What do you think?
Rate this book
An Ecology of World Literature: From Antiquity to the Present Day
What constitutes a nation’s literature? How do literatures of different countries interact with one another? In this groundbreaking study, Alexander Beecroft develops a new way of thinking about world literature. Drawing on a series of examples and case studies, the book ranges from ancient epic to the contemporary fiction of Roberto Bolaño and Amitav Ghosh.
Moving across literary ecologies of varying sizes, from small societies to the planet as a whole, the environments in which literary texts are produced and circulated, An Ecology of World Literature places in dialogue scholarly perspectives on ancient and modern, western and non-western texts, navigating literary study into new and uncharted territory.
Moving across literary ecologies of varying sizes, from small societies to the planet as a whole, the environments in which literary texts are produced and circulated, An Ecology of World Literature places in dialogue scholarly perspectives on ancient and modern, western and non-western texts, navigating literary study into new and uncharted territory.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 6, 2015
9 people are currently reading
171 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
November 3, 2025
At first exactly where this study of all literature was going, and the significance of the distinctions it was making, seemed very unclear, but it resolves itself into a very interesting long essay on the complicated shifts between global and local over 6000 years. Needs patience but eventually rewarding.
August 12, 2018
A vast-ranging and educational study of 'literatures' using an overriding ecological metaphor that works surprisingly well.
Warning: The following review is rather long and rambling, a possibly failed attempt to synthesise what I found especially compelling and what I took away from the book. I used strategic bolding to try to call attention to the most important bits.
Beecroft understands literatures as 'techniques or practices of reading texts, and specifically of linking texts together' (loc 351), rather than as inhering in formal or evaluative characteristics of literary texts themselves, so he draws not only on texts themselves but on the critical and historical texts that contributed to canon-construction from as early as ancient Chinese and Greek.
After a thorough conceptual and methodological introduction, Beecroft dedicates one chapter each to his 6 literary ecologies: epichoric, panchoric, cosmopolitan, vernacular, national, and global. The real pay-off for me came with chapter 6, "Global Literature", but this does not mean that the preceding chapters were all in vain. The previous in-depth description of pre-existing and current literary ecologies prepared me to better grasp what Beecroft hypothesises for the future, which might not have made sense without the 'ecological thinking' he first sketched out in the introduction and then developed/exemplified in the first five chapters. His range of literary references throughout is impressive, and this is a well-researched and well-referenced piece of scholarship.
As someone fairly new to academic texts about comparative literature, I found this book relatively easy to follow in its structure and argument, even if 90% of the references were unknown to me. This was greatly aided by the very thorough definition of terms (language, languages, literature, a literature, literarization vs literization, etc.) in the introduction.
Despite his highly academic tone (sometimes with awkward phrasing that I had to read several times to unravel), Beecroft touches upon several issues that are, I think, also of interest for a regular person with an interest in how literature "works", particularly how it circulates in the world:
- The way academic divisions themselves shape how the subject matter is perceived, for example the discipline of Classics establishing Greek and Latin literature as something of the past, which in turn has meant the relative neglect and lack of visibility of "Neo-Latin" literature (written after circa 1300 in Latin instead of a vernacular European language such as French, English, or Italian).
- How national languages came to be viewed as worthy alternatives to the older cosmopolitan ones through historical process rather than emerging fully-formed and pure from some honourable origin text–which I think can usefully counter the rank essentialism of people who oppose any transformation of these same languages as they currently exist.
- Fascinating data on the asymmetry of contemporary translation, with more than half of all translations being from English into another language. His commentary on how this maps (and doesn't really map) onto the most spoken language worldwide, with an emphasis on European languages which is reflected in the ostensibly universal Nobel laureates, was really illuminating:
-The connection between contemporary multi-stand narration (entrelacement, he calls it technically) as a way to represent the networked effects of globalisation and the gradual emergence of a global ecology of literature, as seen in works like Babel and 2666.
-A plethora of interesting facts such as the fact that there is such a thing as "Buddhist hell", the role of Chinese literature in the development of the Japanese tradition, or the Cynical origins of the term cosmopolitan in the 4th century BC.
Finally, his emphasis on the way individual human beings, such as Dante and Hu Chi in their arguments in favour of a vernacular literature as opposed to the cosmopolitan one, have the power to shape these ecologies rather than them being completely impersonal forces. Obviously, historical, political and economic forces have a role to play, and much of the book is spent outlining these forces. However, Beecroft is taking the lessons from the past literary scholars whose canonizing, boundary-drawing work he's dissected in the previous chapters and intervening in today's literary ecology even as he tries to describe it. Beecroft ends his book hypothesising that the future evolution of a global literary ecology could lead either to a global monoculture where texts are 'commodity packaged for export, nearly mass-produced and indistinguishable from its counterparts produced in other nations' (loc 6020) or a more vibrant ecology 'where cultural difference is not simply erased in the name of commodification but becomes the premise for broader, more complex, and more flexible, forms of identity' (loc 6253). In a closing which strikes me as both inspiring and realistic, he says that the outcome will depend on 'the choices we make as readers and as writers, teachers, and scholars' (loc 6344).
Warning: The following review is rather long and rambling, a possibly failed attempt to synthesise what I found especially compelling and what I took away from the book. I used strategic bolding to try to call attention to the most important bits.
Beecroft understands literatures as 'techniques or practices of reading texts, and specifically of linking texts together' (loc 351), rather than as inhering in formal or evaluative characteristics of literary texts themselves, so he draws not only on texts themselves but on the critical and historical texts that contributed to canon-construction from as early as ancient Chinese and Greek.
After a thorough conceptual and methodological introduction, Beecroft dedicates one chapter each to his 6 literary ecologies: epichoric, panchoric, cosmopolitan, vernacular, national, and global. The real pay-off for me came with chapter 6, "Global Literature", but this does not mean that the preceding chapters were all in vain. The previous in-depth description of pre-existing and current literary ecologies prepared me to better grasp what Beecroft hypothesises for the future, which might not have made sense without the 'ecological thinking' he first sketched out in the introduction and then developed/exemplified in the first five chapters. His range of literary references throughout is impressive, and this is a well-researched and well-referenced piece of scholarship.
As someone fairly new to academic texts about comparative literature, I found this book relatively easy to follow in its structure and argument, even if 90% of the references were unknown to me. This was greatly aided by the very thorough definition of terms (language, languages, literature, a literature, literarization vs literization, etc.) in the introduction.
Despite his highly academic tone (sometimes with awkward phrasing that I had to read several times to unravel), Beecroft touches upon several issues that are, I think, also of interest for a regular person with an interest in how literature "works", particularly how it circulates in the world:
- The way academic divisions themselves shape how the subject matter is perceived, for example the discipline of Classics establishing Greek and Latin literature as something of the past, which in turn has meant the relative neglect and lack of visibility of "Neo-Latin" literature (written after circa 1300 in Latin instead of a vernacular European language such as French, English, or Italian).
- How national languages came to be viewed as worthy alternatives to the older cosmopolitan ones through historical process rather than emerging fully-formed and pure from some honourable origin text–which I think can usefully counter the rank essentialism of people who oppose any transformation of these same languages as they currently exist.
- Fascinating data on the asymmetry of contemporary translation, with more than half of all translations being from English into another language. His commentary on how this maps (and doesn't really map) onto the most spoken language worldwide, with an emphasis on European languages which is reflected in the ostensibly universal Nobel laureates, was really illuminating:
Indeed, one useful way of thinking about the Nobel Prize might be to imagine it not so much as a device for establishing a canon of world literature but rather as a means of establishing a European canon, to which occasional non-European works can be admitted, with the specific task of augmenting the role of the European periphery within the European literary system. (loc 5553-5556)
-The connection between contemporary multi-stand narration (entrelacement, he calls it technically) as a way to represent the networked effects of globalisation and the gradual emergence of a global ecology of literature, as seen in works like Babel and 2666.
-A plethora of interesting facts such as the fact that there is such a thing as "Buddhist hell", the role of Chinese literature in the development of the Japanese tradition, or the Cynical origins of the term cosmopolitan in the 4th century BC.
Finally, his emphasis on the way individual human beings, such as Dante and Hu Chi in their arguments in favour of a vernacular literature as opposed to the cosmopolitan one, have the power to shape these ecologies rather than them being completely impersonal forces. Obviously, historical, political and economic forces have a role to play, and much of the book is spent outlining these forces. However, Beecroft is taking the lessons from the past literary scholars whose canonizing, boundary-drawing work he's dissected in the previous chapters and intervening in today's literary ecology even as he tries to describe it. Beecroft ends his book hypothesising that the future evolution of a global literary ecology could lead either to a global monoculture where texts are 'commodity packaged for export, nearly mass-produced and indistinguishable from its counterparts produced in other nations' (loc 6020) or a more vibrant ecology 'where cultural difference is not simply erased in the name of commodification but becomes the premise for broader, more complex, and more flexible, forms of identity' (loc 6253). In a closing which strikes me as both inspiring and realistic, he says that the outcome will depend on 'the choices we make as readers and as writers, teachers, and scholars' (loc 6344).
September 7, 2020
Beecroft begins his introduction by contemplating the academic studies of Damrosch, Casanova, Moretti, Pollock, and himself, concluding that they are all each, in fact, talking about different instantiations of the same question, which might, most simply, be put as "What is the interaction of literature with its environment?" (3).
He considers this question by first asking another, "What is language"? Beecroft proposes that a ‘language’ is a "dialect with a literature" (6). He follows that question with, "What is literature?". A common question and one that has proven uneasy to answer. He says, "Far from impeding the study of literary ecology, questions concerning what counts as literary, and when and how, are central concerns to the field" (11). He goes on to say that he believes, as a student of oral-traditional poetics, that oral texts should be considered as a type of literature. He continues this question train with, "What is a literature"? Beecroft understands literatures as "techniques or practices of reading texts, and specifically of linking texts together" (351), rather than as inhering in formal or evaluative characteristics of literary texts themselves.
That being semi-clarified, this book is not just about holding your hand as you contemplate what literature is though. It's a thoroughly researched study of 'languages' and 'literatures' that is explained by using an overriding ecological metaphor in order to determine the interaction of literature on its environment. Beecroft believes that it is impossible to understand any given literature qua literature solely through an analysis of the texts read through it. Rather, any given literature must be understood as being in an ecological relationship to other phenomena - political, economic, sociocultural, religious - as well as to the other languages and literatures with which it is in contact (19).
After a methodological introduction of his intentions, written in a somewhat highly academic tone (sometimes phrasing things oddly which then required me to re-read them in order to understand the point fully), I was left learning that rather than limit our study to specific systems within which literature circulates (Early Modern Europe, say, or East Asia, or the contemporary Anglosphere), we might want to think about how literature circulates, what sorts of constraints operate on that circulation, and how particular literary communities respond to those constraints. If patterns of temperature and precipitation, relief, the availability of freshwater, and the quality of soil are among the most important determinants of ecological biomes, the most significant determinants of a literary biome might be:
* The linguistic situation
* The political world
* Economics
* Religion
* Cultural politics
* Technologies of distribution
Beecroft then dedicates one chapter each to his six literary ecologies:
1. Epichoric
2. Panchoric
3. Cosmopolitan
4. Vernacular
5. National
6. Global.
All of the first five ecologies lead up to the sixth, which he uses to explain his hypotheses for the future of literature, which probably wouldn’t have made as much sense to me if it weren’t for the step-by-step descriptions of the first five ecologies, not to mention the well summarized conceptual introduction. In addition, his massive collection of literary references throughout this book is beyond impressive. It is obvious that he researched a ton of material and therefore was able to produce a well thought out piece of academic work. My “need to read” reading list grew by about 45 ;)
What I love about this book is how relatively easy it is to follow with regard to its structure, arguments, and proofs. And although I have yet to read most of the texts he references, I was able to follow along and get the gist of them, as well as many of the terms in the field of both comparative literature and ecology that were new to me.
I also loved how many times I’d be reading and I’d have an ah-ha moment. There were also countless phrases and sentences that deserved highlighting just because. For example:
- Isolation is a by-product of interaction, not the failure of its conditions of possibility (40)
- It is problematic to project modern notions of empire and imperialism onto regimes of the distant past (106)
Beecroft also makes several arguments that pique my interest as a regular person simply interested in how languages ‘begin’, how literature ‘works’ and how it circulates around the world. For example, he argues:
- The act of compilation creates a whole that is not only greater than the sum of its parts but is in fact a radically distinct entity (65)
- Panchoric identity can express itself as much in modes of reading those texts as in the texts themselves (69)
- Key panchoric texts like Homeric epic and the Canon of Songs aim not only to construct a panchoric culture but also to consolidate panchoric readings of the literary tradition as a whole through the use of key devices, such as genealogies, catalogues, and the anthology structure, as well as through the consolidation of a shared literary language, one which is some measure removed from local particularities (70)
- Those texts that happened (for whatever reason) to appeal to the largest number of people and cities were more likely to survive to be circulated further in the future, while those with more limited appeal (whether because they were too ‘local’ or for any other reason), were less likely to receive such wide circulation (76)
- It is the use of a language for literary purposes by non-native speakers that confirms that language’s cosmopolitan status (91)
- Only languages that have undergone both laterization and literarization emerge as true vernaculars
- One of the chief tasks for each ecology as it emerges is to reduce the quantity of information within the system (198)
- One of the imperatives of any literary system is to reduce information, to reduce canons to manageable proportions by identifying entire categories of literature that can be ignored and by establishing criteria for evaluating what remains (239)
- Statistics on translation make clear that texts in even minor European languages are more likely to be translated than texts in major non-European languages.
- The lack of translations of non-European languages represents the single greatest barrier to the free flow of literature and ideas around the world (296)
He also enlightens us on:
- The way academic divisions themselves shape how the subject matter is perceived, for example, the discipline of Classics establishing Greek and Latin literature as something of the past, which in turn has meant the relative neglect and lack of visibility of "Neo-Latin" literature (written after circa 1300 in Latin instead of a vernacular European language such as French, English, or Italian)
- How national languages came to be viewed as worthy alternatives to the older cosmopolitan ones through historical process rather than emerging fully-formed and pure from some honorable origin text
- Fascinating data on the asymmetry of contemporary translation, with more than half of all translations being from English into another language. His commentary on how this is reflected in the ostensibly universal Nobel laureates was really illuminating:
"Indeed, one useful way of thinking about the Nobel Prize might be to imagine it not so much as a device for establishing a canon of world literature but rather as a means of establishing a European canon, to which occasional non-European works can be admitted, with the specific task of augmenting the role of the European periphery within the European literary system." (257-258)
- How there are two possible paths for the literary ecology of the future: a move towards homogenization of some kind and an alternative (perhaps less likely) path in which greater interconnection is achieved without greater homogeneity (279)
-The connection between contemporary multi-stand narration (aka entrelacement or “plot of globalization” as he calls it) as a way to represent the networked effects of globalization and the gradual emergence of a global ecology of literature, as seen in works like Amitav Ghosh’s Ibis trilogy, Roberto Bolaño’s 2666 and the film Babel.
I also appreciate the book’s plethora of interesting facts such as how Tom Parks argues in a series of essays that literature written in other (European) languages is increasingly written in a style in which the influence of English is readily detectable (279). Or, how there is such a thing as "Buddhist hell", the role of Chinese literature in the development of the Japanese tradition, or the Cynical origins of the term cosmopolitan in the 4th century BC.
And finally, I enjoyed reading about how historical, political, and economic forces have a role to play in how ecologies are shaped (much of the book is about this), but also about how individual human beings such as the world’s past literary scholars (e.g. Dante, Hu Chi, etc.) have the power to shape literary ecologies as well. As another commenter succinctly wrote it here on Goodreads, “Beecroft is taking the lessons from the past literary scholars whose canonizing, boundary-drawing work he's dissected in the previous chapters and intervening in today's literary ecology even as he tries to describe it.”
Beecroft ends his book hypothesizing that the future evolution of literary ecology could lead either to a global monoculture where texts are 'commodity packaged for export, nearly mass-produced and indistinguishable from its counterparts produced in other nations' and in which a relatively large number of literary languages persist but the literature consumed in each of them is extremely similar in terms of diction, style, and theme (280); or, a more vibrant ecology 'where cultural difference is not simply erased in the name of commodification but becomes the premise for broader, more complex, and more flexible, forms of identity'.
Regardless, he warns that if we move, perhaps, to a new literary ecology, one that encompasses the planet, the kind of global literature envisioned by Parks and Owen, we would gain a global literature but at the cost, perhaps, of a critical loss of diversity; in ecological terms, such a monocultural dependency on a certain strain of literature could pose genuine dangers for the continued vitality of literature as a medium of creative expression, no matter the massive scale on which such a literature would operate (282).
He thus offers a number of intriguing strategies to work towards the more heterogeneous version of a global literary ecology (296), translation, of course, being critical.
In closing, he asks two final profound questions: Will the texts that we read speak to us as citizens of the world or as residents of a specific place? In translation or indigenously in our language? His response strikes me as both inspiring and realistic, he says that the outcome will depend on 'the choices we make as readers and as writers, teachers, and scholars' (299). Wow.
He considers this question by first asking another, "What is language"? Beecroft proposes that a ‘language’ is a "dialect with a literature" (6). He follows that question with, "What is literature?". A common question and one that has proven uneasy to answer. He says, "Far from impeding the study of literary ecology, questions concerning what counts as literary, and when and how, are central concerns to the field" (11). He goes on to say that he believes, as a student of oral-traditional poetics, that oral texts should be considered as a type of literature. He continues this question train with, "What is a literature"? Beecroft understands literatures as "techniques or practices of reading texts, and specifically of linking texts together" (351), rather than as inhering in formal or evaluative characteristics of literary texts themselves.
That being semi-clarified, this book is not just about holding your hand as you contemplate what literature is though. It's a thoroughly researched study of 'languages' and 'literatures' that is explained by using an overriding ecological metaphor in order to determine the interaction of literature on its environment. Beecroft believes that it is impossible to understand any given literature qua literature solely through an analysis of the texts read through it. Rather, any given literature must be understood as being in an ecological relationship to other phenomena - political, economic, sociocultural, religious - as well as to the other languages and literatures with which it is in contact (19).
After a methodological introduction of his intentions, written in a somewhat highly academic tone (sometimes phrasing things oddly which then required me to re-read them in order to understand the point fully), I was left learning that rather than limit our study to specific systems within which literature circulates (Early Modern Europe, say, or East Asia, or the contemporary Anglosphere), we might want to think about how literature circulates, what sorts of constraints operate on that circulation, and how particular literary communities respond to those constraints. If patterns of temperature and precipitation, relief, the availability of freshwater, and the quality of soil are among the most important determinants of ecological biomes, the most significant determinants of a literary biome might be:
* The linguistic situation
* The political world
* Economics
* Religion
* Cultural politics
* Technologies of distribution
Beecroft then dedicates one chapter each to his six literary ecologies:
1. Epichoric
2. Panchoric
3. Cosmopolitan
4. Vernacular
5. National
6. Global.
All of the first five ecologies lead up to the sixth, which he uses to explain his hypotheses for the future of literature, which probably wouldn’t have made as much sense to me if it weren’t for the step-by-step descriptions of the first five ecologies, not to mention the well summarized conceptual introduction. In addition, his massive collection of literary references throughout this book is beyond impressive. It is obvious that he researched a ton of material and therefore was able to produce a well thought out piece of academic work. My “need to read” reading list grew by about 45 ;)
What I love about this book is how relatively easy it is to follow with regard to its structure, arguments, and proofs. And although I have yet to read most of the texts he references, I was able to follow along and get the gist of them, as well as many of the terms in the field of both comparative literature and ecology that were new to me.
I also loved how many times I’d be reading and I’d have an ah-ha moment. There were also countless phrases and sentences that deserved highlighting just because. For example:
- Isolation is a by-product of interaction, not the failure of its conditions of possibility (40)
- It is problematic to project modern notions of empire and imperialism onto regimes of the distant past (106)
Beecroft also makes several arguments that pique my interest as a regular person simply interested in how languages ‘begin’, how literature ‘works’ and how it circulates around the world. For example, he argues:
- The act of compilation creates a whole that is not only greater than the sum of its parts but is in fact a radically distinct entity (65)
- Panchoric identity can express itself as much in modes of reading those texts as in the texts themselves (69)
- Key panchoric texts like Homeric epic and the Canon of Songs aim not only to construct a panchoric culture but also to consolidate panchoric readings of the literary tradition as a whole through the use of key devices, such as genealogies, catalogues, and the anthology structure, as well as through the consolidation of a shared literary language, one which is some measure removed from local particularities (70)
- Those texts that happened (for whatever reason) to appeal to the largest number of people and cities were more likely to survive to be circulated further in the future, while those with more limited appeal (whether because they were too ‘local’ or for any other reason), were less likely to receive such wide circulation (76)
- It is the use of a language for literary purposes by non-native speakers that confirms that language’s cosmopolitan status (91)
- Only languages that have undergone both laterization and literarization emerge as true vernaculars
- One of the chief tasks for each ecology as it emerges is to reduce the quantity of information within the system (198)
- One of the imperatives of any literary system is to reduce information, to reduce canons to manageable proportions by identifying entire categories of literature that can be ignored and by establishing criteria for evaluating what remains (239)
- Statistics on translation make clear that texts in even minor European languages are more likely to be translated than texts in major non-European languages.
- The lack of translations of non-European languages represents the single greatest barrier to the free flow of literature and ideas around the world (296)
He also enlightens us on:
- The way academic divisions themselves shape how the subject matter is perceived, for example, the discipline of Classics establishing Greek and Latin literature as something of the past, which in turn has meant the relative neglect and lack of visibility of "Neo-Latin" literature (written after circa 1300 in Latin instead of a vernacular European language such as French, English, or Italian)
- How national languages came to be viewed as worthy alternatives to the older cosmopolitan ones through historical process rather than emerging fully-formed and pure from some honorable origin text
- Fascinating data on the asymmetry of contemporary translation, with more than half of all translations being from English into another language. His commentary on how this is reflected in the ostensibly universal Nobel laureates was really illuminating:
"Indeed, one useful way of thinking about the Nobel Prize might be to imagine it not so much as a device for establishing a canon of world literature but rather as a means of establishing a European canon, to which occasional non-European works can be admitted, with the specific task of augmenting the role of the European periphery within the European literary system." (257-258)
- How there are two possible paths for the literary ecology of the future: a move towards homogenization of some kind and an alternative (perhaps less likely) path in which greater interconnection is achieved without greater homogeneity (279)
-The connection between contemporary multi-stand narration (aka entrelacement or “plot of globalization” as he calls it) as a way to represent the networked effects of globalization and the gradual emergence of a global ecology of literature, as seen in works like Amitav Ghosh’s Ibis trilogy, Roberto Bolaño’s 2666 and the film Babel.
I also appreciate the book’s plethora of interesting facts such as how Tom Parks argues in a series of essays that literature written in other (European) languages is increasingly written in a style in which the influence of English is readily detectable (279). Or, how there is such a thing as "Buddhist hell", the role of Chinese literature in the development of the Japanese tradition, or the Cynical origins of the term cosmopolitan in the 4th century BC.
And finally, I enjoyed reading about how historical, political, and economic forces have a role to play in how ecologies are shaped (much of the book is about this), but also about how individual human beings such as the world’s past literary scholars (e.g. Dante, Hu Chi, etc.) have the power to shape literary ecologies as well. As another commenter succinctly wrote it here on Goodreads, “Beecroft is taking the lessons from the past literary scholars whose canonizing, boundary-drawing work he's dissected in the previous chapters and intervening in today's literary ecology even as he tries to describe it.”
Beecroft ends his book hypothesizing that the future evolution of literary ecology could lead either to a global monoculture where texts are 'commodity packaged for export, nearly mass-produced and indistinguishable from its counterparts produced in other nations' and in which a relatively large number of literary languages persist but the literature consumed in each of them is extremely similar in terms of diction, style, and theme (280); or, a more vibrant ecology 'where cultural difference is not simply erased in the name of commodification but becomes the premise for broader, more complex, and more flexible, forms of identity'.
Regardless, he warns that if we move, perhaps, to a new literary ecology, one that encompasses the planet, the kind of global literature envisioned by Parks and Owen, we would gain a global literature but at the cost, perhaps, of a critical loss of diversity; in ecological terms, such a monocultural dependency on a certain strain of literature could pose genuine dangers for the continued vitality of literature as a medium of creative expression, no matter the massive scale on which such a literature would operate (282).
He thus offers a number of intriguing strategies to work towards the more heterogeneous version of a global literary ecology (296), translation, of course, being critical.
In closing, he asks two final profound questions: Will the texts that we read speak to us as citizens of the world or as residents of a specific place? In translation or indigenously in our language? His response strikes me as both inspiring and realistic, he says that the outcome will depend on 'the choices we make as readers and as writers, teachers, and scholars' (299). Wow.
September 6, 2020
Beecroft begins his introduction by contemplating the academic studies of Damrosch, Casanova, Moretti, Pollock, and himself, concluding that they are all each, in fact, talking about different instantiations of the same question, which might, most simply, be put as "What is the interaction of literature with its environment?" (3).
He considers this question by first asking another, "What is language"? Beecroft proposes that a ‘language’ is a "dialect with a literature" (6). He follows that question with, "What is literature?". A common question and one that has proven uneasy to answer. He says, "Far from impeding the study of literary ecology, questions concerning what counts as literary, and when and how, are central concerns to the field" (11). He goes on to say that he believes, as a student of oral-traditional poetics, that oral texts should be considered as a type of literature. He continues this question train with, "What is a literature"? Beecroft understands literatures as "techniques or practices of reading texts, and specifically of linking texts together" (351), rather than as inhering in formal or evaluative characteristics of literary texts themselves.
That being semi-clarified, this book is not just about holding your hand as you contemplate what literature is though. It's a thoroughly researched study of 'languages' and 'literatures' that is explained by using an overriding ecological metaphor in order to determine the interaction of literature on its environment. Beecroft believes that it is impossible to understand any given literature qua literature solely through an analysis of the texts read through it. Rather, any given literature must be understood as being in an ecological relationship to other phenomena - political, economic, sociocultural, religious - as well as to the other languages and literatures with which it is in contact (19).
After a methodological introduction of his intentions, written in a somewhat highly academic tone (sometimes phrasing things oddly which then required me to re-read them in order to understand the point fully), I was left learning that rather than limit our study to specific systems within which literature circulates (Early Modern Europe, say, or East Asia, or the contemporary Anglosphere), we might want to think about how literature circulates, what sorts of constraints operate on that circulation, and how particular literary communities respond to those constraints. If patterns of temperature and precipitation, relief, the availability of freshwater, and the quality of soil are among the most important determinants of ecological biomes, the most significant determinants of a literary biome might be:
* The linguistic situation
* The political world
* Economics
* Religion
* Cultural politics
* Technologies of distribution
Beecroft then dedicates one chapter each to his six literary ecologies:
1. Epichoric
2. Panchoric
3. Cosmopolitan
4. Vernacular
5. National
6. Global.
All of the first five ecologies lead up to the sixth, which he uses to explain his hypotheses for the future of literature, which probably wouldn’t have made as much sense to me if it weren’t for the step-by-step descriptions of the first five ecologies, not to mention the well summarized conceptual introduction. In addition, his massive collection of literary references throughout this book is beyond impressive. It is obvious that he researched a ton of material and therefore was able to produce a well thought out piece of academic work. My “need to read” reading list grew by about 45 ;)
What I love about this book is how relatively easy it is to follow with regard to its structure, arguments, and proofs. And although I have yet to read most of the texts he references, I was able to follow along and get the gist of them, as well as many of the terms in the field of both comparative literature and ecology that were new to me.
I also loved how many times I’d be reading and I’d have an ah-ha moment. There were also countless phrases and sentences that deserved highlighting just because. For example:
- Isolation is a by-product of interaction, not the failure of its conditions of possibility (40)
- It is problematic to project modern notions of empire and imperialism onto regimes of the distant past (106)
Beecroft also makes several arguments that pique my interest as a regular person simply interested in how languages ‘begin’, how literature ‘works’ and how it circulates around the world. For example, he argues:
- The act of compilation creates a whole that is not only greater than the sum of its parts but is in fact a radically distinct entity (65)
- Panchoric identity can express itself as much in modes of reading those texts as in the texts themselves (69)
- Key panchoric texts like Homeric epic and the Canon of Songs aim not only to construct a panchoric culture but also to consolidate panchoric readings of the literary tradition as a whole through the use of key devices, such as genealogies, catalogues, and the anthology structure, as well as through the consolidation of a shared literary language, one which is some measure removed from local particularities (70)
- Those texts that happened (for whatever reason) to appeal to the largest number of people and cities were more likely to survive to be circulated further in the future, while those with more limited appeal (whether because they were too ‘local’ or for any other reason), were less likely to receive such wide circulation (76)
- It is the use of a language for literary purposes by non-native speakers that confirms that language’s cosmopolitan status (91)
- Only languages that have undergone both laterization and literarization emerge as true vernaculars
- One of the chief tasks for each ecology as it emerges is to reduce the quantity of information within the system (198)
- One of the imperatives of any literary system is to reduce information, to reduce canons to manageable proportions by identifying entire categories of literature that can be ignored and by establishing criteria for evaluating what remains (239)
- Statistics on translation make clear that texts in even minor European languages are more likely to be translated than texts in major non-European languages.
- The lack of translations our of non-European languages represents the single greatest barrier to the free flow of literature and ideas around the world (296)
He also enlightens us on:
- The way academic divisions themselves shape how the subject matter is perceived, for example, the discipline of Classics establishing Greek and Latin literature as something of the past, which in turn has meant the relative neglect and lack of visibility of "Neo-Latin" literature (written after circa 1300 in Latin instead of a vernacular European language such as French, English, or Italian)
- How national languages came to be viewed as worthy alternatives to the older cosmopolitan ones through historical process rather than emerging fully-formed and pure from some honorable origin text
- Fascinating data on the asymmetry of contemporary translation, with more than half of all translations being from English into another language. His commentary on how this is reflected in the ostensibly universal Nobel laureates was really illuminating:
"Indeed, one useful way of thinking about the Nobel Prize might be to imagine it not so much as a device for establishing a canon of world literature but rather as a means of establishing a European canon, to which occasional non-European works can be admitted, with the specific task of augmenting the role of the European periphery within the European literary system." (257-258)
- How there are two possible paths for the literary ecology of the future: a move towards homogenization of some kind and an alternative (perhaps less likely) path in which greater interconnection is achieved without greater homogeneity (279)
-The connection between contemporary multi-stand narration (aka entrelacement or “plot of globalization” as he calls it) as a way to represent the networked effects of globalization and the gradual emergence of a global ecology of literature, as seen in works like Amitav Ghosh’s Ibis trilogy, Roberto Bolaño’s 2666 and the film Babel.
I also appreciate the book’s plethora of interesting facts such as how Tom Parks argues in a series of essays that literature written in other (European) languages is increasingly written in a style in which the influence of English is readily detectable (279). Or, how there is such a thing as "Buddhist hell", the role of Chinese literature in the development of the Japanese tradition, or the Cynical origins of the term cosmopolitan in the 4th century BC.
And finally, I enjoyed reading about how historical, political, and economic forces have a role to play in how ecologies are shaped (much of the book is about this), but also about how individual human beings such as the world’s past literary scholars (e.g. Dante, Hu Chi, etc.) have the power to shape literary ecologies as well. As another commenter succinctly wrote it here on Goodreads, “Beecroft is taking the lessons from the past literary scholars whose canonizing, boundary-drawing work he's dissected in the previous chapters and intervening in today's literary ecology even as he tries to describe it.”
Beecroft ends his book hypothesizing that the future evolution of literary ecology could lead either to a global monoculture where texts are 'commodity packaged for export, nearly mass-produced and indistinguishable from its counterparts produced in other nations' and in which a relatively large number of literary languages persist but the literature consumed in each of them is extremely similar in terms of diction, style, and theme (280); or, a more vibrant ecology 'where cultural difference is not simply erased in the name of commodification but becomes the premise for broader, more complex, and more flexible, forms of identity'). Regardless, he warns that if we move, perhaps, to a new literary ecology, one that encompasses the planet, the kind of global literature envisioned by Parks and Owen, we would gain a global literature but at the cost, perhaps, of a critical loss of diversity; in ecological terms, such a monocultural dependency on a certain strain of literature could pose genuine dangers for the continued vitality of literature as a medium of creative expression, no matter the massive scale on which such a literature would operate (282).
He thus offers a number of intriguing strategies to work towards the more heterogeneous version of a global literary ecology (296), translation, of course, being critical.
In closing, he asks two final profound questions: Will the texts that we read speak to us as citizens of the world or as residents of a specific place? In translation or indigenously in our language? His response strikes me as both inspiring and realistic, he says that the outcome will depend on 'the choices we make as readers and as writers, teachers, and scholars' (299). Wow.
He considers this question by first asking another, "What is language"? Beecroft proposes that a ‘language’ is a "dialect with a literature" (6). He follows that question with, "What is literature?". A common question and one that has proven uneasy to answer. He says, "Far from impeding the study of literary ecology, questions concerning what counts as literary, and when and how, are central concerns to the field" (11). He goes on to say that he believes, as a student of oral-traditional poetics, that oral texts should be considered as a type of literature. He continues this question train with, "What is a literature"? Beecroft understands literatures as "techniques or practices of reading texts, and specifically of linking texts together" (351), rather than as inhering in formal or evaluative characteristics of literary texts themselves.
That being semi-clarified, this book is not just about holding your hand as you contemplate what literature is though. It's a thoroughly researched study of 'languages' and 'literatures' that is explained by using an overriding ecological metaphor in order to determine the interaction of literature on its environment. Beecroft believes that it is impossible to understand any given literature qua literature solely through an analysis of the texts read through it. Rather, any given literature must be understood as being in an ecological relationship to other phenomena - political, economic, sociocultural, religious - as well as to the other languages and literatures with which it is in contact (19).
After a methodological introduction of his intentions, written in a somewhat highly academic tone (sometimes phrasing things oddly which then required me to re-read them in order to understand the point fully), I was left learning that rather than limit our study to specific systems within which literature circulates (Early Modern Europe, say, or East Asia, or the contemporary Anglosphere), we might want to think about how literature circulates, what sorts of constraints operate on that circulation, and how particular literary communities respond to those constraints. If patterns of temperature and precipitation, relief, the availability of freshwater, and the quality of soil are among the most important determinants of ecological biomes, the most significant determinants of a literary biome might be:
* The linguistic situation
* The political world
* Economics
* Religion
* Cultural politics
* Technologies of distribution
Beecroft then dedicates one chapter each to his six literary ecologies:
1. Epichoric
2. Panchoric
3. Cosmopolitan
4. Vernacular
5. National
6. Global.
All of the first five ecologies lead up to the sixth, which he uses to explain his hypotheses for the future of literature, which probably wouldn’t have made as much sense to me if it weren’t for the step-by-step descriptions of the first five ecologies, not to mention the well summarized conceptual introduction. In addition, his massive collection of literary references throughout this book is beyond impressive. It is obvious that he researched a ton of material and therefore was able to produce a well thought out piece of academic work. My “need to read” reading list grew by about 45 ;)
What I love about this book is how relatively easy it is to follow with regard to its structure, arguments, and proofs. And although I have yet to read most of the texts he references, I was able to follow along and get the gist of them, as well as many of the terms in the field of both comparative literature and ecology that were new to me.
I also loved how many times I’d be reading and I’d have an ah-ha moment. There were also countless phrases and sentences that deserved highlighting just because. For example:
- Isolation is a by-product of interaction, not the failure of its conditions of possibility (40)
- It is problematic to project modern notions of empire and imperialism onto regimes of the distant past (106)
Beecroft also makes several arguments that pique my interest as a regular person simply interested in how languages ‘begin’, how literature ‘works’ and how it circulates around the world. For example, he argues:
- The act of compilation creates a whole that is not only greater than the sum of its parts but is in fact a radically distinct entity (65)
- Panchoric identity can express itself as much in modes of reading those texts as in the texts themselves (69)
- Key panchoric texts like Homeric epic and the Canon of Songs aim not only to construct a panchoric culture but also to consolidate panchoric readings of the literary tradition as a whole through the use of key devices, such as genealogies, catalogues, and the anthology structure, as well as through the consolidation of a shared literary language, one which is some measure removed from local particularities (70)
- Those texts that happened (for whatever reason) to appeal to the largest number of people and cities were more likely to survive to be circulated further in the future, while those with more limited appeal (whether because they were too ‘local’ or for any other reason), were less likely to receive such wide circulation (76)
- It is the use of a language for literary purposes by non-native speakers that confirms that language’s cosmopolitan status (91)
- Only languages that have undergone both laterization and literarization emerge as true vernaculars
- One of the chief tasks for each ecology as it emerges is to reduce the quantity of information within the system (198)
- One of the imperatives of any literary system is to reduce information, to reduce canons to manageable proportions by identifying entire categories of literature that can be ignored and by establishing criteria for evaluating what remains (239)
- Statistics on translation make clear that texts in even minor European languages are more likely to be translated than texts in major non-European languages.
- The lack of translations our of non-European languages represents the single greatest barrier to the free flow of literature and ideas around the world (296)
He also enlightens us on:
- The way academic divisions themselves shape how the subject matter is perceived, for example, the discipline of Classics establishing Greek and Latin literature as something of the past, which in turn has meant the relative neglect and lack of visibility of "Neo-Latin" literature (written after circa 1300 in Latin instead of a vernacular European language such as French, English, or Italian)
- How national languages came to be viewed as worthy alternatives to the older cosmopolitan ones through historical process rather than emerging fully-formed and pure from some honorable origin text
- Fascinating data on the asymmetry of contemporary translation, with more than half of all translations being from English into another language. His commentary on how this is reflected in the ostensibly universal Nobel laureates was really illuminating:
"Indeed, one useful way of thinking about the Nobel Prize might be to imagine it not so much as a device for establishing a canon of world literature but rather as a means of establishing a European canon, to which occasional non-European works can be admitted, with the specific task of augmenting the role of the European periphery within the European literary system." (257-258)
- How there are two possible paths for the literary ecology of the future: a move towards homogenization of some kind and an alternative (perhaps less likely) path in which greater interconnection is achieved without greater homogeneity (279)
-The connection between contemporary multi-stand narration (aka entrelacement or “plot of globalization” as he calls it) as a way to represent the networked effects of globalization and the gradual emergence of a global ecology of literature, as seen in works like Amitav Ghosh’s Ibis trilogy, Roberto Bolaño’s 2666 and the film Babel.
I also appreciate the book’s plethora of interesting facts such as how Tom Parks argues in a series of essays that literature written in other (European) languages is increasingly written in a style in which the influence of English is readily detectable (279). Or, how there is such a thing as "Buddhist hell", the role of Chinese literature in the development of the Japanese tradition, or the Cynical origins of the term cosmopolitan in the 4th century BC.
And finally, I enjoyed reading about how historical, political, and economic forces have a role to play in how ecologies are shaped (much of the book is about this), but also about how individual human beings such as the world’s past literary scholars (e.g. Dante, Hu Chi, etc.) have the power to shape literary ecologies as well. As another commenter succinctly wrote it here on Goodreads, “Beecroft is taking the lessons from the past literary scholars whose canonizing, boundary-drawing work he's dissected in the previous chapters and intervening in today's literary ecology even as he tries to describe it.”
Beecroft ends his book hypothesizing that the future evolution of literary ecology could lead either to a global monoculture where texts are 'commodity packaged for export, nearly mass-produced and indistinguishable from its counterparts produced in other nations' and in which a relatively large number of literary languages persist but the literature consumed in each of them is extremely similar in terms of diction, style, and theme (280); or, a more vibrant ecology 'where cultural difference is not simply erased in the name of commodification but becomes the premise for broader, more complex, and more flexible, forms of identity'). Regardless, he warns that if we move, perhaps, to a new literary ecology, one that encompasses the planet, the kind of global literature envisioned by Parks and Owen, we would gain a global literature but at the cost, perhaps, of a critical loss of diversity; in ecological terms, such a monocultural dependency on a certain strain of literature could pose genuine dangers for the continued vitality of literature as a medium of creative expression, no matter the massive scale on which such a literature would operate (282).
He thus offers a number of intriguing strategies to work towards the more heterogeneous version of a global literary ecology (296), translation, of course, being critical.
In closing, he asks two final profound questions: Will the texts that we read speak to us as citizens of the world or as residents of a specific place? In translation or indigenously in our language? His response strikes me as both inspiring and realistic, he says that the outcome will depend on 'the choices we make as readers and as writers, teachers, and scholars' (299). Wow.
May 18, 2021
This book is chiefly for specialists in social studies of languages used for imaginative purposes. It offers an historical, semi-evolutionary chronicle by which small social units and their (mainly oral) narrative traditions are swamped and usually obliterated by larger (mainly written) ones, onward through to today’s global hierarchy of literary production and consumption. Another reviewer here on Goodreads, Ashley, has written a useful précis of the book.
Beecroft is evidently most at home in ancient Greek and Chinese classics. Observations about contemporary imaginative writings are limited and seem less sure-footed. Novels by Roberto Bolaño and Amitav Ghosh are among the few specific anchor-points in the book's closing discussion of an emerging ecology of world literature. Citing others such as Tim Parks, Beecroft introduces the chilling prospect of a literary 'monoculture' dominated by the English language, and, worse yet, dominated by standardized literary genres "designed for easy translation and consumption abroad". What a dismal prospect, given that cloned literature -- not to mention cloned films, lookalike television 'drama' and copycat pop music -- already dominate our cultural ecologies. Unfortunately Beecroft does not elaborate on the political economy of mass-produced literature, let alone its broadcast and staged counterparts. Nevertheless, this book has proded my curiosity about forces that promote or resist the homogenization of culture across the globe.
Beecroft is evidently most at home in ancient Greek and Chinese classics. Observations about contemporary imaginative writings are limited and seem less sure-footed. Novels by Roberto Bolaño and Amitav Ghosh are among the few specific anchor-points in the book's closing discussion of an emerging ecology of world literature. Citing others such as Tim Parks, Beecroft introduces the chilling prospect of a literary 'monoculture' dominated by the English language, and, worse yet, dominated by standardized literary genres "designed for easy translation and consumption abroad". What a dismal prospect, given that cloned literature -- not to mention cloned films, lookalike television 'drama' and copycat pop music -- already dominate our cultural ecologies. Unfortunately Beecroft does not elaborate on the political economy of mass-produced literature, let alone its broadcast and staged counterparts. Nevertheless, this book has proded my curiosity about forces that promote or resist the homogenization of culture across the globe.
August 13, 2018
A really great set of theories on how literatures work across various scales and systems. Introduces a great new set of concepts to play around with. Doesn't hurt that the last chapter on "World Literature" discusses some of my faves -- Bolaño and Ghosh.
January 5, 2016
A grandly ambitious and highly thought-provoking book. Beecroft's main idea is to use ecology (rather than economics, say) as an analogy for world literary systems, because it allows for greater complexity and a richer sense of different interacting parts. His second key idea is to create a typology of 6 ecologies (epichoric, panchoric, cosmopolitan, vernacular, national, and global), spanning from the very small-scale and local to the global. Interestingly (and this is where things get a bit tricky), these ecologies are really modes of reading or interpretation, though they also sometimes seem to be modes of production -- the distinction gets a bit fuzzy. These two ideas are in and of themselves intriguing and worthwhile contributions to the field, offering an interesting new framework that may prove useful to people (like me) who are trying to think new models of world literature.
More detail on my blog, for those who are interested.
More detail on my blog, for those who are interested.
June 5, 2020
Kitabı bir tür edebiyat-dil-coğrafya ilişkisini tarihsel-politik bağlama oturtma girişimi olarak okumak mümkün. Bu bağlamda ders notu niteliğinde bir özetini çıkardım kitabın, ektedir:
https://okumadansonra.blogspot.com/20...
https://okumadansonra.blogspot.com/20...
December 5, 2015
It is a fantastic book, ideal for those trying to decide whether to study literature in one or more languages. Also useful for professors of world literature. The author coins his own terminology to create a clear panorama of the world literature. He also spreads his wings, so to speak, various centuries, embracing and commenting on Classic Chinese literature, passing to Dante's Commedia up to Ghosh's trilogy.
May 19, 2015
Enjoy the book very much. Plan to read it again soon. More comments later, maybe.
Read
December 25, 2017Fascinating.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews