After class last week, I have something that has been bugging me.  I know that I expressed my dislike for the type of scholarship that Moretti was doing, but I am not sure that I made myself clear in class when I explained my frustration with his book.  Repeatedly, I said that I wanted him to explain why this type of scholarship should be done.  And, I think people may have misunderstood my request.

I didn’t want Moretti to look forward and explain the usefulness of this type of research/scholarship for his field or anything that grandiose.  I agree that the methods were new and making that type of proclamation wouldn’t have been helpful.  However, I did expect a clearer explanation of his personal intention.  Why did he do it for himself?  Why was what he found out helpful to his own research?  That is the part of his argument that I think would have been the most helpful for me personally.  And, it would have also helped explain the usefulness of these methods of research. I think the work that Moretti was doing was hugely important and helpful in an abstract sense, as I said in my previous post, but I wanted to hear more about his personal application of the theory. And, I thought that was missing from what was presented.

Didn’t know if that part of my argument last week came through, so I thought that I would add some clarification what bothered me about the reading.

Advertisement