C.J. van Rees

How reviewers reach consensus on the value of literary works

Abstract Critics are unable to adduce good grounds in support of their assessment of literary works. But this by no means prevents them from performing their threefold task — that of describing, interpreting and evaluating these works. Nor does it hinder their reaching consensus as to which of the products publishers have brought on the market deserve their attention and as to how to express this attention. This paper focusses on the process by which consensus is reached. The factors determining this process are shown to be extra-textual in nature. Contrary to the current view according to which ‘intrinsic’ properties of a work are believed to account for its ranking, it is argued that properties are normatively assigned to it by reviewers and critics. Although most of the critical tenets on a writers work are defective insofar as they fail to be empirically testable, the attribution of properties and value by some members of the institution of criticism proves to be socially effective as other reviewers and critics — and even the writer of the work under discussion — appear inclined to reproduce their views. To weigh the importance of the role any critic may be said to play in the long-term process a number of interrelated factors should be taken into account such as, for example, the authority he enjoys among his colleagues, the review medium in which he is publishing. The analysis of all available reviews on the work of a modern Dutch poet makes it clear that the reaching of agreement involves a mode of orchestration.

How a literacy work becomes a masterpiece: On the threefold selection practised by literary criticism

Abstract The institution criticism has the authority to legitimize texts as literary texts of a specific rank. Amongst the institutions in the literary field only criticism is presumed competent to assign specific qualities to literary texts, to assess their value and to decide on the legitimate ways of discussing texts. In order to be regarded as being of high quality, a text has to pass through the selection filters of three distinct types of critics: journalistic reviewers, essayists and academic critics. Differences between them pertain to their different temporal positions vis-a-vis literary texts and to the vastness of the selection made from literary works of this century or of earlier periods. On balance, the contributions which these types of critics make to the ranking process are complementary; this has a strengthening effect on criticisms relative autonomy and on its dominant position within the literary field. Contrary to criticisms claims, the grading process to which a text is subjected is not founded on any specific insight enabling a critic to recognize intrinsic textual properties which would justify its classification as a literary text of a certain standard. Social acceptance of a critics discourse as a plausible account of the nature and quality of a literary text depends on a certain number of factors whose institutionally determined nature generally remains obscured. These factors consider, first, the critics stance within one of the three types of criticism, and secondly, his proficiency in couching his discourse in compliance with the normative premises and the essentialist definitions derived from the conception of literature currently prevalent among his peers.

The institutional foundation of a critic's connoisseurship

Abstract To clarify what is understood by a critics connoisseurship I refer, among other things, to an explicit defence of the continuum thesis. According to this thesis, which is one that is generally taken for granted, a critics descriptive statements form the basis for his interpretative statements, while descriptive and interpretative statements together form the basis for evaluative statements. It is argued, first, that the postulate of a description-evaluation continuum is untenable. The question whether a critic has the capacity of ascertaining the intrinsic quality of a work of art is also answered in the negative. Even authoritative members of the institution of criticism — the connoisseurs — do not have at their disposal universal standards enabling them to assess on good grounds the value of a given work and to justify its being ranked as a work of a specific level. But as professional judges of cultural goods they do possess the socially accepted authority to ascribe specific properties to a work and to suggest how it is to be ranked. The alleged formal criteria (‘style’, ‘composition’, etc.) on which a connoisseurs judgement is supposed to be grounded actually derive from a conception of art. Even though from an epistemological and methodological viewpoint any application of a conception of art is questionable, applications of this kind may to a varying degree obtain the status of entrenched institutional facts. Depending on his position within the institutional framework a critic thus contributes to the establishment of artistic value and influences the way artlovers perceive and evaluate works as works of art of a specific rank.

Some issues in the study of conceptions of literature: A critique of the instrumentalist view of literary theories

Abstract The widely held view that literary theories are organons which supply a set of concwpts functioning as reliable tools for an adequate analysis of literary texts is erroneous. It neglects elementary methodological principles; above all, the notion of theory which it comprises is naive. It is argued in this paper that extant literary theories merely exemplify conceptions of literature. Conceptions of literature are systems of norms which are believed to specify the essential properties of literary texts. Most definitions of the terms propounded by literary theorists are unclear. The criteria necessary for an unequivocal application of these terms are lacking. Of course, the terms used by literary theorists and literary critics fulfill a function, but this function is not a descriptive one. The terms have an institutionalized status and, as such, perpetuate ideological beliefs about the nature of literary texts. This is demonstrated by a detailed analysis of the first chapter of Genettes Narrative discourse.

The impact of experiential variables on patterns of museum attendance. The case of the Noord-Brabant Museum

Abstract Over the last twenty years, museum attendance has grown steadily. Increasingly, participation rates are being viewed as indicators of the success and legitimacy of policy in a given field of culture. Consequently, museums have become more interested in gaining insight into factors that affect museum attendance. This paper focuses on variables that shape patterns of attendance of those who are already museum-goers. It is assumed here that assessments of the experience visitors have with museums serve to explain variations in patterns of attendance. Variables measuring museum experience range from the preference for a museums collection of modern art to specific titles to rebates on admission prices. Very probably, such variables mediate between socio-economic background variables and outcome measures such as frequency of annual museum attendance and choices of specific shows, i.e., a show documenting important events of World War II and a show presenting neo-classical sculpture. The research is exploratory in nature: it identifies a number of experiential variables and assesses their effects on patterns of attendance and selections of those who are already museum visitors. Data were collected at a Dutch provincial museum with an archeological and an art collection.

‘Theory of literature’ viewed as a conception of literature. On the premises underlying wellek and Warren's handbook

Abstract Text-oriented criticism aims at describing, interpreting and evaluating literary texts. Proponents of the text-oriented paradigm proceed on the assumption that the tools enabling the critic to realize his threefold task — and thus to do justice to literature as literature — are derivable from a literary theory. They moreover imply that descriptive, interpretative and evaluative statements are hierarchically ordered. Descriptive statements would form the basis of interpretative statements, whereas descriptive and interpretative statements together would be the basis for evaluative statements. As the wide circulation given to this view is largely due to the publication of Wellek and Warrens Theory of Literature , the questionableness of these assumptions will be discussed mainly with reference to their book. It will be argued that what these authors profess to be a literary theory should be seen rather as a conception of literature. This term must be understood to mean a set of normative views on the nature and function of literature, along with a set of definitions of properties of literary works and of literary techniques. The normative status of Wellek and Warrens conception of literature by no means impedes its use in the practice of criticism. However, this use and the plausibility attached to it are shown to be institutionally determined.

The dynamics of choice behavior towards books: The role of cultural products in cultural behavior

This issue collects a number of papers on aspects of choice behavior towards books. Most of the contributors are members of the Marketing and Sociology of Books Group at Tilburg University. The fields of expertise are sociology of literature, economic psychology and marketing. The other authors in this issue are all familiar with the research done by this group. From the start the research done by the members of the group was aimed at answering questions about the functioning of literary and cultural institutions, that is, the organizations involved in the material production and distribution of books, the councils that advise national and local authorities on public subsidies for the arts, and the somewhat loosely organized group of people who seek to specify and propagate (normative) conceptions of literature in terms of which value is assigned to literary and nonliterary fiction and nonfiction. By scrutinizing the social and economic conditions under which cultural institutions operate institutional analysts have gained a better insight into the manner in which social and economic factors affect the nature of these institutions’ products: publishers’ lists, literary magazines, the assortment offered by book clubs and the collections of public libraries. Although there is still considerable interest in these issues, in the last five years the focus has shifted towards research into the various aspects of consumer behavior towards books and literary magazines. Researchers in the humanities usually regard consumer (or connoisseur) behavior towards cultural products (e.g. works of art) as being determined by the objects themselves. ‘Charismatic ideology’ is the term Bourdieu coined to designate and denounce the belief in the power of a cultural object to

Data management and data analysis

Abstract To raise relevant questions regarding not only the nature and functioning of literary institutions such as publishing houses, public libraries, book clubs and criticism, but also the behaviour of book-buyers and book-borrowers, one should have at ones disposal relevant data. Data bases are likely to be quite extensive. Mostly even before starting to collect these data, the researcher having adequate computer facilities at his disposal will benefit from considering the question of how to manage and analyse the data (to be) collected. The first part of this paper focusses on a number of special programs for data storage and data retrieval like selecting and ordering the data. These programs are known as data management systems. The second part contains a discussion of some fundamental aspects of data analysis. The usefulness of a number of descriptive and statistical methods for analysis are illustrated on the basis of a sample of investigations current at the department of the sociology of literature at Tilburg University.

Ellis' theory of literary criticism

Abstract In his Theory of literary criticism Ellis shows to have a keen eye for a number of (especially methodological) shortcomings peculiar to post-war text-oriented literary theory and criticism. He succeeds in elucidating several issues from a meta-level viewpoint. Deserving of special notice is his attempt to connect questions about the nature of literature and about the literary status of texts with questions about the value attached to texts. But his attempt to rectify current views on the critics activities is unsuccessful in so far as he fails to call into question a number of untenable premises underlying text-oriented criticism. This prevents him from properly discussing the question what makes texts literary for a community. As logical analyst, he does not get down to the part members of the institution of criticisms play in the process of attributing properties and value to texts and of legitimising them as literary texts of a certain rank.