Find out if it was! If so, include; if not, delete.

why?

You need Barthes here, on the reality effect -- which is to say, a sense of how the "decorative" aspects of description might be constitutive of mimesis and yet not actually narrative -- i.e., it's not always the case that Lukacs' distinction holds up, but sometimes it does and yet he's still wrong.

This seems at once banal and inapposite, since it's (a) not a claim made about Joyce and (b) your claim seems to be about the intensification of one kind of sensing (sight) not the intensification of sensing generally.

I don't follow: "you could not have a green rose" is consistent with "roses are red"

To what end are you gathering these citations? What does Yutong Xie say about black and green and how does that relate to your argument?

It's not really a classic example, given the claims that have been made for it as an anti-Bildungsroman. The classic example would be from Goethe or Dickens.

Who's being quoted here? To whom are you talking?

Unless, e.g., it arrives in one's childhood and one lives into old age.

Why does "threadbare" (a term deriving from the image of a worn garment) suggest brownness, as opposed to grey or some other dull color? Likewise, boots are more likely to be black, especially cheap but clean little boots. A better reference here would be the brown stocking in To the Lighthouse, which Auerbach reads as a sign of Woolf's commitment to the ordinary.

Weaselly! Does she or doesn't she see him as exemplary for his vision? If she doesn't use ocular terms in celebrating Conrad, what terms does she use and is there evidence elsewhere in VW's oeuvre to read this non-ocular language in visual terms?

Too colloquial, not equivalent to "Scots" -- "Britons," if you must.

sp?

So we do both? Destabilize and reinforce?

aspect?

not only

"with published academic literary scholarship"?

"almost entirely forgotten by academic and popular readers over the years"?

Legally British but spiritually Anglican, which is not the same thing at all

Among those pactical reasons has to be the demographic dominance of England and the English (and the English language) within Britain, which both justifies (on the basis of ideas about majority culture) the exclusion of non-Anglophone literatures and obscures that same exclusion from members of that majority.

Although the British/American distinction is arguably easier to describe in the early C20 than in the early C19!

More precision in these terms, please! Like "modernist," "romantic" is a very weak genre term and only partly a chronological/period label.

Dies in the 70s, teaching and publishing through 60s?

This is the thing I'm pushing at above, though I obviously think you can make the point far more strongly.

Is the simile apposite? It's more like the narrative p-o-v follows Mrs Flanders' gaze than that a Lily Briscoe is at work. More importantly, I think key thing about the passage is not what Mrs F sees but that it refers, weirdly, to what she "should have" or "might have" seen. Then the p-o-v moves, with "the whole city," to things that we don't know whether she's seen or not -- which is to say, a description about perception that begins by flirting with the identification of the narrator's p-o-v with the character's ends by implicitly separating the two perspectives. It's less important that the passage describes a lot than that it implies an epistemological problem, or a problem of shared perspective.

Maybe this is my browser, but the white text upon a lilac background is very hard to read.

delete?

Why not "precise" -- decorative here means superficial or inessential, not useless; its opposite can be anything with immanent value, not the merely useful.

A whole complex literary history is euphemized in this parenthesis!

That's not yet clear! I think you can say it involves inter-sensory substitution or mediation, the translation of one sort of sense-making (seeing) into a secondary, which is to say both derivative and higher, activity (reading)

Too colloquial, like referring to American authors as "Yanks"

not the adjective I'd use...

spatial

You should omit much of the following, perhaps moving quickly to the much more interesting stuff on Noguchi. This is a complicated literary history that's been exhaustively studied and your remarks about Sappho and Catullus don't add anything to that body of work. Refer to the scholarship (not Kenner: use the more recent work by Schotter and others, including Diana Collecott on HD and Sappho, to establish the point and then move on.

"concision" or "the poem's concision"

use

Odd not to see Jesse Matz's two books on modernism and impressionism play a role in the following literary and critical history. https://works.bepress.com/jesse_matz/

I worry that this verb is symptomatic of the chapter's tendency to prefer a kind of erudite summary over argument. Why not let the following question and answer guide you, rather than the urge to taxonomize and historicize: Q. How is it that literature becomes more visual but less descriptive over time? A. By becoming more imagistic, which is to say by increasingly collapsing description and narration in the pursuit of visual impressions.

On this, see Jean-Michel Rabate, James Joyce and the Politics of Egoism.

You might want to refer, here, to Auerbach's Mimesis, which includes Woolf among the modern authors among whom description (understood as an attention to setting) merges almost entirely with narration, via the medium of a pluralized subjective narrative p-o-v, arrived at through the intensification of free indirect style. It's a primary example of how and where the narrate/describe distinction breaks down, in a manner consistent with your other evidence.

I think you can, in fact, omit this whole section, the evidentiary usefulness of which depends on the mere coincidence of the two modes and tends to reinforce, rather than undermine, the dichotomy you want to disrupt. I take your (reasonable) point to be not that the narrate/describe distinction is meaningless, or never apparent, but that it's (a) overstated, (b) far from universally observed in practice, (c) results from an implicit aesthetic/ideological bias. and (d) partly explains the neglect of description among literary critics and theorists. None of these claims requires you to show that description and narration are always intertwined, nor does the hypothesis that literature can become more visual without becoming more descriptive.

Ditto. Omit.

Speculative, again -- best to omit.

Yes but it does so differently, and arguably to different ends. I think the comparison to art here is more distracting than helpful. For one thing, it's far from exhaustive. Scientific description is illustrative, in that it offers an example of (say) a species relative to a genera, other species. or sub-species. And it's evidentiary, in that it forms part of a proof or refutation. And it's surely other things, as well (citational. formulaic, technical), in addition to being evocative in an affective and intellectual sense. The point is that you can develop the idea that scientific description is not mere inert ornament (and so also disrupts the narrate/describe binary) without depending on this rather loose sense of "evocative."

An excellent paragraph, but I think it needs a more direct description of this genre: what tends to be described, in what kind of forms or prose style, by whom, at what length and with what readership? etc.

reproduction of images?

Oversimple. Ireland was considered British my some people for some purposes but never by all people for all purposes.

Omit. It's an overdetermined shift, so speculation just invites contradiction.

This will provoke (perhaps unnecessary) resentments.

Needs glossing

Introduce: why is Olk's judgment your point of reference here?

I think you need to expend a bit more effort explaining why this isn't mostly a metaphor for showing rather than telling -- what Mark McGurl calls the most durable modernist doxa in C20th literature.

define/gloss at first usage?

historical? -- i.e., it's not just a matter of time but of change over time.

artists and art critics

A possible critical hook -- why is it that, in an age in which colors are becoming ever-more specified, that Woolf continues to think of color as inexpressible?

???

Examples of what Jed Esty would call the modernist counter- or anti-bildungsroman

Arguable claim -- the classic bildungsroman is more regularly associated with the early-mid C19th

I don't know that this is any longer true, though the history of green tennis courts may play a role here...

grass tennis courts? (in the teens and 20s. the default sort)

"is a non"

sic?

How do you control for variabilities in digitization/photography? Or does that not matter?

Although with this example you might also say that, no matter what country one comes from (and whether or not the post boxes there are red or some other color) "post box red" often indexes the specific red of British Royal Mail post boxes.

Might it not also describe the way in which parts of a tree go on living after it has fallen, drawing for a while on the energy and nutrition latent within the organism? I'm no biologist...

Omit or replace with "that"

Further to the last note: it's hard for me to make much of this plausible-sounding analysis without knowing more about what this matrix means. What am I to deduce about the fact that, in this chart, adjective order dictates precedence? Is this a fact about color or about this particular taxonomy of colors?

OK, but at least explain "nan" here for the non-expert reader!

"the genre of the"?

If this helps explain why yellow is the color of the 1890s, make sure to say so directly.

Why?

"La Gallienne's 'yellow boom'"?

White text on light grey here is not v kind to aging eyes...

Can we get scales added to these graphs? I presume the peak at left represents the 1890s, but I'd prefer not to.

I know what you're getting at here, but it tends to replicate the Bloomsbury Group's own (often dubious) claims about the colorlessness of the previous generation. But take a look at Edwardian popular culture. As you go on to suggest in the next section, it's often bright as hell! Take half a step away from modernist ideology and make the same point: "they signal her belief in the strange death of..."

Arguably too broad of a claim: you've suggested why we ought to see Fry's exhibit as important for Bloomsbury; it's not clear that you can extend the claim to modernist literature as such.

A strong claim, of the kind Clement Greenberg will make about the abstract expressionism of the 1940s and 1950s. Do you have evidence for this in art historical writing? It'll be important to substantiate, since the work of a Cezanne or Van Gogh is not only "about color" -- it's also about many other things, including the relation between color and line, between the pictorial plane and the support, etc.

Not immediately clear how these relate to the taste for Japanese woodblock printing, though perhaps you're referring to the more general Asian influence referred to in the sentence's first part?

Needs citation.

Surely there are other variables for which you'd have to account -- e.g., the possibilty that restoration has articifically brightened a painting; the levels, direction, and quality of artificial or natural light when the painting was photographed; the camera, film, or software involved; the skill of the photographer. Given these many variables, how reliably can you draw conclusions from the brightness of 100 digital images of variable provenance? Putting it otherwise, can you deduce anything about paintings this way, rather than about the digital representation of paintings?

"social" beats "societal"

Is "see" here not as much figurative as literal? It refers to the novelist's duty to perceive clearly and completely and to translate the nature of that perception to the reader. An an exhortation, it's normative as well as epistemological -- not just "see" but "see properly."

Is the Brown gambit really autotelic? It's not "Mrs Brown for Mrs Brown's Own Sake" so much as "Mrs Brown for Mrs Brown's Own Sake As Virginia Woolf Imagines It" -- the argument depends on a distinction between means and ends but we still have to trust the author's ability to distinguish between them.

A little vague -- "conditions" and "social/material" both lack the specificity of "literary and art history"

Perhaps you'll do this in the intro but for non-quant specialist readers it would be helpful to define this term (the second time it's been invoke) a little more fully.

Understood.

Much better -- grounding the experiment in period history.

Is this how human reading works? I get the idea but the description seems inexact, if only because textual "inputs" (the human reader's encounter with written language) also produces auditory information, as well as information that might register through haptic sensations (the feel of a word silently formed in the mouth, the weave of paper, the slide of a finger on a screen, etc).

imaginative?

delete comma

Which is it? How would you distinguish between these alternatives and what difference do they make?

Is this also an acronym?

"for an encyclopedia"

Again, I don't know exactly what this means -- the distinction between the "perceptual experience" of a word (do words experience things?) and "[the words'] categories" is not very clear. Does it amount to more than saying that Mansfield's narrator (or is it Bertha, or both?) discriminates between common associations between objects and colors and particular associations? If so, I worry that this is a trivial observation.

Sp

Antecent of "it" is i?

OK this seems reasonable, obvious even. But I don't know why this is a critically significant observation, or one that we need your methods to confirm, rather than being confident that a surmise will do (e.g., Person A: "Yeah, the word grass is more commonly used in association with the word green than the word red." Person B: "Yeah, I guess.")

I don't know what this means.

Explain!

"If the Pantone set betrays the influence of commerce, an antidote comes in the form of..."

I have no idea what "map" means in this context; likewise, "several"

Is the assertion here that we do not attend to colors we find unpleasant?

Who are "they" here? (Navy blue is also a conventional color in Britain, for a long time now unattached to any specific uniform or service.)

Again, your use of terms is ahead of your description of those terms: what is a map here?

It's still not clear to me why "we" are doing this? What does it mean to model imagination and why is it helpful? Some recapitulation would be useful here.

Why the shift to the (ostentatious, here) first person plural?

It's possible, also, that some of the leaves on the fallen tree are still alive. This happens. The deadness of trees is not digital.

Link appears to be broken

Delete

Be kind: define!

Which?

???

Fragment

"theoretical"

Nice!

Briefly explain what this has to do with lemons.

If the distinction admits of gradation, then it's not (as you implied above) a distinction without a difference. Graduated distinctions are, also, real distinctions.

All this needs far greater elaboration and patience. You've moving very quickly, often through mere assertion, through a huge mass of argument. Why the reference to pastoral and epic? Why is the static/dynamic distinction important? Why does our ability to imagine action in freeze-frame say anything about the actual relation between narration and action? In your pursuit of a breezy and direct style, it's possible to make an argument more, rather than less, obscure.

Fragment

Why is the visual "strong"? Is your implicit claim that the visual is essential to strong description, relative to the other senses? Or is your interest in the distinction between sensing (of which seeing is one example) and imagining?

You haven't proved this; you've just asserted, without evidence, that description and narration are often co-extensive, which is not the same thing at all.

If you must, but I find the turning of adjectives into verbs very ugly!

I don't follow your terminology here. Why is the selection of a word (often quite customary) to be considered digital, rather than analog? The simple fact of selecting one word (from among others) doesn't seem sufficient.

"Description is always selective, and it always refracts" -- but do you want to commit to the visual metaphor (refracts) here, or does "refract" just mean, more broadly, that the description of an object in some way affects that object?