Jan 11, 2009
Theory Must Concretely Change the Way We Work
Franco Moretti, in Graphs, Maps, Trees:
‘Theories are nets’, wrote Novalis, ‘and only he who casts will catch’. Yes, theories are nets, and we should evaluate them, not as ends in themselves, but for how they concretely change the way we work: for how they allow us to enlarge the literary field, and re-design it in a better way, replacing the old, useless distinctions (high and low; canon and archive; this or that national literature . . .) with new temporal, spatial, and morphological distinctions. (91)
I don’t want merely to nod in chorus with Moretti here, but I must agree as emphatically as it is possible to agree with someone. Just as the archive does not speak until we bring our theoretical tools to bear on its vast trove of data—to wring data into information—so theory is worth nothing except insofar as it does work. The critic must ask himself: what does this theory do? For what is it useful?
Unless it changes the way we see, it is useless. The true work of literary criticism does not lie in the direction of theory, capital-T or otherwise. Theory is the direction, marks out the path. It illuminates. It helps us make sense of data by highlighting relationships and key data points; it does so at the expense of the total and complex picture, which is a necessary sacrifice: theory is not the solution, but a powerful tool.


