1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750

Abstract

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.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24005.gar
2025-01-21
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jaic.24005.gar.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24005.gar&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abrams, M. H.
    (1971) The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, R.
    (2005) The art of reviewing. InR. Keebe (ed.), Print Journalism: A Critical Introduction (pp.180–187). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blank, G.
    (2007) Critics, ratings, and society: The sociology of reviews. Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boonstra, H. T.
    (1979) Van waardeoordeel tot literatuuropvatting [from value judgement to literary view]. De Gids1421: 243–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourdieu, P.
    (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Chong, P. K.
    (2020) Inside the Critics’ Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Drewry, J. E.
    (1966) Writing Book Reviews. Boston: The Writer, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fopma, M.
    (1998) Standpoints in literary reviews. ISSA Proceedings 1998, available at: https://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-1998-standpoints-in-literary-reviews/
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.
  11. Garssen, B.
    (2017) The role of the argument by example in legislative debates of the European Parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context6(1): 27–43. 10.1075/jaic.6.1.02gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.02gar [Google Scholar]
  12. Grootendorst, R.
    (1998) Crisis in de kritiek: argumentatietheorie en literaire recensies. [Crisis in criticism: argumentation theory and literary reviews] Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hare, R. M.
    (1952) The language of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hellman, H., & Jaakkola, M.
    (2012) From aesthetes to reporters: The paradigm shift in arts journalism in Finland. Journalism, 13(6), 783–801. 10.1177/1464884911431382
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911431382 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hooper, B.
    (2010) Writing reviews for readers’ advisory. American Library Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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.
  17. Jaakkola, M.
    (2012) Promoting aesthetic tourism: transgressions between generalist and specialist subfields in cultural journalism. Journalism Practice6(4): 482–496. 10.1080/17512786.2012.667284
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.667284 [Google Scholar]
  18. (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.
  19. Janssen, S., & Verboord, M.
    (2015) Cultural mediators and gatekeepers. InJ. D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition (pp.440–446). Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.10424‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10424-6 [Google Scholar]
  20. Mooij, J. J. A.
    (1979) De motivering van literaire waardeoordelen [The justification of literary value judgments]. InJ. J. A. Mooij, Tekst en lezer. Opstellen over algemene problemen van de literatuurstudie (pp.253–278). Amsterdam: Athenaeum Polak & Van Gennep.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Pool, G.
    (2007) Faint Praise: The Plight of Book Reviewing in America. University of Missouri Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Squires, C.
    (2020) The Review and the Reviewer. InA. Baverstock, R. Bradford, & M. Gonzalez (eds.), Contemporary Publishing and the Culture of Books (pp.117–132). London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315778389‑7
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315778389-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Taylor, A. M.
    (2014) Investigations into facts and values: groundwork for a theory of moral conflict resolution. Doctoral dissertation. University of Melbourne, available at: https://www.ondwelle.com/ValueJudgements.pdf
  25. Titchener, C. B.
    (1998) Reviewing the Arts. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Uittewaal, T.
    (2000) Citaten als argumenten in literaire recensies [Citations as arguments in literary reviews]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing22(2): 97–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  29. van Eemeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R.
    (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R.
    (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragmadialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P.
    (2006) Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation20(4): 381–392. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9037‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z [Google Scholar]
  32. (2005) Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. InOSSA conference archive, available at: scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA6/papers/9van
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Van Rees, C. J.
    (1983) How a literacy work becomes a masterpiece: On the threefold selection practised by literary criticism. Poetics12(4–5), 397–417. 10.1016/0304‑422X(83)90015‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(83)90015-3 [Google Scholar]
  34. (1987) How reviewers reach consensus on the value of literary works. Poetics16(3–4): 275–294. 10.1016/0304‑422X(87)90008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(87)90008-8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Woolf, V.
    (1939) Reviewing. London: Hogarth Press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24005.gar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24005.gar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error