Fahnestock and Secor’s “The Rhetoric of Literary Criticism” characterized literary criticism of the 1970s as conservative and self-celebratory. However, although literary theory has since undergone significant change, few rhetorical analyses of recent literary criticism as the preferred genre of a disciplinary discourse community have been conducted. This analysis of 28 articles of literary criticism published between 1999 and 2001 reveals that because of their flexibility, the stasis and special topoi conventions of earlier literary criticism continue to function. However, the shared values assumed in literary criticism have shifted away from a preference for isolated meditation on textual particulars. Instead, criticism is now portrayed as a conversation in which knowledge about literary texts and their historical contexts is socially negotiated and accumulative. Moreover, this scholarly project is frequently assumed to work toward social justice. The article ends with implications for understanding how knowledge is built within disciplinary communities.
Albrecht, J. M. (1999). Saying yes and saying no: Individualist ethics in Ellison, Burke, and Emerson. Publications of the Modern Language Association, 114, 46-63.
2.
Aristotle. (1997). Topics (R. Smith, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 350 B. C.)
3.
Atkins, G. D., Johnson, M. L., & Comley, N. (1985). Writing and reading differently: Deconstruction and the teaching of composition and literature. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
4.
Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 361-387.
5.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
Berger, C. (2000). When bad things happen to bad people: Liability and individual consciousness in Adam Bede and Silas Marner. Novel, 33(3), 307-327.
7.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
8.
Blakeslee, A. (1993). Readers and authors: Fictionalized constructs or dynamic collaborations?Technical Communication Quarterly, 2, 23-35.
9.
Burton, S. (2001). Rereading Faulkner: Authority, criticism, and The Sound and the Fury. Modern Philology, 98, 604-628.
10.
Butler, J. P., Guillory, J., & Thomas, K. (2000). Preface. In J. P. Butler, J. Guillory, & K. Thomas (Eds.), What’s left of theory? New work on the politics of literary theory (pp. x-xii). New York: Routledge.
11.
Cahalan, J. M., & Downing, D. B. (Eds.).(1991). Practicing theory in introductory college literature courses. Urbana, IL: National Counselors of Teachers of English.
12.
Campbell, A. (1997). Teaching literary theory to undergraduates: What have we learned?English, 46(185), 131-159.
13.
Charney, D. (1993). A study in rhetorical reading: How evolutionists read “The Spandrels of San Marco”. In J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose (pp. 203-231). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
14.
Culler, J. (1999). Anderson and the novel. diacritics, 24(4), 20-39.
15.
Davies, J. M. Q. (Ed.). (1994). Bridging the gap: Literary theory in the classroom. West Cornwall, CT: Locust Hill.
16.
DiPasquale, T. M. (2000).Woman’s desire for man in Lanyer’s Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 99, 356-378.
17.
Dowdey, D. (1992). Citation and documentation across the curriculum. In M. Secor & D. Charney (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education (pp. 330-351). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
18.
Downing, D. B., Harkin, P., Shumway, D. R., & Sosnoski, J. J. (1987). Aconversation with Gerald Graff. Critical Exchange, 23, 1-30.
19.
Downing, D. B., & Sosnoski, J. J. (1995). Working with narrative zones in a postdisciplinary pedagogy. Narrative, 3(3), 271-286.
20.
Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
21.
Eberly, R. A. (2000). Citizen critics: Literary public spheres. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
22.
Elder, J. (1999). The poetry of experience. New Literary History, 30(3), 649-659.
23.
Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275-296.
24.
Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1988). The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written Communication, 5, 427-443.
26.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 77-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
27.
Fish, S. (1985). Anti-professionalism. New Literary History, 17(1), 89-108.
28.
Fjellestad, D. (1999). Frank Lentricchia’s critical confession, or, the traumas of teaching theory. Style, 33(3), 406-413.
29.
Franklin, P. (1978). English studies in America. American Quarterly, 30, 21-38.
30.
Frantzen, A. J. (1990). Desire for origins: New language, old English, and teaching the tradition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
31.
Fulwiler, T. (1988). Writing across the curriculum: Implications for teaching literature. ADE Bulletin, 88, 35-40.
32.
Gallagher, C. (2000). A history of the precedent: Rhetorics of legitimation in women’s writing. Critical Inquiry, 26(2), 309-327.
33.
Gamer, M. (1999). Authors in effect: Lewis, Scott, and the gothic drama. English Literary History, 66, 831-861.
34.
Geisler, C. (1991). Toward a sociocognitive model of literacy: Constructing mental models in a philosophical conversation. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 171-190). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
35.
Geyh, P. E. (2001). Triptych time: The experiential historiography of Meridel Le Sueur’sThe Dread Road. Criticism, 43(1), 81-101.
36.
Gigante, D. (1999). Forming desire: On the eponymous In Memoriam stanza. Nineteenth-Century Literature, 53(4), 480-504.
37.
Gigante, D. (2000). Milton’s aesthetics of eating. diacritics, 30, 88-112.
38.
Gilbert, S. M. (1999). “Rat’s Alley”: The Great War, modernism, and the (anti)pastoral elegy. New Literary History, 30, 179-201.
39.
Gilbert, S. M. (2001). Widow. Critical Inquiry, 27(4), 559-579.
40.
Graff, G. (1987). Professing literature: An institutional history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
Graff, G. (1995). Afterword. In A. Young & T. Fulwiler (Eds.), When writing teachers teach literature: Bringingwriting to reading (pp. 324-333). Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.
42.
Haas, C. (1994). Learning to read biology: One student’s rhetorical development in college. Written Communication, 11, 43-84.
43.
Harkin, P. (1987). Arguing a history: Gerald Graff’s Professing Literature. Critical Exchange, 23, 77-90.
44.
Hayton, H. R. (1999). “Many privy thinges wimpled and folder”: Governance and mutual obligation in Usk’s Testament of Love. Studies in Philology, 96(1), 22-41.
45.
Herrington, A. J. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 331-361.
46.
Kaufer, D. S., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6(3), 286-311.
47.
Lynch, J. (2000). “The ground-work of stile:” Johnson on the history of the language. Studies in Philology, 97(4), 454-472.
48.
MacDonald, S. P. (1987). Problem definition in academic writing. College English, 49, 315-331.
49.
MacDonald, S. P. (1989). Data-driven and conceptually driven academic discourse. Written Communication, 6, 411-455.
50.
MacDonald, S. P. (1992). Amethod for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9(4), 533-569.
51.
MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
52.
Mathieson, M. (1975). The preachers of culture: A study of English and its teachers. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
53.
Matz, R. (1999). Slander, Renaissance discourses of sodomy, and Othello. English Literary History, 66(2), 261-276.
54.
May, B. (2001). Memorials to modernity: Postcolonial pilgrimage in Naipul and Rushdie. English Literary History, 68(1), 241-265.
55.
Mazzola, E. (1999). Brothers’ keepers and Philip’s siblings: The poetics of the Sidney family. Criticism, 41(4), 513-542.
56.
McCann, S. (2000). The imperiled republic: Norman Mailer and the poetics of anti-liberalism. English Literary History, 67(1), 293-336.
57.
McHugh, S. (2000). Marrying my bitch: J. R. Ackerley’s pack sexualities. Critical Inquiry, 27(1), 21-41.
58.
McMurtry, J. (1985). English language, English literature: The creation of an academic discipline. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
59.
Myers, D. G. (1994). On the teaching of literary theory. Philosophy and Literature, 18, 326-336.
60.
Myers, G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists’ proposals. Written Communication, 2, 219-245.
61.
Nagy, A. R. (1999). Defining English: Authenticity and standardization in seventeenth-century dictionaries. Studies in Philology, 96(4), 439-456.
62.
Norton, J. (1994). Guerrilla pedagogy: Conflicting authority and interpretation in the classroom. College Literature, 21(3), 136-156.
63.
Ohmann, R. (1996). English in America: Aradical view of the profession. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
64.
Parker, W. R. (1981). Where do English departments come from? In G. Tate & E. P. J. Corbett (Eds.), The writing teacher’s sourcebook (pp. 3-19). New York: Oxford University Press.
65.
Paul, D., Charney, D., & Kendall, A. (2001). Moving beyond the moment: Reception studies in the rhetoric of science. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(3), 372-399.
66.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
67.
Perloff, M. (1999). Language poetry and the lyric subject: Ron Silliman’s Albany, Susan Howe’s Buffalo. Critical Inquiry, 25(3), 405-434.
68.
Peterson, L. H. (1995). The English literature seminar as writing across the curriculum. In T. Fulwiler & A. Young (Eds.), When writing teachers teach literature: Bringing writing to reading (pp. 261-271). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
69.
Popper, K. R. (1966). The open society and its enemies (5th ed., Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
Reiter, J. A. (1995). Motivating writing differently in a literary studies classroom.In T. Fulwiler & A. Young (Eds.), When writing teachers teach literature: Bringing writing to reading (pp. 48-62). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
71.
Richardson, A. (1999/2000). The eugenization of love: Sarah Grand and the morality of genealogy. Victorian Studies, 42, 227-255.
72.
Ross, T. (1996).The emergence of “literature:” Making and reading the English canon in the Eighteenth Century. English Literary History, 63, 397-422.
73.
Rymer, J. (1988). Scientific composing processes: How eminent scientists write journal articles. In D. Jolliffe (Ed.), Advances in writing research (Vol. 2, pp. 211-250). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
74.
Schaub, M. (2000). Queen of the air or constitutional monarch? Idealism, irony, and narrative power in Miss Marjoribanks. Nineteenth-Century Literature, 55(2), 195-225.
75.
Scholes, R. E. (1985). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
76.
Scholes, R. E. (1998). The rise and fall of English: Reconstructing English as a discipline. New Haven: Yale University Press.
77.
Secor, M. (1984). Perelman’s loci in literary argument. Pre/text, 5(2), 97-110.
78.
Shoulson, J. S. (2000). The embrace of the fig tree: Sexuality and creativity in Midrash and in Milton. English Literary History, 67, 873-903.
79.
Shumway, D. R. (1992). Integrating theory in the curriculum as theorizing—A postdisciplinary practice. In M. -R. Kecht (Ed.), Pedagogyis politics:Literary theory and critical teaching (pp. 93-110). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
80.
Shumway, D. R. (1994). Creating American civilization: A genealogy of American literature as an academic discipline. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
81.
Shumway, D. R. (1997). The star system in literary studies. Publications of the Modern Language Association, 112(1), 85-100.
82.
Sosnoski, J. J. (1994). Token professionals and master critics: Acritique of orthodoxy in literary studies. Albany: State University of New York Press.
83.
Sosnoski, J. J. (1995). Modern skeletons in postmodern closets: A cultural studies alternative. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
84.
Spanos, W. V. (1993). The end of education: Toward posthumanism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
85.
Staten, H. (2000). Is Middlemarch ahistorical?Publications of the Modern Language Association, 115, 991-1005.
86.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
87.
Theisen, B. (2000). The four sides of reading: Paradox, play, and autobiographical fiction in Iser and Rilke. New Literary History, 31(1), 105-128.
88.
Tompkins, J. P. (1985). Sensational designs: The cultural work of American fiction, 1790-1860. New York: Oxford University Press.
89.
Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
90.
Vanderbilt, K. (1986). American literature and the academy: The roots, growth, and maturity of a profession. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
91.
Warner, M. (1990). The letters of the Republic: Publication and the public sphere in eighteenth-century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
92.
Wentworth, M. (1987). Writing in the literature class. Journal of Teaching Writing, 6, 155-162.
93.
White, P. A. (1999). The Latin men: The Norman sources of the Scandinavian kings’ sagas. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 98(2), 157-169.
94.
Wilder, L. (2002). “Get comfortable with uncertainty:” A study of the conventional values of literary analysis in an undergraduate literature course. Written Communication, 19(1), 175-221.
95.
Williams, J. (1999). The New Belletrism. Style, 33(3), 414-442.
96.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
97.
Winsor, D. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
98.
Zamir, T. (2000). Upon one bank and shoal of time: Literature, nihilism, and moral philosophy. New Literary History, 31(3), 529-551.
