<bkr>Mads Rosendahl Thomsen, Mapping World Literature: International Canonization and
Transnational Literatures </>
<bkf>London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008, 170 pp.</>
Thomsen’s book methodically reviews the lineage of World Literature as both a concept and
label and succeeds in being detailed without becoming hindered by the myriad dichotomies
which typify the term. The scope of this undertaking is ambitious and the result is an
opportunity for scholars of comparative literature to consider new types of literary and
cultural constellations encompassing national, translational and global movements.
Thomsen’s agenda is very much to expose an approach to mapping World Literature rather
than advocating a strict theoretical mandate for critical reading. In the pursuit of this goal
Thomsen deftly contextualises the current status and origins of World Literature. It is Goethe
who is credited for originating the concept of a World literature, which, in its locus, held an
optimism for a “symbiotic” (12) relation between national and international literatures. As
Thomsen concedes, the concept and practice of world literature has far exceeded the
innocence of Goethe’s original statements and this stands as a sound basis for the proceeding
chapters. The book discusses the arguments that have informed and mired the development of
‘World Literature’, providing valuable contextualisation for contributions from Moretti,
Spivak, and Damrosch. Thomsen’s assertion that “world literature does not act in apposition
to comparative literature, but is instead a correction of the way it is going,” (23) sets a lofty
goal for any conception of World Literature.
Thomsen’s admission that the concept of World Literature is easily blurred provides a
stark notice for the reader at the outset (5). This admission becomes pertinent as Thomsen
navigates numerous paradigms and contradictions and a seemingly insurmountable tension
between an idealism of a World Literature and its reality. For scholars of Comparative
Literature with a predilection towards a western canon, Thomsen provides a critical and
engaging debate on the formation and use of the canon. As the sub heading, International
Canonization and Transnational Literatures suggests, central to the concerns of Thomsen’s
contention is the nature, function and use of canonization. Instead of a closed western-centric
hierarchical canon the potential for a more dynamic ordering is made possible when
membership is no longer predicated on writing in English or western culture (7).
This leads to the more dynamic aspect of the book; in employing Moretti’s consideration of a
spatial geography of minor and major centres of world literature, relative movements from
center to periphery become visible and the temporal nature of canonization takes on new
meaning (34). The complexity of these movements from center to periphery and back again
do not weigh down the appeal of an approach that advances an adaptive and evolving
consideration of world literature as opposed to a rigid doctrine of reading. The position of the
canon in this perspective becomes an evolving schema that can be used actively in studies of
literature rather than as an intransient system of classification. The risk of homogenisation
and reiterating older models of dominance via the effacement of difference through a new
guise is one that Thomsen acknowledges and in doing so displays a depth of self-reflexivity.
Travel writing, migrant writing, translation, the modernist epoch and the cosmopolitan are all
given valid weight in influencing the emergence of World Literature in a new era of
globalization. In a positivist modality, the international canon is seen as an evolving tool,
open to change and, more importantly, as sustaining national canonization through a wider
proliferation of diverse authors and literatures (43). Though the vocabulary of the history of
World Literature appears oppositional in nature, minor and major, national and international,
Thomsen avoids an anachronistic repeat of binary propositions and focuses on the reciprocal
nature of literary and cultural interactions.
In providing an example of one such constellation, Thomsen identifies literature
representing trauma as an instance of synergy in World Literature. Thomsen observes that, “a
number of works that, through a certain theme, also display related ways of addressing it, a
constellation based on international canonization emerges, and reveals several related
properties” (138). However, how this avoids being a reductive reading remains unclear. A
constellation defined by movement from periphery to center and by relative connections
across nations and even genre is transformative rather than passive, indeed maybe even
manufactured. Thomsen identifies a proliferation of shared references due to an accelerated
globalization, however the experience of and relation to those references even within a lone
time and space are often diverse and divisive (29). The positivism of the constellation-based
approach still risks the effacement of difference in the service of connectivity but does so for
positivist reasons. These are not criticisms of Thomsen’s approach but rather illustrate the
historically reverberating questions which any evocation of a World Literature raises.
Thomsen’s concluding argument is based on four facets of mapping constellations in world
literature. A constellation-based approach allows for a realism (139), wherein, “the
international impact of a work can be traced in translations and sales” (140); innovation in
connectivity, “points of contact across genres, nations, languages and ages” (140); pluralism,
“[c]onnecting more and less canonized texts could also extend to nationally and
internationally canonized texts” (140); and finally a didactic effect wherein “constellations
both touch upon the canon and are open to the counter-counter or shadow-canon in world
literature” (142).
In any given constellation and especially in Thomsen’s terms, there will be no perfect
balance between these four components. The operative of the title is mapping; it is through a
systematic mapping of connections, trends and centers of dominance that the task of mapping
is far from passive. In some respects, Thomsen’s conclusions do not provide an antidote to the
inertia of homogenisation or western-centric canonization; they do, however signal a need to
be innovative in considering the current conceptualisation of World Literature and its
contribution to comparative studies.
<rau>Mark Sullivan <#> Nottingham Trent University</rau>
<***>