In "The Kenyon Review", Vivas wrote that the book's discussion of the relation between literary criticism and scholarship "leaves nothing to be desired", providing a "well balanced" look at the major points; he found that no other such work existed in English at the time. Vivas opined, however, that Wellek and Warren lacked a single, non-contradictory theory to use as a base for their conclusions. Kemp Malone, reviewing for "Linguistics", discussed three chapters on elements of literature related to linguistics. He considered these to provide "food for thought" for linguists and suggested that Wellek was well-versed in linguistics for a professor of literature, despite misusing several terms common in the discipline. Newton Arvin, writing in the "Partisan Review", found "Theory of Literature" to excessively indulge in formalism and expressed concern that the idea of literary history may have "gone into the discard once and for all". Benjamin found the book not something new, but a final assertion of the dominance of New Criticism in literary theory, a dominance which he considered untenable. Rather than emphasize theory, he found that "Theory of Literature" was "ninety-nine parts a 'good offense' against its slain and buried foes" with "exceptionally lucid and authoritative" discussions of literary problems. Scaglione opined that "Theory of Literature" plain, imprecise language had introduced numerous inconsistencies within its theoretical framework; he also stated that the book led readers to believe they were approaching an understanding of literature without ever reaching the core essence of the subject. Ingarden, who believed his theories the basis of Wellek and Warren's arguments, considered himself inadequately credited and took offense with the attribution of his ideas to "pure phenomenologists". He also stated that they had misrepresented his views. George Grabowicz, prefacing his translation of Ingarden's "The Literary Work of Art", suggested that "Theory of Literature" was "instrumental" in spreading Ingarden's ideas. At the time of publication Wellek and Warren considered "Theory of Literature" unparalleled in English-language publications, an attempt to unite literary theory, criticism, history, and scholarship. Although they noted a similarity to existing German and Russian works, the authors considered those earlier works "eclectic" and "doctrinaire", respectively. Ballard writes that "Theory of Literature" was published during a time of increasing focus on the art of literature, rather than its underlying philosophy.