Introduction: “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
“Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens first appeared in Comparative Literature, Volume 67, Issue 1, in 2015. In this article, Wilkens makes a compelling case for the integration of computational methods into the traditionally qualitative realms of literary and cultural studies. He argues that while digital humanities is not overtaking the humanities, it offers powerful tools—such as text mining, network analysis, and geographic mapping—for uncovering patterns, trends, and structures in literature that would otherwise remain inaccessible. These methods, Wilkens contends, allow scholars to work at scales ranging from close reading to macro-level analysis, providing a bridge between literary interpretation and quantitative modeling. For instance, he highlights Andrew Piper and Mark Algee-Hewitt’s “topological reading” of Goethe’s Werther, which reconfigures Goethe’s entire corpus using word-frequency analysis to challenge established periodizations. He also discusses Richard Jean So and Hoyt Long’s sociological network studies of modernist poetry, which reveal transnational literary dynamics and the roles of marginalized “broker” figures in shaping literary fields. Wilkens’ article is especially significant for literary theory as it calls for a more explicit and epistemologically grounded engagement with quantitative reasoning already latent in traditional analysis. He insists that computational methods do not replace but rather extend critical inquiry by offering new types of evidence and ways of reading that foster defamiliarization, inclusivity, and structural insight. The article serves both as a defense and roadmap for the future of comparative literature within the digital turn, underscoring the mutual necessity of collaboration between humanists and computational thinkers.
Summary of “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
📘 Main Concepts & Key Takeaways
🔹 🌐 Digital humanities is not replacing traditional literary studies
“Computational methods are not taking over the humanities. The number of people who work in even the expansively defined digital humanities is modest” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
Wilkens stresses that digital methods serve as complementary tools rather than substitutes for close reading and traditional interpretive work.
🔸 📊 Quantitative methods uncover hidden patterns across scales
“What computational methods offer most directly is help identifying and assessing literary patterns at scales from the individual text to whole fields” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
This insight points to the capacity of digital tools to manage overwhelming volumes of literary data.
🔹 📏 Literary arguments often rely on implicit quantification
“Literary scholars often underestimate… their claims are implicitly quantitative, pattern-based, and dependent on reductive models” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 13).
Wilkens calls for making these implicit models explicit through computation for conceptual and evidentiary clarity.
🔸 🧠 Computational criticism offers new forms of evidence
“These methods produce new types of evidence that can be used… to pursue humanistic work in richer, more inclusive ways” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
He underscores that computational methods enrich—not reduce—the possibilities for interpretation.
🧪 Case Studies & Methodologies
🔹 🧬 Topological Reading of Goethe – Piper & Algee-Hewitt
“Topology attends to the recurrence of words… It shows us how the patterns of lexical repetition within texts produce meanings” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 13).
They track word-frequency patterns in Goethe’s works to explore continuity between early and late writings.
🔸 🌀 Deformance: Reading via algorithmic rearrangement
“The deformative nature of computational criticism… provides the opportunity to read that corpus as a newly estranged object” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 15).
This enables a refreshed critical perspective by reshuffling and re-clustering textual segments.
🔹 🌍 Network analysis of modernist poetry – So & Long
“They visualize their data… showing differences among poetic networks in the U.S., Japan, and China” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 16).
Their use of metadata highlights the social infrastructure of literary production and the role of “brokers” (e.g., Amy Lowell).
🔸 🗺️ Literary geography and place-based analysis
“More than forty percent of all location mentions [in Civil War-era U.S. fiction] fell outside the boundaries of the United States” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 18).
Wilkens’ own work illustrates how geographic data reveals shifts in literary attention and national imagination.
⚠️ Challenges and Future Directions
🔹 🧾 Copyright & Data Accessibility
“It can be difficult to assemble suitable corpora for computational analysis… especially after 1923” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 19).
Legal restrictions limit large-scale literary research, although efforts like HathiTrust are helping.
🔸 👩🏫 Training & Disciplinary Conservatism
“Few scholars in the humanities… have been trained in the skills and methods necessary for computational work” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 19).
Humanities departments need to incorporate more technical training to empower future scholars.
🔹 🌐 Multilingual Data and Comparatist Challenges
“It’s generally difficult to compare the results… in different languages” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 20).
Despite obstacles, comparatists are uniquely positioned to address multilingual complexity in computational research.
📚 Conclusion: Why It Matters
“Systems of literary production may be made of books, but they are not themselves books any more than an elephant is a very large pile of cells” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 18).
Wilkens powerfully asserts that understanding literary systems requires macro-level analysis, and digital humanities offers tools for precisely that. These approaches are not about replacing interpretation but expanding it with broader, structural insights.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
| 🌟 Term | 📘 Explanation | 🛠️ Usage in the Article |
| 💻 Digital Humanities (DH) | Interdisciplinary field combining computational methods with humanities research. | Wilkens positions DH as a complementary approach that offers “a new set of methods for dealing with…abundance” in literary studies (p. 12). |
| 📊 Computational Literary Studies | Using data-driven tools to analyze texts and literary patterns. | Helps identify “patterns at scales from the individual text to whole fields” (p. 12). Offers alternative forms of evidence to support literary arguments. |
| 🔢 Quantification | The transformation of textual phenomena into measurable data. | Wilkens explains how literary analysis is often already “implicitly quantitative” and calls for making this explicit in scholarship (p. 13). |
| 🧭 Topological Reading | Tracing word co-occurrence patterns to map text similarity and thematic flow. | Used by Piper & Algee-Hewitt to analyze Goethe’s corpus by comparing word frequency patterns, forming clusters via Euclidean distances (p. 13–14). |
| 🧩 Deformance | Altering or rearranging texts to uncover hidden or estranged meanings. | Enables critics to “read that corpus as a newly estranged object,” shifting away from normative interpretations (p. 15). |
| 🔗 Network Analysis | Modeling relationships (authors, texts, journals) using nodes and edges. | So & Long use it to visualize modernist literary networks, showing connections and clusters among poets and journals (p. 16). |
| 🌉 Brokerage | A role in network theory connecting otherwise unlinked clusters. | “Brokers” like Amy Lowell bridge poetic communities, showing alternative models of influence and marginality in literary history (p. 16). |
| 🧠 Systems Theory | Studying dynamic, interrelated structures rather than isolated components. | Wilkens connects DH to systems theory in addressing macro-level questions in world literature and longue durée literary history (p. 13). |
| 🗺️ Geographic Mapping | Spatial visualization of literary settings and references. | Wilkens’ own mapping of Civil War-era fiction reveals a “transatlantic and international literary-geographic investment” (p. 18). |
| 📁 Metadata Analysis | Analyzing data about texts (e.g., publication dates, authorship), not content. | So & Long rely on metadata from literary journals to construct comparative poetic networks across nations and languages (p. 17). |
Contribution of “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens to Literary Theory/Theories
🔍 💡 Structuralism & Post-Structuralism
- Wilkens contributes to structuralist methods by advocating for system-based analysis of literature.
- He emphasizes that patterns and structures can be mapped computationally, aligning with the structuralist focus on underlying systems.
“You will… have built an abstractly quantifiable model of your problem domain and of your texts’ place within it” (p. 13).
- He moves beyond textual internalism by including metadata, geography, and networks, thus approaching post-structuralist decentralization of the literary object.
🌐 🌍 World Literature & Comparative Literature
- The article reorients comparative literature around quantifiable, transnational patterns, contributing to debates in World Literature.
“Questions best suited to computational analysis—including those falling under the headings of world literature and longue durée literary history” (p. 13).
- Digital methods reveal connections across linguistic and national boundaries, reinforcing the global scope of comparatist inquiry.
📈 📊 Literary Sociology / Bourdieusian Theory
- Wilkens draws from Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory indirectly via discussion of social roles like “brokers.”
“Brokers… served to connect otherwise disparate coteries” (p. 16).
- So & Long’s network analysis maps literary capital and influence, challenging hierarchical canon models and highlighting social position over prestige.
🗺️ 🧭 Spatial Literary Theory / Literary Geography
- Using place-name analysis and mapping, Wilkens adds to spatial theory by showing how geographic orientation reflects literary and cultural ideologies.
“More than forty percent of all location mentions [in Civil War-era fiction] fell outside the boundaries of the United States” (p. 18).
- This supports transnationalism, shifting attention from canonical centers like New England to broader spatial fields.
📐 🔬 Formalism & Close Reading (Deformance)
- Supports a post-formalist view: computational methods estrange the text and offer “deformative” readings (Stephen Ramsay, Lisa Samuels).
“Allows them to read that corpus as a newly estranged object” (p. 15).
- Opens space for innovative close readings grounded in algorithmic output, connecting macro-level data to micro-level interpretation.
🔗 🧠 Systems Theory
- Suggests the need for explicit engagement between digital humanities and systems theory (Wallerstein, Luhmann).
“A more explicit engagement with systems theory will be an almost inevitable consequence of the rise of digital humanities” (p. 13).
- Advocates for literary studies that understand literature as part of dynamic, interrelated systems, not isolated artifacts.
🧠 🌀 Historiographic & Longue Durée Literary Theory
- Wilkens shows how DH methods contribute to long-term literary historical studies by revealing trends across centuries.
“Computational work has already begun to deliver… the prospects for future advances are especially bright” (p. 12).
- Influenced by Franco Moretti’s distant reading, the article supports shifting from close reading of a few to distant reading of many.
- While not a direct focus, the article indirectly expands reader-response theory by altering what “counts” as readable material.
- Algorithms generate “texts” (clusters, networks, maps) that are interpreted by scholars, making the reader’s role active in reassembling meaning.
Examples of Critiques Through “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
| 📖 Work | 🧰 DH Method Used | 🧠 Critical Insight / Interpretation |
| 📕 The Sorrows of Young Werther (Goethe) | 🧭 Topological Reading (Piper & Algee-Hewitt) | Tracks lexical patterns across Goethe’s works, revealing continuity between early and late styles via word clusters. |
| 🗺️ Civil War-Era American Fiction | 🌍 Geographic Mapping (Wilkens) | Maps place names, showing transnational imagination—over 40% of locations lie outside U.S. boundaries. |
| 🌐 U.S., Japanese & Chinese Modernist Poetry | 🔗 Network Analysis (So & Long) | Unveils poetic social structures and identifies key brokers linking fragmented literary communities. |
| ✋ Werther-based Page Clusters (within Goethe’s corpus) | 🧩 Deformance / Variation Engine | Algorithmically rearranged pages uncover new symbolic threads (e.g., “the hand” as motif of creation). |
🧠 Summary of Insights:
- These examples showcase how digital tools extend literary theory by offering new perspectives on well-studied works.
- Methods like deformance challenge conventional close reading, while network and spatial analyses recontextualize literary systems.
Criticism Against “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
🔒 ⚖️ Limited Access to Data and Copyright Restrictions
- Wilkens admits a major barrier to DH research is access to corpora, especially post-1923 copyrighted texts.
“It can be difficult to assemble suitable corpora… many texts remain in copyright” (p. 19).
This undermines scalability and inclusivity, especially for contemporary literary study.
🧪 🔍 Overreliance on Quantification
- Though Wilkens defends computation as complementary, some critics argue it risks reducing literature to data, overlooking nuance and ambiguity.
“The need for quantitative approaches to literature is thus great indeed” (p. 13) – but not all agree this is always desirable.
📉 📚 Weak Engagement with Canonical Literary Theory
- While the article invokes systems theory and sociology, it sidesteps direct, in-depth dialogue with literary theorists (e.g., Derrida, Foucault, Barthes), possibly alienating traditional theorists.
🌍 🧭 Language and Multilingual Barriers Remain Underdeveloped
- Wilkens notes multilingual DH is challenging but doesn’t offer practical frameworks for linguistic equivalence.
“It’s generally difficult to compare… in different languages” (p. 20).
Comparative literature requires more than structural mapping—it needs cross-cultural interpretive nuance.
🎯 🎲 Overgeneralization of Patterns as Literary Meaning
- There’s a risk of reifying patterns (like word frequency or network centrality) as literary insights without deep interpretive justification.
- Critics may argue that this flattens textual richness and mimics positivist fallacies.
🧩 🗣️ Limited Role for Reader and Subjectivity
- The approach may marginalize reader-response theory and personal engagement with texts.
Digital tools shape what gets read and how—raising questions about who interprets the machines.
🖇️ 📎 Methodology > Meaning?
- Some may critique the article’s tone as too invested in showcasing methods rather than exploring what those methods mean for literary value, ethics, or pedagogy.
🧱 🎓 Institutional & Training Gap
- Wilkens acknowledges that most humanities scholars lack training in digital methods—but doesn’t deeply address how to bridge this divide in sustainable, equitable ways.
“There are few scholars in the humanities who have been trained in the skills… necessary for computational work” (p. 19).
Representative Quotations from “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens with Explanation
| No | 📖 Quotation | 💡 Explanation / Insight |
| 📌1 | “Computational methods are not taking over the humanities.” (p. 12) | Opens with a reassurance to traditional scholars—DH complements rather than replaces close reading and humanistic traditions. |
| 🔍2 | “These methods produce new types of evidence… to pursue humanistic work in richer, more inclusive ways.” (p. 12) | Emphasizes the inclusive potential of DH by expanding the scope of inquiry across previously unmanageable corpora. |
| 📊3 | “Literary scholars often underestimate… their claims are implicitly quantitative.” (p. 13) | Points out that many literary arguments already involve data-like reasoning, even when unstated—justifying DH’s formal role. |
| 📐4 | “You will… have built an abstractly quantifiable model of your problem domain.” (p. 13) | Highlights how critical interpretation often simplifies and models texts implicitly, suggesting it’s beneficial to make that explicit. |
| 💾5 | “The need for quantitative approaches to literature is thus great indeed.” (p. 13) | A call to integrate data-driven methods to manage the overwhelming volume of modern literary production. |
| 🔗6 | “A more explicit engagement with systems theory will be an almost inevitable consequence of the rise of digital humanities.” (p. 13) | Argues that DH naturally aligns with systems theory due to its macro-level focus on literary networks and structures. |
| 🧩7 | “The deformative nature of computational criticism… provides the opportunity to read that corpus as a newly estranged object.” (p. 15) | Refers to “deformance” as a way to algorithmically alter texts and generate new interpretive possibilities. |
| 🌐8 | “So and Long… reveal important differences among their three national contexts.” (p. 16) | Shows how DH methods like network analysis can yield comparative insights into global literary systems. |
| 🗺️9 | “More than forty percent of all location mentions fell outside the boundaries of the United States.” (p. 18) | Wilkens’ own spatial mapping shows that 19th-century U.S. fiction had strong international and transatlantic orientations. |
| 🐘10 | “Systems of literary production may be made of books, but they are not themselves books any more than an elephant is a very large pile of cells.” (p. 18) | Uses metaphor to argue that literature must be studied systemically—individual readings alone are insufficient. |
Suggested Readings: “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
- WILKENS, MATTHEW. “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture.” Comparative Literature, vol. 67, no. 1, 2015, pp. 11–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24694545. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
- Reese, Ashley N. “Pollyanna’s Intergenerational Gladness: Examining Porter’s Novels In The Digital Humanities.” Intergenerational Solidarity in Children’s Literature and Film, edited by JUSTYNA DESZCZ-TRYHUBCZAK and ZOE JAQUES, University Press of Mississippi, 2021, pp. 18–30. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1fkgcgc.6. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
- Svensson, Patrik. “Making Digital Humanities.” Big Digital Humanities: Imagining a Meeting Place for the Humanities and the Digital, University of Michigan Press, 2016, pp. 172–221. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65sx0t.9. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
- Svensson, Patrik. “Introducing the Digital Humanities.” Big Digital Humanities: Imagining a Meeting Place for the Humanities and the Digital, University of Michigan Press, 2016, pp. 1–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65sx0t.5. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.