About tedunderwood

Ted Underwood is Professor of English at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. On Twitter he is @Ted_Underwood.

We’re probably due for another discussion of Stanley Fish

I think I see an interesting theoretical debate over the horizon. The debate is too big to resolve in a blog post, but I thought it might be narratively useful to foreshadow it—sort of as novelists create suspense by dropping hints about the character traits that will develop into conflict by the end of the book.

Basically, the problem is that scholars who use numbers to understand literary history have moved on from Stanley Fish’s critique, without much agreement about why or how. In the early 1970s, Fish gave a talk at the English Institute that defined a crucial problem for linguistic analysis of literature. Later published as “What Is Stylistics, and Why are They Saying Such Terrible Things About It?”, the essay focused on “the absence of any constraint” governing the move “from description to interpretation.” Fish takes Louis Milic’s discussion of Jonathan Swift’s “habit of piling up words in series” as an example. Having demonstrated that Swift does this, Milic concludes that the habit “argues a fertile and well stocked mind.” But Fish asks how we can make that sort of inference, generally, about any linguistic pattern. How do we know that reliance on series demonstrates a “well stocked mind” rather than, say, “an anal-retentive personality”?

The problem is that isolating linguistic details for analysis also removes them from the context we normally use to give them a literary interpretation. We know what the exclamation “Sad!” implies, when we see it at the end of a Trumpian tweet. But if you tell me abstractly that writer A used “sad” more than writer B, I can’t necessarily tell you what it implies about either writer. If I try to find an answer by squinting at word lists, I’ll often make up something arbitrary. Word lists aren’t self-interpreting.

Thirty years passed; the internet got invented. In the excitement, dusty critiques from the 1970s got buried. But Fish’s argument was never actually killed, and if you listen to the squeaks of bats, you hear rumors that it still walks at night.

Or you could listen to blogs. This post is partly prompted by a blogged excerpt from a forthcoming work by Dennis Tenen, which quotes Fish to warn contemporary digital humanists that “a relation can always be found between any number of low-level, formal features of a text and a given high-level account of its meaning.” Without “explanatory frameworks,” we won’t know which of those relations are meaningful.

Ryan Cordell’s recent reflections on “machine objectivity” could lead us in a similar direction. At least they lead me in that direction, because I think the error Cordell discusses—over-reliance on machines themselves to ground analysis—often comes from a misguided attempt to solve the problem of arbitrariness exposed by Fish. Researchers are attracted to unsupervised methods like topic modeling in part because those methods seem to generate analytic categories that are entirely untainted by arbitrary human choices. But as Fish explained, you can’t escape making choices. (Should I label this topic “sadness” or “Presidential put-downs”?)

I don’t think any of these dilemmas are unresolvable. Although Fish’s critique identified a real problem, there are lots of valid solutions to it, and today I think most published research is solving the problem reasonably well. But how? Did something happen since the 1970s that made a difference? There are different opinions here, and the issues at stake are complex enough that it could take decades of conversation to work through them. Here I just want to sketch a few directions the conversation could go.

Dennis Tenen’s recent post implies that the underlying problem is that our models of form lack causal, explanatory force. “We must not mistake mere extrapolation for an account of deep causes and effects.” I don’t think he takes this conclusion quite to the point of arguing that predictive models should be avoided, but he definitely wants to recommend that mere prediction should be supplemented by explanatory inference. And to that extent, I agree—although, as I’ll say in a moment, I have a different diagnosis of the underlying problem.

It may also be worth reviewing Fish’s solution to his own dilemma in “What Is Stylistics,” which was that interpretive arguments need to be anchored in specific “interpretive acts” (93). That has always been a good idea. David Robinson’s analysis of Trump tweets identifies certain words (“badly,” “crazy”) as signs that a tweet was written by Trump, and others (“tomorrow,” “join”) as signs that it was written by his staff. But he also quotes whole tweets, so you can see how words are used in context, make your own interpretive judgment, and come to a better understanding of the model. There are many similar gestures in Stanford LitLab pamphlets: distant readers actually rely quite heavily on close reading.

My understanding of this problem has been shaped by a slightly later Fish essay, “Interpreting the Variorum” (1976), which returns to the problem broached in “What Is Stylistics,” but resolves it in a more social way. Fish concludes that interpretation is anchored not just in an individual reader’s acts of interpretation, but in “interpretive communities.” Here, I suspect, he is rediscovering an older hermeneutic insight, which is that human acts acquire meaning from the context of human history itself. So the interpretation of culture inevitably has a circular character.

One lesson I draw is simply, that we shouldn’t work too hard to avoid making assumptions. Most of the time we do a decent job of connecting meaning to an implicit or explicit interpretive community. Pointing to examples, using word lists derived from a historical thesaurus or sentiment dictionary—all of that can work well enough. The really dubious moves we make often come from trying to escape circularity altogether, in order to achieve what Alan Liu has called “tabula rasa interpretation.”

But we can also make quantitative methods more explicit about their grounding in interpretive communities. Lauren Klein’s discussion of the TOME interface she constructed with Jacob Eisenstein is a good model here; Klein suggests that we can understand topic modeling better by dividing a corpus into subsets of documents (say, articles from different newspapers), to see how a topic varies across human contexts.

Of course, if you pursue that approach systematically enough, it will lead you away from topic modeling toward methods that rely more explicitly on human judgment. I have been leaning on supervised algorithms a lot lately—not because they’re easier to test or more reliable than unsupervised ones—but because they explicitly acknowledge that interpretation has to be anchored in human history.

At a first glance, this may seem to make progress impossible. “All we can ever discover is which books resemble these other books selected by a particular group of readers. The algorithm can only reproduce a category someone else already defined!” And yes, supervised modeling is circular. But this is a circularity shared by all interpretation of history, and it never merely reproduces its starting point. You can discover that books resemble each other to different degrees. You can discover that models defined by the responses of one interpretive community do or don’t align with models of another. And often you can, carefully, provisionally, draw explanatory inferences from the model itself, assisted perhaps by a bit of close reading.

I’m not trying to diss unsupervised methods here. Actually, unsupervised methods are based on clear, principled assumptions. And a topic model is already a lot more contextually grounded than “use of series == well stocked mind.” I’m just saying that the hermeneutic circle is a little slipperier in unsupervised learning, easier to misunderstand, and harder to defend to crowds of pitchfork-wielding skeptics.

In short, there are lots of good responses to Fish’s critique. But if that critique is going to be revived by skeptics over the next few years—as I suspect—I think I’ll take my stand for the moment on supervised machine learning, which can explicitly build bridges between details of literary language and social contexts of reception.  There are other ways to describe best practices: we could emphasize a need to seek “explanations,” or avoid claims of “objectivity.” But I think the crucial advance we have made over the 1970s is that we’re no longer just modeling language; we can model interpretive communities at the same time.

Photo credit: A school of yellow-tailed goatfish, photo for NOAA Photo Library, CC-BY Dwayne Meadows, 2004.

Postscript July 15: Jonathan Armoza points out that Stephen Ramsay wrote a post articulating his own, more deformative response to “What is Stylistics” in 2012.

Finding the great divide

Last year, Jordan Sellers and I published an article in Modern Language Quarterly, trying to trace the “great divide” that is supposed to open up between mass culture and advanced literary taste around the beginning of the twentieth century.

I’m borrowing the phrase “great divide” from Andreas Huyssen, but he’s not the only person to describe the phenomenon. Whether we explain it neutrally as a consequence of widespread literacy, or more skeptically as the rise of a “culture industry,” literary historians widely agree that popularity and prestige parted company in the twentieth century. So we were surprised not to be able to measure the widening gap.

expectedWe could certainly model literary taste. We trained a model to distinguish poets reviewed in elite literary magazines from a less celebrated “contrast group” selected randomly. The model achieved roughly 79% accuracy, 1820-1919,  and the stability of the model itself raised interesting questions. But we didn’t find that the model’s accuracy increased across time in the way we would have expected in a period when elite and popular literary taste are specializing and growing apart.

Instead of concluding that the division never happened, we guessed that we had misunderstood it or looked in the wrong place. Algee-Hewitt and McGurl have pretty decisively confirmed that a divide exists in the twentieth century. So we ought to be able to see it emerging. Maybe we needed to reach further into the twentieth century — or maybe we would have better luck with fiction, since the history of fiction provides evidence about sales, as well as prestige?

In fact, getting evidence about that second, economic axis seems to be the key. It took work by many hands over a couple of years: Kyle Johnston, Sabrina Lee, and Jessica Mercado, as well as Jordan Sellers, have all contributed to this project. I’m presenting a preliminary account of our results at Cultural Analytics 2017, and this blog post is just a brief summary of the main point.

When you look at the books described as bestsellers by Publisher’s Weekly, or by book historians (see references to Altick, Bloom, Hackett, Leavis, below) it’s easy to see the two circles of the Venn diagram pulling apart: on the one hand bestsellers, on the other hand books reviewed in elite venues. (For our definition of “elite venues” see the “Table” in a supporting code & data repository.)

authorfractions2

On the other hand, when you back up from bestsellers to look at a broader sample of literary production, it’s still not easy to detect increasing stylistic differentiation between the elite “reviewed” texts and the rest of the literary field. A classifier trained on the reviewed fiction has roughly 72.5% accuracy from 1850 to 1949; if you break the century into parts, there are some variations in accuracy, but no consistent pattern. (In a subsequent blog post, I’ll look at the fiddly details of algorithm choice and feature engineering, but the long and short of that question is — it doesn’t make a significant difference.)

To understand why the growing separation of bestsellers from “reviewed” texts at the high end of the market doesn’t seem to make literary production as a whole more strongly stratified, I’ve tried mapping authors onto a two-dimensional model of the literary field, intended to echo Pierre Bourdieu’s well-known diagrams of the interaction between economic and cultural distinction.

bourdieufield

Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production (1993), p. 49.

In the diagram below, for instance, the horizontal axis represents sales, and the vertical axis represents prestige. Sales would be easy to measure, if we had all the data. We actually don’t — so see the end of this post for the estimation strategy I adopted. Prestige, on the other hand, is difficult to measure: it’s perspectival and complex. So we modeled prestige by sampling texts that were reviewed in prominent literary magazines, and then training a model that used textual cues to predict the probability that any given book came from the “reviewed” set. An author’s prestige in this diagram is simply the average probability of review for their books. (The Stanford Literary Lab has similarly recreated Bourdieu’s model of distinction in their pamphlet “Canon/Archive,” using academic citations as a measure of prestige.)

field1850noline

The upward drift of these points reveals a fairly strong correlation between prestige and sales. It is possible to find a few high-selling authors who are predicted to lack critical prestige — notably, for instance, the historical novelist W. H. Ainsworth and the sensation novelist Ellen Wood, author of East Lynne. It’s harder to find authors who have prestige but no sales: there’s not much in the northwest corner of the map. Arthur Helps, a Cambridge Apostle, is a fairly lonely figure.

Fast-forward seventy-five years and we see a different picture.

field1925noline

The correlation between sales and prestige is now weaker; the cloud of authors is “rounder” overall.

There are also more authors in the “upper midwest” portion of the map now — people like Zora Neale Hurston and James Joyce, who have critical prestige but not enormous sales (or not up to 1949, at least as far as my model is aware).

There’s also a distinct “genre fiction” and “pulp fiction” world emerging in the southeast corner of this map, ranging from Agatha Christie to Mickey Spillane. (A few years earlier, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Zane Gray are in the same region.)

Moreover, if you just look at the large circles (the authors we’re most likely to remember), you can start to see how people in this period might get the idea that sales are actually negatively correlated with critical prestige. The right side of the map almost looks like a diagonal line slanting down from William Faulkner to P. G. Wodehouse.

That negative correlation doesn’t really characterize the field as a whole. Critical prestige still has a faint positive correlation with sales, as people over on the left side of the map might sadly remind us. But a brief survey of familiar names could give you the opposite impression.

In short, we’re not necessarily seeing a stronger stratification of the literary field. The change might better be described as a decline in the correlation of two existing forms of distinction. And as they become less correlated, the difference between them becomes more visible, especially among the well-known names on the right side of the map.

summary

So, while we’re broadly confirming an existing story about literary history, the evidence also suggests that the metaphor of a “great divide” is a bit of an exaggeration. We don’t see any chasm emerging.

Maps of the literary field also help me understand why a classifier trained on an elite “reviewed” sample didn’t necessarily get stronger over time. The correlation of prestige and sales in the Victorian era means that the line separating the red and blue samples was strongly tilted there, and may borrow some of its strength from both axes. (It’s really a boundary between the prominent and the obscure.)

cheating

As we move into the twentieth century, the slope of the line gets flatter, and we get closer to a “pure” model of prestige (as distinguished from sales). But the boundary itself may not grow more clearly marked, if you’re sampling a group of the same size. (However, if you leave The New Republic and New Yorker behind, and sample only works reviewed in little magazines, you do get a more tightly unified group of texts that can be distinguished from a random sample with 83% accuracy.)

This is all great, you say — but how exactly are you “estimating” sales? We don’t actually have good sales figures for every author in HathiTrust Digital Library; we have fairly patchy records that depend on individual publishers.
bayesiantransform
For the answer to that question, I’m going to refer you to the github repo where I work out a model of sales. The short version is that I borrow a version of “empirical Bayes” from Julia Silge and David Robinson, and apply it to evidence drawn from bestseller lists as well as digital libraries, to construct a rough estimate of each author’s relative prominence in the market. The trick is, basically, to use the evidence we have to construct an estimate of our uncertainty, and then use our uncertainty to revise the evidence. The picture on the left gives you a rough sense of how that transformation works. I think empirical Bayes may turn out to be useful for a lot of problems where historians need to reconstruct evidence that is patchy or missing in the historical record, but the details are too much to explain here; see Silge’s post and my Jupyter notebook.

Bubble charts invite mouse-over exploration. I can’t easily embed interactive viz in this blog, but here are a few links to plotly visualizations:

https://plot.ly/~TedUnderwood/8/the-literary-field-1850-1874/

https://plot.ly/~TedUnderwood/4/the-literary-field-1875-1899/

https://plot.ly/~TedUnderwood/2/the-literary-field-1900-1924/

https://plot.ly/~TedUnderwood/6/the-literary-field-1925-1949/

Acknowledgments

The texts used here are drawn from HathiTrust via the HathiTrust Research Center. Parts of the research were funded by the Andrew G Mellon Foundation via the WCSA+DC grant, and part by SSHRC via NovelTM.

Most importantly, I want to acknowledge my collaborators on this project, Kyle Johnston, Sabrina Lee, Jessica Mercado, and Jordan Sellers. They contributed a lot of intellectual depth to the project — for instance by doing research that helped us decide which periodicals should represent a given period of literary history.

References

Algee-Hewitt, Mark, and Mark McGurl. “Between Canon and Corpus: Six Perspectives on 20th-Century Novels.” Stanford Literary Lab, Pamphlet 9, 2015. https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet8.pdf

Algee-Hewitt, Mark, Sarah Allison, Marissa Gemma, Ryan Heuser, Franco Moretti, Hannah Walser. “Canon/Archive: Large-Scale Dynamics in the Literary Field.” Stanford Literary Lab, January 2016. https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet11.pdf

Altick, Richard D. The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800-1900. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bloom, Clive. Bestsellers: Popular Fiction Since 1900. 2nd edition. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Hackett, Alice Payne, and James Henry Burke. 80 Years of Best Sellers 1895-1975. New York: R.R. Bowker, 1977.

Leavis, Q. D. Fiction and the Reading Public. 1935.

Mott, Frank Luther. Golden Multitudes: The Story of Bestsellers in the United States. New York: R. R. Bowker, 1947.

Robinson, David. Introduction to Empirical Bayes: Examples from Baseball Statistics. 2017. http://varianceexplained.org/r/empirical-bayes-book/

Silge, Julia. “Singing the Bayesian Beginner Blues.” data science ish, September 2016. http://juliasilge.com/blog/Bayesian-Blues/

Unsworth, John. 20th Century American Bestsellers. (http://bestsellers.lib.virginia.edu)

Digital humanities as a semi-normal thing

Five years ago it was easy to check on new digital subfields of the humanities. Just open Twitter. If a new blog post had dropped, or a magazine had published a fresh denunciation of “digital humanities,” academics would be buzzing.

In 2017, Stanley Fish and Leon Wieseltier are no longer attacking “DH” — and if they did, people might not care. Twitter, unfortunately, has bigger problems to worry about, because the Anglo-American political world has seen some changes for the worse.

But the world of digital humanities, I think, has seen changes for the better. It seems increasingly taken for granted that digital media and computational methods can play a role in the humanities. Perhaps a small role — and a controversial one — and one without much curricular support. But still!

In place of journalistic controversies and flame wars, we are finally getting a broad scholarly conversation about new ideas. Conversations of this kind take time to develop. Many of us will recall Twitter threads from 2013 anxiously wondering whether digital scholarship would ever have an impact on more “mainstream” disciplinary venues. The answer “it just takes time” wasn’t, in 2013, very convincing.

But in fact, it just took time. Quantitative methods and macroscopic evidence, for instance, are now a central subject of debate in literary studies. (Since flame wars may not be entirely over, I should acknowledge that I’m now moving to talk about one small subfield of DH rather than trying to do justice to the whole thing.)

The immediate occasion for this post is a special issue of Genre (v. 50, n. 1) engaging the theme of “data” in relation to the Victorian novel; this follows a special issue of Modern Language Quarterly on “scale and value.” Next year, “Scale” is the theme of the English Institute, and little birds tell me that PMLA is also organizing an issue on related themes. Meanwhile, of course, the new journal Cultural Analytics is providing an open-access home for essays that make computational methods central to their interpretive practice.

The participants in this conversation don’t all identify as digital humanists or distant readers. But they are generally open-minded scholars willing to engage ideas as ideas, whatever their disciplinary origin. Some are still deeply suspicious of numbers, but they are willing to consider both sides of that question. Many recent essays are refreshingly aware that quantitative analysis is itself a mode of interpretation, guided by explicit reflection on interpretive theory. Instead of reifying computation as a “tool” or “skill,” for instance, Robert Mitchell engages the intellectual history of Bayesian statistics in Genre.

Recent essays also seem aware that the history of large-scale quantitative approaches to the literary past didn’t begin and end with Franco Moretti. References to book history and the Annales School mix with citations of Tanya Clement and Andrew Piper. Although I admire Moretti’s work, this expansion of the conversation is welcome and overdue.

If “data” were a theme — like thing theory or the Anthropocene — this play might now have reached its happy ending. Getting literary scholars to talk about a theme is normally enough.

In fact, the play could proceed for several more acts, because “data” is shorthand for a range of interpretive practices that aren’t yet naturalized in the humanities. At most universities, grad students still can’t learn how to do distant reading. So there is no chance at all that distant reading will become the “next big thing” — one of those fashions that sweeps departments of English, changing everyone’s writing in a way that is soon taken for granted. We can stop worrying about that. Adding citations to Geertz and Foucault can be done in a month. But a method that requires years of retraining will never become the next big thing. Maybe, ten years from now, the fraction of humanities faculty who actually use quantitative methods may have risen to 5% — or optimistically, 7%. But even that change would be slow and deeply controversial.

So we might as well enjoy the current situation. The initial wave of utopian promises and enraged jeremiads about “DH” seems to have receded. Scholars have realized that new objects, and methods, of study are here to stay — and that they are in no danger of taking over. Now it’s just a matter of doing the work. That, also, takes time.

Two syllabi: Digital Humanities and Data Science in the Humanities.

When I began teaching graduate courses about digital humanities, I designed syllabi that tried to cover a little of everything.

I enjoyed teaching those courses, but if I’m being honest, it was a challenge to race from digital editing — to maps and networks — to distant reading — to critical reflection on the concept of DH itself. It was even harder to cover that range of topics while giving students meaningful hands-on experience.

The solution, obviously, was to break the subject into more than one course. But I didn’t know how to do that within an English graduate curriculum. Many students are interested in learning about “digital humanities,” because a lot of debate has swirled around that broad rubric. I think the specific fields of inquiry grouped under the rubric actually make better-sized topics for a course, but they don’t have the same kind of name recognition, and courses on those topics don’t enroll as heavily.

This problem became easier to solve when part of my job moved into the School of Information Sciences. Many aspects of digital humanities — from social reflection on information technology to data mining — are already represented in the curriculum here. So I could divide DH into parts, and still have confidence that students would recognize those parts and understand how each part fit into an existing program of study.

This year I’ve taught two courses in the LIS curriculum. I’m sharing syllabi for both at once so I can also describe the contrast between them.

1. The first of the two, “Digital Humanities” (syllabus), is fundamentally a survey of DH as a social phenomenon, with special emphasis on the role of academic libraries and librarians — since that is likely to be a career path that many MLIS students are considering. The course covers a wide range of humanistic themes and topics, but doesn’t go very deeply into hands-on exploration of methods.

2. The second course, “Data Science in the Humanities” (syllabus)  covers the field that digital humanists often call “cultural analytics” — or “distant reading,” when it focuses on literature. Although I know its history is actually more complex, I’m characterizing this field as a form of data science in order to highlight its value for a wide range of students who may or may not intend to work as researchers in universities. I think humanistic questions can be great training for the slippery problems one encounters in business and computational journalism, for instance. But as Dennis Tenen and Andrew Goldstone (among others) have rightly pointed out, it can be a huge challenge to cover all the methods required for this sort of work in a single course. I’m not sure I have a perfect solution to that problem yet. The course is only in its third week! But we are aiming to achieve a kind of hands-on experience that combines Python programming with basic principles of statistics and machine learning, and with reflection on the challenges of social interpretation. I believe this may be achievable, in a course that doesn’t have to cover other aspects of DH, and when many students have at least a little previous experience, both in programming and in the humanities.

As Jupyter notebooks for the data science course are developed, I’m sharing them in a github repo. In both of the syllabi linked above, I also mention other syllabi that served as models. My thanks go out to everyone who shared their experience; I leaned on some of those models very heavily.

data_science_vdThe question I haven’t resolved yet is, How do we connect courses like these to an English curriculum? That connection remains crucial: I chose the phrase “data science” partly because the conversation around data science has explicitly acknowledged the importance of domain expertise. (See Drew Conway’s famous Venn diagram on the right.) I do think researchers need substantive knowledge about specific aspects of cultural history in order to frame meaningful questions about the past and interpret the patterns they find.

Right now, the courses I’m offering in LIS are certainly open to graduate students from humanities departments. But over the long run, I would also like to develop courses located in humanities departments that focus on specific literary-historical problems (for instance, questions of canonicity and popularity in a particular century), integrating distant-reading approaches only as one element of a broader portfolio of methods. Courses like that would fit fairly easily into an English graduate curriculum.

On the other hand, none of the courses I’ve described above can (by themselves) solve the most challenging pedagogical problem in DH, which is to make distant reading useful for doctoral dissertations. Right now, that’s very hard. The research opportunities in distant reading are huge, I believe, but that hugeness becomes itself a barrier. A field where you start making important discoveries after two to three years initial start-up time (training yourself, developing corpora, etc) is not ideally configured for the individualistic model of doctoral research that prevails in the humanities. Collective lab-centered projects are probably a better fit for this field. We may need to envision dissertations as being (at least in part) pieces of a larger research project, exploring one aspect of a shared problem.

The Gender Balance of Fiction, 1800-2007

by Ted Underwood and David Bamman

Last year, we wrote a blog post that posed questions about the differentiation of gendered roles in fiction. In doing that, we skipped over a more obvious question: how equally (or unequally) do stories distribute their attention between men and women?

This year, we’re returning to that simple question, with a richer dataset (supported by ongoing work at HathiTrust Research Center). The full story will come out in an article, but we’d like to share a few big-picture points in advance.

To start with, why have we framed this as a question about “women” and “men”? Gender isn’t a binary phenomenon. But we aren’t inquiring about the truth of gender identity here — just about gross inequalities that have separated conventional public roles. English-language fiction does typically divide characters by calling them “he” or “she,” and that division is a good place to start posing questions.

We could measure underrepresentation by counting people, but then we’d have to decide how much weight to give minor characters. A simpler approach is just to ask how many words are used to describe fictional men or women, respectively. BookNLP gave us a way to answer that question; it uses names and honorifics to infer a character’s gender, and then traces grammatical dependencies to identify adjectives that modify a character, nouns she possesses, or verbs she governs. After swinging BookNLP through 93,708 English-language volumes identified as fiction from the HathiTrust Digital Library, we can estimate the percentage of words used in characterization that are used to describe women. (To simplify the task of reading this illustration, we have left out characters coded as “other” or unknown,” so a year with equal representation of men and women would be located on the 50% line.).  To help quantify our uncertainty, we present each measurement by year along with a 95% confidence interval calculated using the bootstrap; our uncertainty decreases over time, largely as a function of an increasing number of books being published.

fig1

There is a clear decline from the nineteenth century (when women generally take up 40% or more of the “character space” in fiction) to the 1950s and 60s, when their prominence hovers around a low of 30%. A correction, beginning in the 1970s, almost restores fiction to its nineteenth-century state. (One way of thinking about this: second-wave feminism was a desperately-needed rescue operation.)

The fluctuation is not enormous, but also not trivial: women lose roughly a fourth of the space on the page they had possessed in the nineteenth century. Nor is this something we already knew. It might be a mistake to call this pattern a “surprise”: it’s not as if everyone had clearly-formed expectations about “space on the page.” But when we do pose the question, and ask scholars what they expect to see before revealing this evidence, several people have predicted a series of advances toward equality that correspond to e.g. the suffrage movement and World War II, separated by partial retreats. Instead we see a fairly steady decline from 1860 to 1970, with no overall advance toward equality.

What’s the explanation? Our methods do have blind spots. For instance, we aren’t usually able to infer gender for first-person protagonists, so they are left out here. And our inferences about other characters have a known level of error. But after cross-checking the evidence, we don’t believe the level of error is large enough to explain away this pattern (see our github repo for fuller discussion). It is of course possible that our sample of fiction is skewed. For instance, a sample of 93,708 volumes will include a lot of obscure works and works in translation. What if we focus on slightly more prominent works? We have posed that question by comparing our Hathi sample to a smaller (10,000-volume) sample drawn from the Chicago Text Lab, which emphasizes relatively prominent American works, and filters out works in translation.

fig2_chicago

As you can see, the broad outlines of the trend don’t change. If anything, the decline from 1860 to 1970 is slightly more marked in the Chicago corpus (perhaps because it does a better job of filtering out reprints, which tend to muffle change). This doesn’t prove that we will see the same pattern in every sample. There are many ways to sample the history of fiction! Some scholars will want to know about paperbacks that tend to be underrepresented in university libraries; others will only be interested in a short list of hypercanonical authors. We can’t exhaust all possible modes of sampling, but we can say at least that this trend is not an artefact of a single sampling strategy.  Nor is it an artefact of our choice to represent characters by counting words syntactically associated with them: we see the same pattern of decline to different degrees when measuring the amount of dialogue spoken by men and women, and in simply counting the number of characters as well.

So what does explain the declining representation of women? We don’t yet know. But the trend seems too complex to dismiss with a single explanation. For instance, it can be partly — but only partly — explained by a decline in the proportion of fiction writers who were women.

author

Take specific dots with a grain of salt; there are sources of error here, especially because the wall of copyright at 1923 may change digitization practices or throw off our own data pipeline. (Note the outlier right at 1923.) But the general pattern above is echoed also in the Chicago sample of American fiction, so we feel confident that there was really a decline in the fraction of fiction writers who were women. As far as we know, Chris Forster was the first person to gather broad quantitative evidence of this decline. But many scholars have grasped pieces of the story: for instance, Anne E. Boyd takes The Atlantic around 1890 as a case study of a process whereby the professionalization and canonization of American fiction tended to push out women who had previously been prominent. [See also Tuchman and Fortin 1989 in references below.]

But this is not necessarily a story about the marginalization of women writers in general. (On the contrary, the prominence of women rose throughout this period in several nonfiction genres.) The decline was specific to fiction — either because the intellectual opportunities open to women were expanding beyond belles lettres, or because the rising prestige of fiction attracted a growing number of men.

Men are overrepresented in books by men, so a decline in the number of women novelists will also tend to reduce the number of characters who are women. But that doesn’t completely explain the marginalization of feminine characters from 1860 to 1970. For instance, we can also divide authors by gender, and look at shifting patterns of attention within works by women or by men.

by_author_gender

There are several interesting details here. The inequality of attention in books by men is depressingly durable (men rarely give more than 30% of their attention to fictional women). But it’s also interesting that the fluctuations we saw earlier remain visible even when works are divided by author gender: both trend lines above show a slight decline in the space allotted to women, from 1860 to 1970. In other words, it’s not just that there were fewer works of fiction written by women; even inside books written by women, feminine characters were occupying slightly less space on the page.

Why? The rise of genres devoted to “action” and “adventure” might play a role, although we haven’t found clear evidence yet that it makes a difference. (Genre boundaries are too blurry for the question to be answered easily.) Or fiction might have been masculinized in some broader sense, less tied to specific genre categories (see Suzanne Clark, for instance, on modernism as masculinization.)

But listing possible explanations is the easy part. Figuring out which are true — and to what extent — will be harder.

We will continue to explore these questions, in collaboration with grad students, but we also want to draw other scholars’ attention to resources that can support this kind of inquiry (and invite readers to share useful secondary sources in the comments).

HathiTrust Research Center’s Extracted Features Dataset doesn’t permit the syntactic parsing performed by BookNLP, but even authors’ names and the raw frequencies of gendered pronouns can tell you a lot. Working just with that dataset, Chris Forster was able to catch significant patterns involving gender.

When we publish our article, we will also share data produced by BookNLP about specific characters across a collection of 93,708 books. HTRC is also building a “Data Capsule” that will allow other scholars to produce similar data themselves. In the meantime, in collaboration with Nikolaus N. Parulian, we have produced an interactive visualization that allows you to explore changes in the gendering of words used in characterization. (Compare, for instance, “grin” to “smile,” or “house” to “room.”) We have also made available the metadata and yearly summaries behind the visualization.

Acknowledgments. The work described here has been supported by NovelTM, funded by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and by the WCSA+DC grant at HathiTrust Research Center, funded  by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. We thank Hoyt Long, Teddy Roland, and Richard Jean So for permission to use the Chicago Novel Corpus. The project often relied on GenderID.py, by Bridget Baird and Cameron Blevins (2014). Boris Capitanu helped parallelize BookNLP across hundreds of thousands of volumes. Attendees at the 2016 NovelTM meeting, and Justine Murison in Illinois, provided valuable advice about literary history.

References.

Boyd, Anne E. “‘What, Has She Got into the Atlantic?’ Women Writers, The Atlantic Monthly, and the Formation of the American Canon,” American Studies 39.3 (1998): 5-36.

Clark, Suzanne. Sentimental Modernism: Women Writers and the Revolution of the Word (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992).

Forster, Chris. “A Walk Through the Metadata: Gender in the HathiTrust Dataset.” September 8, 2015. http://cforster.com/2015/09/gender-in-hathitrust-dataset/

Tuchman, Gaye, with Nina E. Fortin. Edging Women Out: Victorian Novelists, Publishers, and Social Change. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

 

 

 

Notebooks? What good are notebooks?

blitz

“The letter,” Cecil Beaton, from London, Portrait of a City (1940).

It’s difficult to concentrate on intellectual work in the midst of political upheaval, partly because you’re not sure that you ought to be concentrating. Maybe ideas have become a luxury or a distraction? The dilemma is nicely captured by the image on the right, circulating on Twitter under Briallen Hopper’s caption, “What writing feels like now.”

Despite the title of this post, Americans are not actually confronting “Life During Wartime.” But we are living through a painful political transition — from the administration of a President who spoke eloquently about the responsibilities of self-government, to a President-elect who won the job by stirring up hatred of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, and who seems not to understand or value the principles of transparency and dissent that safeguard democracy. (It doesn’t help that he’s a habitual liar and a misogynist.)

At moments like this, there’s a natural impulse to refocus one’s attention on politics, and I don’t mean to discourage it. (I have a letter to the editor of my local paper open in another window, and I’ll send it before the day is done.)

But I also want to briefly reaffirm the importance of thinking about things other than contemporary politics. Briefly, because I don’t think this should require a lot of argument. The administration now coming to power is marked by a sweeping anti-intellectualism amounting to willful ignorance, which embraces all aspects of the world, from American history to economics to atmospheric science. Our endeavors to understand the world, and communicate our understanding, obviously acquire heightened importance in this climate.

But to go a bit further: it may be worth meditating for a moment on the range of impulses that brought Trump to power. Xenophobia played a role. Misogyny played a role. Racial divisions in the working classes played a large role, which has (rightly) been widely discussed. But the bulk of Trump’s supporters were not from the working classes; they were people earning more than $50,000 a year–many of them with college degrees. Many of those voters must have recognized something problematic in Trump’s obvious arrogance, disregard of fact, contempt for minorities, and disdain for democratic norms of transparency. Republicans had a fierce debate on those subjects in the summer of 2016. But in the end, the majority of Republican voters (and more fatefully, Republican office-holders) decided that these were abstract and impalpable worries, compared to the immediate gratification of a win for their political party.

That, I think, is the most acute problem we confront right now. Something about the structure of the contemporary media ecosystem is pushing us toward a debased view of politics as a zero-sum struggle between competing teams with incommensurable world views. We are losing our ability to see a larger picture. The history and fragility of democratic institutions, our shared aspirations as Americans or human beings, the fate of the planet itself, all recede into the background, replaced by a fierce hatred of people who wear fedoras or baseball caps.

This degradation of political discourse has been gradual over the last thirty years. In my view, it has been driven particularly by changes on the right (the Southern Strategy, Lee Atwater, and Fox News Corp are names worth mentioning). But none of us are necessarily immune to the larger drift: a pressure to understand ideas instrumentally, and subordinate thinking to the reaffirmation of partisan community.

In this context, I think it becomes especially important to explain why we value modes of thinking that don’t have an immediate, contemporary, political instrumentality. The history of the Song dynasty, the reproductive biology of sea grasses, the nature of gravity, all matter for us. Part of the dignity of being human is to be a creature for whom those things matter. It may be tempting to express this by saying that universities preserve a space for dispassionate reflection, but that wouldn’t be right. In the present state of human affairs, the struggle to back up, to get a bigger picture, to think more broadly and more candidly about the world, is itself a passionately political act. And given the bloody history of our species, this was probably always true.

A distant reading of moments

I delivered a talk about time at the English Institute yesterday. Since it could easily be a year before the print version comes out, I thought I would share the draft as a working paper.

The argument has two layers. On one level it’s about the tension between distant reading and New Historicism. The New Historical anecdote fuses history with literary representation in a vivid, influential way, by compressing a large theme into a brief episode. Can quantitative arguments about the past aspire to the same kind of compression and vividness?

Inside that metacritical frame, there’s a history of narrative pace, based on evidence I gathered in collaboration with Sabrina Lee and Jessica Mercado. (We’re also working on a separate co-authored piece that will dive more deeply into this data.)

We ask how much fictional time is narrated, on average, in 250 words. We discover some dramatic changes across a timeline of 300 years, and I’m tempted to include our results as an illustration here. But I’ve decided not to, because I want to explore whether scholars already, intuitively know how the representation of duration has changed, by asking readers to reflect for a moment on what they expect to see.

So instead of illustrating this post with real evidence, I’ve provided a plausible, counterfactual illustration based on an account of duration that one might extract from influential narratological works by Gérard Genette or Seymour Chatman.

blamemodernismuse

Artificial data, generated to simulate the account of narrative pace one might extract from Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse. Logarithmic scale.

To find out what the real story is, you’ll have to read the paper, “Why Literary Time Is Measured in Minutes.”

(Open data and code aren’t out yet, but they will be released with our co-authored essay.)