I was definitely not expecting to head in this sort of direction. It made sense to understand literature through the eyes of a linguist, as language and text are directly related. Anthropology makes sense in this context as well as writing is derived from different people among many cultures. But economics deals with money and the economy. It removes us from the liberal arts field we’ve all decided to dwell in, forcing us once again to view literature in a brand new, perhaps more obscure way. Literature is compared to the economy and microeconomics exists as a close-reading analogy. The idea lies in zooming in or zooming out, seeing the big picture or only seeing one small aspect of it. In any field these opposing ideas have their pros and cons, but what makes literature truly comparable to the economy? The article suggests that these two ideas are not antithetical and that they both seek to share information about a given piece. Macroeconomics addressing anxieties in the text but suggesting that the text should not be taken apart – very anti post strucuralist… The text must be seen as a whole, stitched together for a bigger purpose. This is truly antithetical of what we’ve been learning. Instead of picking the text apart, we’re supposed to look at it with a wiser eye, thus seeing the big picture. Does this simplify things, are we off the hook? Is it acceptable not to take the text so seriously? Is it okay to understand using a “less deep” method?