--- name: comparative-literature description: Use when targeting Comparative Literature or deciding whether a cross-national, cross-linguistic, translation, or world-literature manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's comparatist fit, the cross-linguistic argument bar, original-language and translation expectations, house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Comparative Literature (comparative-literature) ## Journal positioning Comparative Literature, published by Duke University Press for the American Comparative Literature Association, is the field's senior journal for study that crosses national and linguistic borders — comparison across literatures, translation and reception, circulation, and world literature. Its defining expectation is an essay whose argument **depends on the comparison**: a claim that could not be made from inside a single national literature, grounded in command of more than one tradition and, where relevant, their original languages. A single-language reading with a token foreign comparison bolted on, or a thematic juxtaposition with no comparatist payoff, is a poor fit. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** aid. It does not replace the journal's current submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Comparative Literature author instructions. ## When to trigger - The author names Comparative Literature for a cross-linguistic, translation, or world-literature essay and wants a fit/framing check. - A single-tradition reading must be re-framed so the comparison is constitutive, not decorative. - The author is choosing between Comparative Literature and a national-literature or theory-led venue. - The author needs the journal's comparatist bar and desk-reject heuristics. ## Scope & topic fit - Comparison across two or more literatures or languages where the argument turns on the relation between them. - Translation studies and the theory and history of translation, including untranslatability and the work of the translator. - Reception, circulation, and the cross-border life of texts, genres, and forms. - World literature: its concepts, methods, and the politics of canon, language, and scale. - Comparative poetics, genre, and form across traditions, including non-Western and minor literatures. - Cross-linguistic readings that bring otherwise separate fields into genuine dialogue. ## Method & evidence bar - The contribution is an **original argument that the comparison makes possible** — the cross-linguistic relation does load-bearing work, not ornament. - Command of the primary texts in more than one tradition is demonstrated; original-language engagement is shown where the argument depends on it. - Translation choices, transliteration, and linguistic specifics are handled with care and made part of the argument where relevant. - Theoretical or historicist framing serves the comparison and is alert to asymmetries of language, power, and circulation. - The essay engages comparatist and world-literature scholarship, naming what its comparison changes. - Claims are proportionate to the textual evidence in each tradition and avoid flattening difference. ## Structure & house style - Comparatist scholarly essay where the comparison structures the argument; re-check current length expectations and essay types on the live guide. - MLA-based humanities citation per the journal's current style; notes carry qualification and secondary debate. - Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements) per current policy. - Original-language quotation is given with translations, and non-Latin scripts transliterated, per the journal's policy — central to a comparatist venue. - Any reproduced material requires permissions and meets the journal's specifications. - Prose is legible to comparatists working in other language pairs, not only to specialists in one tradition. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Duke University Press / ACLA anchors, then cite the current Comparative Literature page you checked. - Search the live site for "Comparative Literature submission guidelines" and follow the current version. - Re-check essay types, length expectations, and the abstract requirement. - Confirm the citation/style format and anonymization for double-blind review. - Re-check the original-language quotation, translation, and transliteration policy carefully, plus any permissions. - Re-check prior-presentation/preprint, simultaneous-submission, and AI-use disclosure policies. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] The argument depends on the comparison and could not be made from one literature alone. - [ ] Command of primary texts in more than one tradition — with original-language work where the argument needs it — is demonstrated. - [ ] Translation, transliteration, and linguistic specifics are handled with care and integrated into the argument. - [ ] The framing is alert to asymmetries of language, power, and circulation. - [ ] The essay engages comparatist/world-literature scholarship and names what its comparison changes. - [ ] The manuscript is anonymized, follows current style, and has translations, transliterations, and permissions in hand. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A single-language reading with a token foreign comparison bolted on for appearance. - A thematic juxtaposition with no argument the comparison makes possible. - Reliance on translations where the claim demands original-language command, or careless translation/transliteration. - A framing that flattens linguistic and cultural difference or ignores asymmetries of circulation. - No engagement with comparatist or world-literature scholarship the essay claims to enter. - Wrong venue: a study confined to one national literature better served by a specialist journal. ## Re-routing decision - Broad-readership essay, single tradition acceptable → `pmla`. - Agenda-setting high theory across the arts → `critical-inquiry`. - Argument about literary theory or method itself → `new-literary-history`. - Historically grounded literary-change study in one tradition → `modern-language-quarterly`. - New-historicist, archive-anchored cultural analysis → `representations`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Comparative Literature [Traditions/languages] [Comparatist argument] [Textual basis] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```