Franco Moretti had some interesting thoughts on this topic in *Graphs, Maps, Trees* (Figures 9 & 10). His data on British novel genres (1740–1900) seemed to show: (1) literary genres typically have "lifespans" of ~25 years; (2) the lifespans of different genres overlap extensively, rather than separating into neat "generations." He explained these phenomenain terms of audiences rather than authors: new genres could come into being at any time and acquire a readership, but they could only keep that readership for ~25 years before the initial enthusiasts started dying off.
Moretti was using traditional definitions of "genre" rather than the more rigorous definitions of recent DH work, so I don't know how well those conclusions have held up. (The Underwood et al. study is looking at a more recent time period, so it's a bit difficult to compare.)
I was mostly thinking of the sorts of approaches used by Underwood et al., such as topic modelling approaches powered by machine learning, or deference to the sorts of genre categories as found in contemporaneous library and/or booksellers catalogues. For both approaches, the underlying idea, as I understand it, is to let the genres emerge from the data rather than imposing our own readerly sensibilities on the historical material. (My own background is in history of science, so I tend to see analogies here with the ideal of "mechanical objectivity" identified by Daston and Galison in their wonderful 2007 book.) But I'm not a DH scholar myself, and I'm not deeply immersed in the literature; I imagine DH scholars' debates surrounding concepts of genre are just as contentious and intricate as everyone else's.
OK, yes, that makes sense. Although I think a lot of subjectivity sneaks back in: you have to set the number of topics you want, which makes a huge difference to their underlying coherence, and then you have to name them or speculate about what might connect what often looks like really random collocations of words. Not that it can't be very useful! But there's no wholly non-normative way to understand something like genre, I think (or other literary concepts).
I love that book too. I think the single most exciting intellectual environment I've been in may have been a couple of months I spent at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science when Lorraine Daston was leading an early modernists' working group in, I think, 2013. Amazing place (and person).
It's so fascinating to learn about the relationship between literary chronology and an author's age at publication! I had no idea that Defoe and Bram Stoker were late bloomers! The way you lay out the difference between the vertical and lateral dimensions of generations was also new to me and so helpful in conceptualizing literary history! Thank you for sharing!
Thanks! I'm glad you liked the piece. Stoker had a really interesting career as a theater manager for the actor Henry Irving, and he was a theater critic for a newspaper owned by Sheridan Le Fanu (!) so it's not like he was idle. But, like Defoe, we definitely wouldn't know his name if he'd died before the publication of his novel!
The Hardy citation is interesting. A man falling in love with three women from three generations is the theme of my favorite movie, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, and I have to think that this Hardy novel was at least in part the inspiration. So, thank you for that!
Writing novels is such a solitary and idiosyncratic phenomenon, that using generations or cohorts or time periods can only explain some features, in particular the issues that the author faces in his historical moment. But not only different, but opposed and conflicting responses to the same external world necessarily arise. It is probably best to look more at specific writers and books than try to put too much weight on generational explanations.
For many purposes, absolutely, yes. But I think trying to understand literary history is interesting in its own right and can also help us see features of individual works we wouldn't notice otherwise. I also think on this issue, in particular, there's a real disconnect between how much time authors spend thinking about how old they and their fellow writers are and how much time scholars spend thinking about it. Authors are obsessed with this question! Scholars, much less so.
I will contradict myself in part and suggest one of my favorite books which looks at cohorts of authors, Walter E. Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830-1870 (1963), which is a masterpiece of detailed examination of many authors and their influences and the issues of the day and the way each one responded.
Thanks for the recommendation, I will definitely check it out. Extremely helpful to get recommendations outside my period (Renaissance / Early Modern) especially of the great older stuff I'm unlikely to encounter through casual searches.
Franco Moretti had some interesting thoughts on this topic in *Graphs, Maps, Trees* (Figures 9 & 10). His data on British novel genres (1740–1900) seemed to show: (1) literary genres typically have "lifespans" of ~25 years; (2) the lifespans of different genres overlap extensively, rather than separating into neat "generations." He explained these phenomenain terms of audiences rather than authors: new genres could come into being at any time and acquire a readership, but they could only keep that readership for ~25 years before the initial enthusiasts started dying off.
Moretti was using traditional definitions of "genre" rather than the more rigorous definitions of recent DH work, so I don't know how well those conclusions have held up. (The Underwood et al. study is looking at a more recent time period, so it's a bit difficult to compare.)
Thanks, extremely relevant! I really have to reread that book. What recent definitions of genre from DH work did you have in mind?
I was mostly thinking of the sorts of approaches used by Underwood et al., such as topic modelling approaches powered by machine learning, or deference to the sorts of genre categories as found in contemporaneous library and/or booksellers catalogues. For both approaches, the underlying idea, as I understand it, is to let the genres emerge from the data rather than imposing our own readerly sensibilities on the historical material. (My own background is in history of science, so I tend to see analogies here with the ideal of "mechanical objectivity" identified by Daston and Galison in their wonderful 2007 book.) But I'm not a DH scholar myself, and I'm not deeply immersed in the literature; I imagine DH scholars' debates surrounding concepts of genre are just as contentious and intricate as everyone else's.
OK, yes, that makes sense. Although I think a lot of subjectivity sneaks back in: you have to set the number of topics you want, which makes a huge difference to their underlying coherence, and then you have to name them or speculate about what might connect what often looks like really random collocations of words. Not that it can't be very useful! But there's no wholly non-normative way to understand something like genre, I think (or other literary concepts).
I love that book too. I think the single most exciting intellectual environment I've been in may have been a couple of months I spent at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science when Lorraine Daston was leading an early modernists' working group in, I think, 2013. Amazing place (and person).
It's so fascinating to learn about the relationship between literary chronology and an author's age at publication! I had no idea that Defoe and Bram Stoker were late bloomers! The way you lay out the difference between the vertical and lateral dimensions of generations was also new to me and so helpful in conceptualizing literary history! Thank you for sharing!
Thanks! I'm glad you liked the piece. Stoker had a really interesting career as a theater manager for the actor Henry Irving, and he was a theater critic for a newspaper owned by Sheridan Le Fanu (!) so it's not like he was idle. But, like Defoe, we definitely wouldn't know his name if he'd died before the publication of his novel!
I had no idea about Stoker's career. So many authors have really interesting and unknown backstories.
oh wow, the connection to Sheridan Le Fanu!! I wonder if they ever discussed vampires!
The Hardy citation is interesting. A man falling in love with three women from three generations is the theme of my favorite movie, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, and I have to think that this Hardy novel was at least in part the inspiration. So, thank you for that!
Writing novels is such a solitary and idiosyncratic phenomenon, that using generations or cohorts or time periods can only explain some features, in particular the issues that the author faces in his historical moment. But not only different, but opposed and conflicting responses to the same external world necessarily arise. It is probably best to look more at specific writers and books than try to put too much weight on generational explanations.
For many purposes, absolutely, yes. But I think trying to understand literary history is interesting in its own right and can also help us see features of individual works we wouldn't notice otherwise. I also think on this issue, in particular, there's a real disconnect between how much time authors spend thinking about how old they and their fellow writers are and how much time scholars spend thinking about it. Authors are obsessed with this question! Scholars, much less so.
I will contradict myself in part and suggest one of my favorite books which looks at cohorts of authors, Walter E. Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830-1870 (1963), which is a masterpiece of detailed examination of many authors and their influences and the issues of the day and the way each one responded.
Thanks for the recommendation, I will definitely check it out. Extremely helpful to get recommendations outside my period (Renaissance / Early Modern) especially of the great older stuff I'm unlikely to encounter through casual searches.