Phylogenetic tree of early British detective fiction based on the presence of clues and whether or not they are necessary (i.e. have any bearing on the plot), visible during the course of the narrative (or revealed only at the end during the detective’s explication), or decodable by the reader.

The very small, and the very large; these are the forces that shape literary history. Devices and genres; not texts. Texts are certainly the real objects of literature (in the Strand Magazine you don’t find ‘clues’ or ‘detective fiction,’ you find Sherlock Homles, or HIlda Wade, or The Adventures of a Man of Science); but they are not the right objects of knowledge for literary history.

[Graphs, Maps, Trees by Franco Moretti, page 73-76, figure 30]

Phylogenetic tree of early British detective fiction based on the presence of clues and whether or not they are necessary (i.e. have any bearing on the plot), visible during the course of the narrative (or revealed only at the end during the detective’s explication), or decodable by the reader.

The very small, and the very large; these are the forces that shape literary history. Devices and genres; not texts. Texts are certainly the real objects of literature (in the Strand Magazine you don’t find ‘clues’ or ‘detective fiction,’ you find Sherlock Homles, or HIlda Wade, or The Adventures of a Man of Science); but they are not the right objects of knowledge for literary history.

[Graphs, Maps, Trees by Franco Moretti, page 73-76, figure 30]

  1. epeuthutebetes reblogged this from daysofchad
  2. daysofchad posted this