Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 13:3 (2024) ► pp.373–399

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

A definite must read

Argumentation in literary reviews

ORCiD logo with link | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Hradec Králové
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Amsterdam.

Published online: 21 January 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.24005.gar
Abstract
The present study aims at clarifying how in literary reviews value judgements about novels are justified. For this purpose we first give an overall description of the place of literary reviews in journalism. Then, we characterize literary reviews as an argumentative activity type. Next, we turn to the argumentative pattern prototypical of literary reviews. To illustrate our account of literary reviews, we present an exemplary analysis of a particular review. In so doing we propose a tool for the empirical study of literary reviews.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The nature of a literary review
  • 3.Characterization of the literary review as an argumentative activity type
    • The initial situation
    • Procedural and material starting points
    • Argumentative tools and criticism
    • Outcome of dispute
  • 4.Prototypical argumentative patterns in literary reviews
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Abrams, M. H. (1971). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, R. (2005). The art of reviewing. In R. Keebe (ed.), Print Journalism: A Critical Introduction (pp. 180–187). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blank, G. (2007). Critics, ratings, and society: The sociology of reviews. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boonstra, H. T. (1979). Van waardeoordeel tot literatuuropvatting [from value judgement to literary view]. De Gids 1421: 243–253.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandt, E. (1994). Argumentatie in literaire dagbladrecensies. Een ideaalmodel. [Argumentation in literary reviews in daily newspapers. An ideal model]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 16, 2, 127–135.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chong, P. K. (2020). Inside the Critics’ Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drewry, J. E. (1966). Writing Book Reviews. Boston: The Writer, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fopma, M. (1998). Standpoints in literary reviews. ISSA Proceedings 1998, available at: [URL]
Garssen, B. J. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek [Argument schemes in a pragma-dialectical perspective. A theoretical and empirical study]. Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
Grootendorst, R. (1998). Crisis in de kritiek: argumentatietheorie en literaire recensies. [Crisis in criticism: argumentation theory and literary reviews] Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. (1952). The language of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hellman, H., & Jaakkola, M. (2012). From aesthetes to reporters: The paradigm shift in arts journalism in Finland. Journalism, 13(6), 783–801. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hooper, B. (2010). Writing reviews for readers’ advisory. American Library Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houtlosser, P. (1995). Standpunten in een kritische discussie. Een pragma-dialectisch perspectief op de identificatie en reconstructie van standpunten [Standpoints in a critical discussion. A pragma-dialectical perspective on the identification and reconstruction of standpoints]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
Jaakkola, M. (2012). Promoting aesthetic tourism: transgressions between generalist and specialist subfields in cultural journalism. Journalism Practice 6(4): 482–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The contested autonomy of arts and journalism: Change and continuity in the dual professionalism of cultural journalism. Doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere. Tampere University Press.
Janssen, S., & Verboord, M. (2015). Cultural mediators and gatekeepers. In J. D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition (pp. 440–446). Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mooij, J. J. A. (1979). De motivering van literaire waardeoordelen [The justification of literary value judgments]. In J. J. A. Mooij, Tekst en lezer. Opstellen over algemene problemen van de literatuurstudie (pp. 253–278). Amsterdam: Athenaeum Polak & Van Gennep.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pool, G. (2007). Faint Praise: The Plight of Book Reviewing in America. University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schellens, P. J. (1985). Redelijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers [Reasonable arguments. A study of norms for critical readers]. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Squires, C. (2020). The Review and the Reviewer. In A. Baverstock, R. Bradford, & M. Gonzalez (eds.), Contemporary Publishing and the Culture of Books (pp. 117–132). London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, A. M. (2014). Investigations into facts and values: groundwork for a theory of moral conflict resolution. Doctoral dissertation. University of Melbourne, available at: [URL]
Titchener, C. B. (1998). Reviewing the Arts. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uittewaal, T. (2000). Citaten als argumenten in literaire recensies [Citations as arguments in literary reviews]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 22(2): 97–111.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragmadialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20(4): 381–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In OSSA conference archive, available at: [URL]
Van Rees, C. J. (1983). How a literacy work becomes a masterpiece: On the threefold selection practised by literary criticism. Poetics 12(4–5), 397–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). How reviewers reach consensus on the value of literary works. Poetics 16(3–4): 275–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woolf, V. (1939). Reviewing. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue