From the Library to the Lab: Close Reading Rabbits as a Cross-Disciplinary Experiment

Year 2019, Issue: 42, 1 - 17, 25.12.2019

Jameson Kısmet Bell

https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2019-0014

Abstract

This article situates the practice of close reading within a cross-disciplinary context that moves beyond literary criticism and linguistic analysis to sociology and the history of science. A comparative approach to the practice of close reading adds to the toolbox of literary critics, who often focus on meaning rather than material. After a review of close reading from a literary point of view, I introduce Latour and Woolgar’s (1986) concept of microprocessing and Rheinberger’s (1997) concept of pragmatogony as equally valid forms of close reading from the disciplines of sociology and history of science. If a combination of these techniques can be applied to literary works, literary critics can analyze the epistemic value of literature, which requires experimentation with the material of a literary artefact, which in turn affects the author and critic. Through examples of engaging literary material in addition to representations, literary critics can experiment with and redefine the literary object as an epistemic object and the practice of close reading as undefined at the time of creation and interpretation. By way of metaphors and folklore about rabbits, a novel with a white rabbit, and genetically modified rabbits, this article offers three conclusions that appear when the practices of microprocessing and pragmatogony are applied to literary works. The reconceptualization of the practice of close reading, 1) transforms the author and reader into hybrid scientists-artists, rather than prophets, geniuses, or intellectuals; 2) transforms the literary object of study from a book to any material object; and 3) transports the practice of close reading from the library to the laboratory.

Keywords

Close reading, literary criticism, rabbits, history of science, sociology

References

• Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. (S. Heath, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.
• Bornstein, G. (1999). How to read a page: Modernism and material textuality. Studies in the Literary Imagination, Spring, 29-47. Brooks, C. (1947). The heresy of paraphrase. In C.
• Brooks (Ed.), The well-wrought urn: Studies in the structure of poetry (pp. 192-214). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
• Carroll, L. (1865). Alice’s adventures in wonderland. London: MacMillan.
• Carroll, L. (1865). Alice’s adventures in wonderland. Peter Zelchenko (ed.). Retrieved from https://www.adobe. com/be_en/active-use/pdf/Alice_in_Wonderland.pdf
• Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7-19.
• Crispin, D., & Gilmore B. (Eds.). (2014). Artistic experimentation in music: An anthology. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
• Cyranoski, D. (2019) The CRISPR-baby scandal: what’s next for human gene-editing. Nature 566, 440-442. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-00673-1.
• Daston, L. (2000). Biographies of scientific objects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books. DeMello, M. (2003). Stories rabbits tell: A natural and cultural history of a misunderstood creature. New York: Lantern Books.
• DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and society: An introduction to human-animal studies. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Derrida, J. (1982). Différance. Margins of philosophy, (A. Bass, Trans.), (pp. 1-28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Dolphijn R., & van der Tuin, I. (2013). New materialism: Interviews and cartographies. Ann Arbor: Open University Press.
• Eschenbach, W. (2008). Parzival. Frankfurt a/M: Fischer.
• Felski, R. (2015). The limits of critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Fries, L. (1518). Spiegel der Artzney. Strassburger: Grünninger.
• Gallop, J. (Fall, 2000). The ethics of reading: Close encounters. The Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 16(3), 7-17.
• Hagner, M. (2012). The electrical excitability of the brain: Toward the emergence of an experiment. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, (J. Kısmet Bell, Trans.). 21, 237-249. doi: 10.1080/0964704X.2011.595634
• Hayles, K. (2004). Print is flat, code is deep. Poetics Today. 25(1), 67-90.
• Holsinger, B. (March, 2009). Of pigs and parchment: Medieval studies and the coming of the animal. PMLA, Vol. 124(2), 616-623.
• Kac, E. (2000). Eduardo Kac: Telepresence, biotelematics, and transgenic art, (pp. 101-131). Dobrila, P. T., & Kostic, A. (eds.). Maribor, Slovenia: Kibla.
• Kısmet Bell, J. (2018). Performing the sixteenth century brain: Beyond word and image inscriptions. Munster: Lit Verlag.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Latour, B. (1988). Visualization and cognition: Drawing things together. Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, 6, 1-40. doi:10.22394/0869-5377-2017-2-95-151.
• Latour, B. (1990b). The force and the reason of experiment. In H. E. LeGrand (Ed.), Experimental inquiries. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Cambridge: Princeton University Press.
• Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy. New York: Routledge.
• Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Richards, I. A. (1930). Practical criticism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.
• Tomsula, S. (2002). Genetic art and the aesthetics of biology. Leonardo, 35(2), 137-144. doi: https://www.jstor. org/stable/1577194.
• Winchester, S. (2011). The Alice behind wonderland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.