“The reason weight and direction are particularly important in literary networks is that, whereas the systems studied by network theory have easily thousands or millions of vertices, whose relevance can be directly expressed in the number of connections, plots have usually no more than a few dozens characters; as a consequence, the mere existence of a connection is seldom sufficient to establish a hierarchy, and must be integrated with other measurements.”
There is a related issue in both chronological and spatial analysis of literature that heavily differentiates the two methods. In chronological analysis, when trying to organize text mining and word trends, sometimes these get lost in the multitude of other material in the bodies of work. When there is a large magazine, there may be many other articles or advertisements bogging down overarching technical analysis. There is just a lot of extra, information. However, in a spatial analysis, it is not hard to find the connections, or “edges” you’ve decided to search for. In fact, there are almost always too many edges apparent in your spatial analysis. If you include all instances of soliloquy, or aside, or dialogue, there will usually be hundreds if not thousands of instances and they are all relevant, albeit to varying degrees. An instance of small talk in passing will rarely compare in weight to extended main character dialogue. The general problem of sifting through massive amounts of info is the same between spatial and chronological analysis, but the infrastructure is the issue.