When I started this blog, I promised myself that I’d post once every two weeks. Recently, that has begun to feel like a challenge. According to that schedule, dear reader, I owed you a post approximately eleven days ago. Unfortunately, I have only a massive backlog of half-baked ideas.1
Our field is in its infancy and there is no road map. Weird ideas have an important role to play, even if they help profile the good ideas more clearly.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I thought the inaugural weird idea was quite wonderful! It involved using a “market basket” algorithm on texts — the amazon.com approach to diction analysis. My philosophy is, why shouldn’t a sentence be like a shopping cart? I have no idea whether this approach could be useful, but then — that’s the point.
I will forgive the skeptics in my audience for thinking that this is just a highfalutin justification for writing filler to meet an arbitrary publication schedule.3 You others: read on.
My half-baked idea for this Friday is that we should come up with a new kind of reading in addition to close and distant reading: log-scale reading. I’m not certain this is a good idea; I’m not even totally certain what it means. But think for a moment about why people use log scales: they reveal patterns that only become obvious when you use a scale that shows your data at many different levels of resolution.
For example, consider this chart:
It’s a line chart of the following function:
y = 10 ** x + 0.5 * 6 ** x * np.sin(10 * x)
Now, you can see from the equation that there’s a lot of complexity here; but if you had only seen the graph, you’d only notice the pattern of exponential growth. We’re zoomed way too far out. What happens when we zoom in?
Now we get a much better sense of the low-level behavior of the function. But we get no information about what happens to the right. Does it keep going up? Does it level off? We have no idea. Log scale to the rescue:
This doesn’t make smaller patterns invisible, nor does it cut off our global view. It’s a much better representation of the function.
Now, this may seem dreadfully obvious. It’s data visualization 101: choose the right scale for your data. But I find myself wondering whether there’s a way of representing texts that does the same thing. When discussing distant reading and macroanalysis, people talk a lot about “zooming out” and “zooming in,” but in other fields, that’s frequently not the best way to deal with data at differing scales. It’s often better to view your data at multiple scales simultaneously. I’d like to be able to do that with text.
So that illustrates, in a very hazy and metaphorical way, what log-scale reading would be. But that’s all I’ve got so far. In some future Filler Friday4 post, I’ll explore some possibilities, probably with no useful outcome. I’ll try to make some pretty pictures though.
One final question: Am I missing something? Does log-scale reading already exist? I’d love to see examples.5
- This is partially the result of personal circumstances; I spent the last month moving from Saratoga Springs to Philadelphia. But that’s no excuse! ↩
- This is not literally true. There’s no reason for the show to go on. ↩
- I decided not to call this feature of my blog “Filler Friday,” but I won’t object if you do. ↩
- OK, actually, it’s a pretty good name. ↩
- Since I posted this, there have been some interesting developments along these lines. In the Winter 2016 issue of Critical Inquiry, Hoyt Long and Richard Jean So make some persuasive arguments for this kind of multi-scale reading, although the task of visualizing it remains elusive, as does (I would argue) the task of developing arguments across multiple scales in fully theorized ways. ↩