Table Of ContentS
m
This Element sheds new light on the ubiquitous yet complex e
e
notion of mimesis. By systematically comparing the social t
S
dynamics of the Dutch population at a given time with the
social dynamics of characters in Dutch literary fiction published
in the same period, it aims to pinpoint the ways and the
extent to which literary fiction either mirrors or shapes the Digital Literary
societal context from which it emerged. While close-reading-
Studies
based scholarship on this topic has been limited to qualitative
interpretations of allegedly exemplary works, the present
study uses the data-driven tools of social network analysis to
systematically determine the imitative elements of the social
dynamics of characters within larger-scale, representative
A Actual Fictions
collections of books of literary fiction. c
t
u
a
l F
ic
t
io
n
s
About the Series Series editors
Our series provides short exemplary texts Katherine Bode
that address a pressing research question Australian National
of clear scholarly interest within a defined University Roel Smeets
area of literary studies, clearly articulate Adam Hammond
the method used to address the question, University of
and demonstrate the literary insights Toronto sserP
achieved. Gabriel Hankins ytisre
v
Clemson University in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
8
8
7
0
8
1
9
0
0
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
Cover image: s_maria / Shutterstock.com //:sp IISSSSNN 22663333--44339890 ((opnrilnint)e)
tth
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
8
8
7
0
8
1
9
0
0
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
ElementsinDigitalLiteraryStudies
editedby
KatherineBode
AustralianNationalUniversity
AdamHammond
UniversityofToronto
GabrielHankins
ClemsonUniversity
ACTUAL FICTIONS
Literary Representation and
Character Network Analysis
sse
rP y Roel Smeets
tisre
vin Radboud University
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
8
8
7
0
8
1
9
0
0
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
103PenangRoad,#05–06/07,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore238467
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781009180795
DOI:10.1017/9781009180788
©RoelSmeets2022
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2022
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN978-1-009-18079-5Paperback
ISSN2633-4399(online)
ISSN2633-4380(print)
sse CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
rP URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
y
tisrev anddoesnotguaranteethaactcaunraytecoonrteapntproonpsruiacthe.websitesis,orwillremain,
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
8
8
7
0
8
1
9
0
0
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
Actual Fictions
LiteraryRepresentationandCharacterNetworkAnalysis
ElementsinDigitalLiteraryStudies
DOI:10.1017/9781009180788
Firstpublishedonline:July2022
RoelSmeets
RadboudUniversity
Authorforcorrespondence:RoelSmeets,[email protected]
Abstract:ThisElementshedsnewlightontheubiquitousyetcomplex
notionofmimesis.Bysystematicallycomparingthesocialdynamicsof
theDutchpopulationatagiventimewiththesocialdynamicsof
charactersinDutchliteraryfictionpublishedinthesameperiod,itaims
topinpointthewaysandtheextenttowhichliteraryfictioneither
mirrorsorshapesthesocietalcontextfromwhichitemerged.While
close-reading-basedscholarshiponthistopichasbeenlimitedto
qualitativeinterpretationsofallegedlyexemplaryworks,thepresent
studyusesthedata-driventoolsofsocialnetworkanalysisto
systematicallydeterminetheimitativeelementsofthesocialdynamics
ofcharacterswithinlarger-scale,representativecollectionsofbooksof
literaryfiction.
ThisElementalsohasavideoabstract:www.cambridge.org/smeets
sse Keywords:Dutchliterature,characternetworkanalysis,mimesis,digital
rP
y humanities,socialnetworkanalysis
tisre
v
in ©RoelSmeets2022
U
e
g
d ISBNs:9781009180795(PB),9781009180788(OC)
irbm ISSNs:2633-4399(online),2633-4380(print)
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
8
8
7
0
8
1
9
0
0
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 NovelDivides:CharactersandPeople 12
3 NovelConnectivity:FemaleCharactersandWomen’s
Emancipation 33
4 Conclusion 59
References 64
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
8
8
7
0
8
1
9
0
0
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
ActualFictions 1
1Introduction
1.1LiteraryFictionandSocialReality
Where does fiction begin and reality end? While the myriad intersections of
literature and society have traditionally been at the core of literary
scholarship,1 it is hard to draw clear-cut boundaries between stories and the
social,historical,economic,andculturalenvironmentsinwhichtheyfunction
and were created. It seems obvious to point out that literary fiction does not
exclusivelyexistinthespacebetweenthefrontandbackcoversofabook.Not
only are the fictional worlds depicted within its pages often modeled on the
world“outside”thestory,buttheyalsohavethepotentialtoshape,influence,
distort, or provoke the norms, values, customs, and beliefs of a time and
aplace.Butalthoughtheboundariesbetweenfictionandrealityareevidently
fluid and porous, one of the most foundational concepts of literary theory
assumes a binary opposition between the two. From Plato onward, the term
mimesishasinvokednumerousjuxtapositionsbetweenthetwoseemingly(in)
separabledomainsoffictionandreality,literatureandsociety,artandlife.
This Element sheds new light on this ubiquitous yet complex notion of
mimesis.BysystematicallycomparingthesocialdynamicsoftheDutchpopu-
lationatagiventimewiththesocialdynamicsofcharactersinDutchliterary
fictionpublishedinthesameperiod,itaimstopinpointthewaysinwhich,and
theextenttowhich,literaryfictionmirrorsorshapesthesocietalcontextfrom
whichitemerged.Whileclose-reading-basedscholarshiponthistopichasbeen
limitedtoqualitativeinterpretationsofallegedlyexemplaryworks,thepresent
sse studyusesdata-driventoolsofsocialnetworkanalysistosystematicallyassess
rP y theimitativeelementsofthesocialdynamicsofcharacterswithinlarger-scale,
tisre representativecollectionsofbooks.
v
in
U Showcasing some of the potential uses of social network analysis for the
e
gd study of fictional worlds, this Element operates at the intersection between
irb
ma sociologicalandliterarymethods.Inabenchmarkarticleonthevariousforms
C
yb thatsociologiesofliteraturehaveadoptedinthepast,JamesEnglish(2010)has
e
n
iln arguedthattheessenceofsociologicalmethodsisdescription,whereasliterary
o
d
e methods are often geared toward critique. The methodological claim of the
h
silb presentstudyisthatsocialnetworkanalysisofliterarycharacterscontributesto
u
P
8
8
7
0
81 1 Notonlyinthenarrowsenseof“symptomatic”formsofscholarshipthatconsidersliterarytexts
900 assymptomsofdeepersocietalissues(cf.thediscussionofthisfieldine.g.Felski2015),butalso
1
87 in the broader sense of historicist approaches in which literature is studied in relation to its
9/7 various – social, economic, cultural, and so on – historical contexts (e.g. Greenblatt 2005).
1
01 Although some branches of literary studies havebeen famous for theirtext-centric approach
.01 (e.g.NewCriticismorRussianformalism),itissafetosaythatliteratureisonlyveryrarely
/g
ro studiedincompleteisolationfromthesocietyinwhichitemergedoroperates.
.io
d
//:sp
tth
2 DigitalLiteraryStudies
descriptions that can be used as a basis for close-reading-based critiques of
fictionalsocialdynamics.Fordiscussionsonmimesisandliterature,amixed-
methods framework based on both description and critique is particularly
useful. In order to pinpoint the complex relation between the fictional worlds
ofliterarycharactersandthesocialrealityofasocietyatagiventimeandplace,
thisstudyusessocialnetworkanalysistodescribestatisticallytheencountersof
characters in books and also uses the critical methods of cultural analysis to
reflect on how these descriptions confirm or question theoretical claims on
mimesisandliterature.Whereasthestatisticaldescriptionsprovidedbysocial
network analysis are necessary for systematic comparison between the social
worldsoffictionalcharactersandthesocialworldsofpeople,thesedescriptions
evoke fundamental questions about the nature of literary fiction and its inter-
sections with social reality that should be discussed with the critical tools of
cultural analysis. Building on critical mimesis theory, this Element thus pays
special attention to abstract, elusive notions such as “real,” “fictional,” and
“reflection.” What does it mean for a societal phenomenon to be reflected,
mirrored,echoed,orreproducedinthedynamicsbetweenfictionalcharacters?
Section1.2situatesthepresentstudywithinalong-standingdiscussiononthe
conceptofmimesis.Itdoessobydistinguishingbetweenthetwoextremesin
this debate: a reflection theory of mimesis stating that fiction reflects social
reality and a control theory of anti-mimesis stating that fiction shapes social
reality. While the various arguments for or against both theories have been
expressed in unequivocal terms by proponents on both ends of the spectrum
(respectivelyPlatoandOscarWilde),thetruth–asalways–liessomewherein
sse the middle. It seems, furthermore, that most literary scholarship implicitly
rP y adherestoamorenuanced,gradualtheoryofmimesisinwhichliteraryworks
tisre havethepotentialtobothreflectandshapecertainaspectsofsocialrealityupto
v
inU a certain extent. I will use Caroline Levine’s Forms (2015) as a theoretical
e
g
dirb vantagepointfromwhichtointerprettheresultsofmyanalysesinlightofthis
m
a gradualspectrum.InSection1.3,Iwillformulatethemainresearchquestions
C
y
b e andhypothesesandoutlinethestructureoftheElement.
n
iln
o
de 1.2FromPlatotoOscarWilde:MimesisversusAnti-mimesis
h
silb
uP Mimesisisamongtheoldestandmostfundamentalconceptsofliterarytheory.
8
8
7 Forthatveryreasonitisparticularlyhardtooutlineitshistoricaldevelopment
0
8
19 without falling prey to a schematic representation of affairs.2 Without any
0
0
1
8
7
9
/7
1
01 2 Tryingtomakesenseofthe“verylong,andinmanyrespectsconfused”historyofimitationin
.01 literarytheory,ColinBurrowcontendsthattheconceptofmimesiswas“extremelycomplexin
/gro sensefromitsearliestrecordedoccurrences”(citedinGregory2020,27).
.io
d
//:sp
tth
ActualFictions 3
intention ofproviding anall-encompassing overviewofthevarious meanings
thetermhastakenonthroughouttheages,Ibrieflysketchthedynamicbetween
Plato’s earliest writings on mimesis and later Romantic attitudes toward the
term.3 This dynamic will serve as a theoretical point of departure that is
unavoidablyschematicbutalsoprovidesapracticalmeanstocomputationally
operationalize questions about the ways in which literary fiction realistically
reflectssocietaltrendsofatimeandaplace.
Since Plato’s introduction of the term “mimesis” in the Republic it has
continued to exert influence over theories of artistic representation. Derrida
contendedthat“thewholehistoryoftheinterpretationoftheartsandlettershas
movedandbeentransformedwithinthediverselogicalpossibilitiesopenedup
by the concept of mimesis” (cited in Potolsky 2006, 2; emphasis in original
text).Atfirstglance,theideathatliteratureimitateslifemakessenseasauthors
oftenseemtowriteabouttheworldaroundthem.Thehistoryofliterarytheory
has,however,witnessedadiverserangeofattitudestowardthisseeminglyclear
idea. While both Plato and Aristotle take their cue from the belief that art
mirrorsreality,theydrawdifferentconclusionsastothemoralaspectsofartistic
representation. For Plato, the imitative nature of literature is a reason to ban
poetsandartistsfromtheperfectcity.Asamerecopyofacopy(“twiceremoved
from reality”), literature is illusory and deceptive. By contrast, Aristotle sees
artistic imitation as perfectly “natural, rational and educational” and even
“beneficial” (Potolsky 2006, 46). It does not merely copy the real; it has the
potential to reveal universal truths and produce cathartic effects in human
beings.
sse From Plato and Aristotle onward, writers, scholars, and critics from various
rP y disciplinarybackgroundshaveexploitedthetermfortheirownends.Theconcept
tisre tookonalifeonitsownfaroutsidetherealmoftheartsandthehumanities.In
v
in
U recent times, there has been an increasing interest in mimesis within both the
e
g
dirb socialandnaturalsciences.4Forthesakeofclarity,Iwillsticktodiscussionson
ma mimesiswithintheartsandthehumanities–andmorespecificallytodiscussions
C
yb e onliteraryrepresentation–withoutexcludingthepossibilitythatmyfindingsare
n
iln relevantoutsidethedisciplinaryboundariesofliteraryandculturalstudies.Thus,
o
d
eh while mimesis has been studied from a wide variety of research angles and
silbu fields (for an overview, see Gebauer & Wulf 1995; Potolsky 2006), this
P
8
8
7
0
81 3 It is worthwhile noting that Plato discusses mimesis primarily in philosophical terms, while
9
00 Romanticauthors(likeOscarWilde)didsoprimarilyintermsofwritingpractices.Althoughthe
1
87 focus of these discussions is different (either scholarly or artistically), I will not make
9
/7 afundamentaldistinctionbetweenthetwobecausebothtypesofdiscussionshaveequallyshaped
1
01 theintellectualdiscourseonmimesis.
.01 4 For an overarching, transdisciplinary view on mimesis, see the ERC-funded project Homo
/g
ro MimeticusledbyNideshLawtooatKULeuven(www.homomimeticus.eu/).
.io
d
//:sp
tth
4 DigitalLiteraryStudies
Element narrows it down to mimesis in the sense of literary realism. To
narrow it down even further, this Element does not address the mimetic
processes of imitatio (how artists copy their role models) and theatre and
theatricality (how audiences are influenced by art); instead it focuses
specifically on the ways in which literature realistically depicts the world
it was produced in.
Theideathatliteraturereflectslife,reality,orsocietyinonewayoranother
runs like a red thread through theories about literary representation from
antiquity onward, although Plato’s radical conclusion that literature therefore
isdeceptiveanddangerousisonlyrarelyrepeatedinlatercenturies.Asoftoday,
the seminal work of literary theory reflecting on this tradition is still Eric
Auerbach’s Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature
(1946 [2003]). Starting from the assumption that there is a relation between
therhetoricalstyleofaliteraryworkandthesociopoliticalcontextofthattime,
Auerbach argues that each period in Western cultural history has its own
particular way of “articulating reality” in literary form (2003; foreword by
Said)bydemonstratingthisinworksrangingfromHomer’sOdyssey(c.eighth
centuryBC)toVirginiaWoolf’sTotheLighthouse(1927).WhereasAuerbach’s
studytheorizestherelationbetweenliteraryworksandsocialrealityexplicitly
intermsofmimesis,mostmodernliteraryscholarshipassumesthatthereissuch
arelation –whateverformthat maytake–withoutemphasizing itsparticular
dynamics.5
The conventional narrative states that theories arguing against the Platonic
assumption that literature is a reflection of reality emerge mostly from the
sse eighteenth and nineteenth centuries onward (e.g. Potolsky 2006). Famous in
rP y this respect is Oscar Wilde’s anti-mimesis essay The Decay of Lying ([1889]
tisre 1891)foritsl’artpourl’artclaimsthatartonlyexpressesitsowncontentsand
v
inU thatlifeisnotreflectedinartbutrathertheotherwayaround–thatlifeimitates
e
g
dirb art.Wilde’stheoryisexemplaryoftheanti-mimesisparadigmshiftwithinthe
ma RomanticperiodthatwasfirstdescribedbyM.H.Abramsinhisseminalwork
C
y
b e TheMirrorandtheLamp:RomanticTheoryandtheCriticalTradition(1953).
n
iln Themetaphorinthebook’stitleservestoillustratetheruptureinliteraryhistory
o
d
eh thatallegedlytookplaceintheRomanticperiod:whereasearlierwriterstended
silb
u
P
8
8
7
0
8
1
9
00 5 Ideologicalapproachestoliterature,forinstance,tendtoassumethatliteraryworksareproducts
187 oftheirenvironmentswithoutmakingexplicithowthedynamicsbetweenliteraryfictionand
9
/7 social reality are manifested. A recent example is Affectieve crisis; literair herstel (2021;
1
01 Affective crisis: Literary recovery) by Hans Demeyer and Sven Vitse, in which the authors
.01 analyze how millennial literature reflects, for instance, a particular response to present-day
/g
ro capitalistsocieties.
.io
d
//:sp
tth
