When Moretti mentioned in the introduction to “Notes on Abstract Models for Literary History–1,” that he would work on “a shift from the close reading of individual texts to the construction of abstract models,” I thought of an experience I had last semester. I attended a lecture by a visiting professor from Harvard. One of the things she discussed was the potential that close reading is dead, through things like technology and media. This seemed to receive mixed responses from those who had attended the lecture and picked up on this point. I think I occupy a middle ground regarding the death of close reading. Close reading is always important because there is so much meaning behind texts and history. When I first learned about, as Moretti puts it, a “quantitative approach to literature,” I found it abhorrent. I had a vision of sending a book into a computer, and having it chewed and spit out, perhaps with lists of all the “the’s” in the book.

Fortunately, this has not been my experience in reading Moretti. Meaning is found in the patterns produced by books and literary history.

I was fascinated by the observation of genres rising and dying in popularity in a very cyclical manner. Although this is a simple thought, it is the first time that is has occurred to me that apocalyptic young adult novels may be a genre that has risen and will fall in part of a far larger pattern.

I think that films and TV shows may rise and fall in a similar manner to books, albeit much more recently. Related to another article that we read in class, which niche genres, like scary thrillers with kids from the 1980’s (“Stranger Things”, “It”) will be replaced? What genres will speak to us enough to rise?

Sources: https://newleftreview.org/II/24/franco-moretti-graphs-maps-trees-1

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stranger_Things_logo.png