The Literature Review

A “literature review” is an extended analysis of the extant critical discussion surrounding a topic in which you are interested. Often, this topic takes the form “subject in author’s text”: “Parentheses in Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass,” “Cannibalism in David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas,” “Queer desire in Toni Morrison’s Sula.” Any critical analysis of a text—or as Kenneth Burke suggests, any critical thinking about anything—relates new ideas to what’s known, responds to questions or problems, which are themselves in response to what is given. The literature review provides context for the new and the known. It is you listening attentively in Burke’s parlor before you put in your oar.

In our studies this semester, we have seen literature reviews sometimes in the introduction, used to set up the argument before the author presents evidence in the body; we have also seen reviews emerge in the body of an article, used to advance evidence and borrow (and/or distinguish) previous critical readings or theoretical insights. Versions of this component of scholarly composition can thus be found in most of the articles you have read for this class this semester. Going back through the readings and studying these moments, normally towards the beginning of a given article, will be very helpful.

Assignment Guidelines: In approximately 2000 words, review 8-10 critical sources on/around/adjacent to your topic. This might sound like a ton, but do not despair! You do not have to (and indeed, shouldn’t) write an equal amount on all sources. Instead, you should focus on outlining the conversation surrounding your topic in broad strokes: which sources seem to be in agreement? Where is there disagreement? Where are there gaps (or “lacunae,” an academic commonplace) or limitations in the research, and why do you think this is the case? (This is where the review sets the stage for your argument in progress: how you will fill those gaps and respond to those limitations). Which sources deserve lengthier explanation and response, and which can attach to these more major ones as footnotes or asides? Most importantly, what kind of narrative do your sources build: what kind of story do they tell about how this author/text/topic/etc. has been treated?

At the top of your review, provide the latest and most refined version of your abstract (this will take the place of your introduction and provide context for what is motivating this critical review of the literature). At the bottom of the review, provide a works cited list of the secondary sources you are reviewing.

For further guidance on the Literature Review, consult this resource from the University of Toronto. Also, revisit the various critical articles we read this semester and observe how those critics engaged in the rhetoric and poetics of the literature review.

Class Workshop:

Each member of the group will do the following to practice and probe the research you are conducting and reviewing.

1. Critic: Update your research and literature review
   1. Present the latest version of your elevator pitch.
   2. Select one of your sources and present an oral summary of its argument (think abstract).
   3. Identify the uses and/or limitations of this source: Will it deserve lengthier explanation in your review or briefer discussion, perhaps part of a footnote? Are there gaps in the source you could/should fill in?
   4. Compare this source to a few other sources you have found: what are the points of agreement or disagreement you will discuss in your review of the critical conversation?
2. Group: Provide feedback on the quality of the source + suggestions for further research.
   1. Does it seem credible and substantial for the project? What else might the critic do in reviewing this source?
   2. What else might the critic explore as they continue to research and finalize the literature review? What do you need to understand better that the critic’s research could address?
   3. Research tips: where might the critic find additional sources?