An Evaluation of David Wallace’s
I strongly believe that in order to work through a digital project, one must first consider the criteria by which he or she rates a project as either successful or unsuccessful; thinking critically about existing projects within the digital humanities is essential to any new project's success. Below, I consider a project that has shaped my thinking about digital lit-maps and helped spur my interest in creating one of my own.
David Wallace’s DH project, “Europe: A Literary History 1348-1418” touts itself as the “first literary history of medieval Europe to be attempted in English,” and seeks to construct this history on a transnational level. It also happens to be the companion project to an upcoming publication from the Oxford University Press, by the same name.
Instead of succumbing to the confines of the “singular, pan-European culture developed in the twentieth century,” this project is meant to consider literary production “in transnational sequences of interconnected places,” Wallace’s argument is that, in considering European literature, we must avoid continental generalization and instead look at the ways in which different nations exchanged ideas and literary products by means of trade, pilgrimage, crusade, intellectual exchange, and political alliance.
Wallace claims that his project aims to “transcend the parochialisms of traditional, nation-based literary histories while yet giving vivid accounts of the distinctiveness of particular places.” In short, he wants to give credit to nations of significance, but in relation to other important locations, not merely on the individual level. In doing so, he challenges the very concept of nation that came to existence in the period that his project takes on.
The content of Wallace’s project is a Google map that contains a total of 82 pinpoints, each representing a different location on one of ten routes of production, which are further divided into two volumes. The mechanics of the site allow its users to choose what will appear on the map either by selecting one of the ten routes (which appear as pinpoints connected by a line) or by 'selecting all,' which appears as a cluster of pinpoints. The points of interest within each route are ordered numerically on the map and on the side bar, which provides an easy-to-follow experience.
After clicking on any of the pinpoints on the map, a window will appear that describes the literary significance of that particular place, with important names, dates, works, et cetera described in a few short paragraphs. There are also photos and other such primary sources in the window, and the author of each location-summary is cited. (The authors are also listed on the website on a separate page.)
The form that Wallace's project takes on emphasizes the relations between the different locations visually (on the map) and textually, (within the text of each pinpoint window) without only focusing on each location as a standalone entity--although it is important to note that the rotes themselves do not bear any entries or explanations. Only the individual locations do.
The mission of the project is evident in its execution, but nevertheless raises a number of questions about microanalysis versus macroanalysis. As users, we are given the option to either view the map broadly or to hone in on specific regions of interest, challenging the very concept of multinationalism that Wallace seeks to convey. Is this useful? (I am thinking particularly of the 'select all' option--what use is a cluster of pinpoints on a map, other than to reinforce the limitations of this project and its scope?)
Though Wallace's project is basic in its concept and no-frills in its execution, it will likely draw its audience primarily as a result of the uniqueness of its mission to represent Europe’s literary history transnationally. (I feel that it's worth noting--on the topic of audience--that on the Oxford University Press information page for Wallace's aforementioned tome, its readership is claimed to be "students and scholars of Medieval literature and students and scholars with an interest in the history of Europe." Perhaps this is worth challenging as well. Is that where his intended audience begins and ends?)
The website itself is not particularly engaging otherwise—its chief mode of engagement is in the interactivity of what can appear on the map, but it stops there. It is a bare-bones site, but what it lacks in flash it makes up for in content. Perhaps this is not a bad thing; as a part of the literary archive, this could be an invaluable and unique source to draw from, and there is much room for expansion across the continent—and throughout the world, if the scope of the project (and the scope of European literary influence) could extend that far, which I argue that it absolutely could.
By choosing to set his project apart from so many pan-European projects and resources that already exist, Wallace both contributes to and advances his field of study. He and his contributors set a standard for other similar projects to take on the transnational history of literature rather than a nation-centric one, but that is not to say that it is perfect--of course it is not. His purpose can be refined, and his methodology can be expanded. He could draw more lines, outline more routes of development--across not only location, but language.
With a team of international contributors, there is no limit to the possibilities of this project. With such diverse educational backgrounds and national contexts, Wallace and his varied team of scholars could simply do more. Nevertheless, "Europe: A Literary History," as it stands now, it is a worthy place to start.
The "Maps" chapter of Franco Moretti's Graphs, Maps, Trees begins: "There is a very simple question about literary maps: what exactly do they do? What do they do that cannot be done with words, that is: because, if it can be done with words, then maps are superfluous. Take Bakhtin's essay on the chronotope: it is the greatest study ever written on space and narrative, and it doesn't have a single map...Do maps add anything to our knowledge of literature?"
When I first encountered that text, I was sure that my answer to Moretti's ultimate question was "no." I didn't understand the value of imposing mathematics and geography on an art form. But, upon much consideration, I have changed my mind--at least a little. Do I think that maps are essential to our understanding of literature? No. Do I think that they add something to our understanding--our knowledge--our interpretation of literature? Yes. I admit that I am not sold on Moretti's Graphs and Trees, but I have grown to appreciate the merit of his Maps.
Maps are not merely plot points. They can represent geographic, economic, political, and linguistic evolution in such a way that none of these things can go unnoticed.
As far as the Archive (capital A) is concerned, it is my belief that maps are inherently valuable, and I am glad to contribute to that with my digital lit-map, as I have come to call it, of gentrification narratives in the District of Columbia.
No comments:
Post a Comment