Article published In:
Scientific Study of LiteratureVol. 5:1 (2015) ► pp.3–22
The question of literary quality
A rhetorical and game-theoretical approach
This article explores the hermeneutic potential of mathematical game theory for the study of literary quality, thus advocating a rhetorical reconciliation between plain formalism and plain constructivism. If literary quality is constituted by mathematical parameters of literary quality, we should at least, conceptually, come to an agreement about how these parameters are interrelated, as this is necessary for a quantifiable methodology. The proposed method starts from Hotelling’s location game (but expands this to hyperspace) to advocate a feasible model for describing audience distribution in a calculable manner. Through the notion of the “middle position,” it is argued that the search for literary quality should try to find the right measure of a literary parameter in order to be successful. The article concludes with a survey of caveats and potential pitfalls, which should inspire a cautious, yet confident, application of the proposed methodology.
References (17)
Aldama, F.L. (Ed.). (2010). Toward a cognitive theory of narrative acts. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bennett, W. (1971). Conflict rhetoric and game theory: An extrapolation and example. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 37(1), 34–46. 
Deneire, T., Eelbode, D., & Lauwers, J. (2014). A game with words: Rhetorical citizenship and game theory. In C. Kock & L. Villadsen (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical citizenship (pp. 323–340). Leiden, Netherlands: Leiden University Press.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.
Eagleton, T. (1990). The ideology of the aesthetic. London, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Fish, S. (1982). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Herman, G. (1998). Reciprocity, altruism, and the prisoner’s dilemma: The special case of Classical Athens. In C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, & Richard Seaford (Eds.), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (pp. 199–225). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 31, 41–57.
Jaén, I. & Simon, J.J. (Eds.). (2012). Cognitive literary studies. Current themes and new directions. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
McCarty, N., & Meirowitz, A. (2007). Political game theory: An introduction. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kearns, M. (1999). Rhetorical narratology. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Phelan, J. (1983). Data, Danda, and Disagreement. Diacritics, 131, 39–50.
Slethaug, G.E. (1995). Game theory. In I.R. Makaryk (Ed.), Encyclopedia of contemporary literary theory (pp. 64–69). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Van Eemeren, F. (2009). Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Peer, W. (Ed.). (2008). The quality of literature. Linguistic studies in literary evaluation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zamora Bonilla, J.P. (2006). Rhetoric, induction, and the free speech dilemma. Philosophy of Science, 73(2), 175–193.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Montoro, Rocío
2016. The year’s work in stylistics 2015. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 25:4 ► pp. 376 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.