Theory of Literature

At the time of publication Wellek and Warren considered ''Theory of Literature'' unparalleled in English-language publications,{{sfn|Parrinder|1993|pp=135–136}} an attempt to unite [[literary theory]], [[literary criticism|criticism]], [[literary history|history]], and scholarship.{{sfn|Wellek|Warren|1949|p=v}} Although they noted a similarity to existing German and Russian works, the authors considered those earlier works "eclectic" and "doctrinaire", respectively.{{sfn|Parrinder|1993|pp=135–136}} Ballard writes that ''Theory of Literature'' was published during a time of increasing focus on the art of literature, rather than its underlying philosophy.{{sfn|Ballard|1951|p=108}}

At the time of publication Wellek and Warren considered ''Theory of Literature'' unparalleled in English-language publications,{{sfn|Parrinder|1993|pp=135–136}} an attempt to unite [[literary theory]], [[literary criticism|criticism]], [[literary history|history]], and scholarship.{{sfn|Wellek|Warren|1949|p=v}} Although they noted a similarity to existing German and Russian works, the authors considered those earlier works "eclectic" and "doctrinaire", respectively.{{sfn|Parrinder|1993|pp=135–136}} Ballard writes that ''Theory of Literature'' was published during a time of increasing focus on the art of literature, rather than its underlying philosophy.{{sfn|Ballard|1951|p=108}}

In an academic biography of Wellek, Michael Holquist of the [[University of Columbia]] writes that ''Theory of Literature'' established Wellek's reputation as a literary scholar{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=164}} for the next three decades.{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=163}} The book proved to be Wellek's only "book-length scholarly manifesto",{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=164}} a format which Holquist credits to Warren's influence.{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=176}} Wellek's other works were essays on literary theory and criticism which, even though bound in a single volume, did not provide a single coherent manifesto.{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=176}} Wellek would continue to use the theories contained in ''Theory of Literature'' into the late 1980s.{{sfn|van Rees|1984|p=505}}

In an academic biography of Wellek, Michael Holquist of [[Columbia University]] writes that ''Theory of Literature'' established Wellek's reputation as a literary scholar{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=164}} for the next three decades.{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=163}} The book proved to be Wellek's only "book-length scholarly manifesto",{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=164}} a format which Holquist credits to Warren's influence.{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=176}} Wellek's other works were essays on literary theory and criticism which, even though bound in a single volume, did not provide a single coherent manifesto.{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=176}} Wellek would continue to use the theories contained in ''Theory of Literature'' into the late 1980s.{{sfn|van Rees|1984|p=505}}

The book was used to teach literary theory at universities beginning not long after publication{{sfn|Scaglione|1958|p=400}} and remained dominant into the mid-1960s,{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=172}} at which time an increasingly heterogeneous academia questioned the universal value of literature; literary theorist [[Terry Eagleton]] finds that, after the 1960s, "it was no longer possible to take for granted what literature was, how to read it, or what social functions it might serve".{{sfn|Eagleton|2008|p=191}} Steven Mailloux describes ''Theory of Literature'' as crystallizing an American movement towards intrinsic literary criticism, as dominated by New Criticism,{{sfn|Mailloux|1984|p=51}} while van Rees credits the book with popularizing a text-oriented interpretation.{{sfn|van Rees|1984|p=501}} Grabowicz writes that its importance for both American and general literary studies is "indisputable".{{sfn|Ingarden|1979|p=lxiii}} Writing in 1987, Jeremy Hawthorn described the book as an "excellent introductory study", despite extrinsic studies having become more dominant in literary criticism,{{sfn|Parrinder|1993|pp=135–136}} while Holquist found that the book could still "be usefully invoked" in literary debates of the early 21st century.{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=165}} In an obituary of Wellek, Robert Thomas Jr. credited ''Theory of Literature'' with "introduc[ing] European scholarship to the United States" and establishing a framework for [[comparative literature]] studies in the United States.{{sfn|Thomas 1995, René Wellek}}

The book was used to teach literary theory at universities beginning not long after publication{{sfn|Scaglione|1958|p=400}} and remained dominant into the mid-1960s,{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=172}} at which time an increasingly heterogeneous academia questioned the universal value of literature; literary theorist [[Terry Eagleton]] finds that, after the 1960s, "it was no longer possible to take for granted what literature was, how to read it, or what social functions it might serve".{{sfn|Eagleton|2008|p=191}} Steven Mailloux describes ''Theory of Literature'' as crystallizing an American movement towards intrinsic literary criticism, as dominated by New Criticism,{{sfn|Mailloux|1984|p=51}} while van Rees credits the book with popularizing a text-oriented interpretation.{{sfn|van Rees|1984|p=501}} Grabowicz writes that its importance for both American and general literary studies is "indisputable".{{sfn|Ingarden|1979|p=lxiii}} Writing in 1987, Jeremy Hawthorn described the book as an "excellent introductory study", despite extrinsic studies having become more dominant in literary criticism,{{sfn|Parrinder|1993|pp=135–136}} while Holquist found that the book could still "be usefully invoked" in literary debates of the early 21st century.{{sfn|Holquist|2010|p=165}} In an obituary of Wellek, Robert Thomas Jr. credited ''Theory of Literature'' with "introduc[ing] European scholarship to the United States" and establishing a framework for [[comparative literature]] studies in the United States.{{sfn|Thomas 1995, René Wellek}}