thC)? What alternative does he propose to this way of reading a particular “moment” in literary history?
