Most Literature Reviews Miss the Point. Don’t Let Yours

Critically Engaging Past Work to Confidently Shape Your Own

Imagine standing before a massive block of marble, already half-chiseled by unknown hands. We didn’t choose the stone. We didn’t make the first incisions. Those who came before us delivered the early strikes, leaving behind rough contours, the beginnings of something not yet complete. Now it’s our turn at the chisel. But there’s no blueprint, no instruction. Only the faint imprint of past intentions, embedded in the stone’s uneven surface. Before we can carve forward, we have to understand what’s already there: what shape is emerging, and what hidden structure holds it together.

This is what a literature review feels like: disoriented at first, then quickly finding our footing in a structure built by others. It means stepping into a debate already in motion, on ground that often feels anything but solid. The task is rarely straightforward. It requires looking back before we can move forward: identifying what has been said, where arguments converge, and where they move apart. The literature is not background noise. It’s the stone we inherit: partially carved, uneven, and marked by earlier hands. A literature review doesn’t sideline the research; it sets the terms. It’s not untouched material, but a form in progress. What we shape from it defines where we go next.

Step 1: The Literature Review Is Part of Our Contribution

Too often, the literature review is treated as a box to tick before “real” writing begins. I think that’s a mistake. A literature review isn’t the background, it’s our orientation. It shows where we stand and why our next step matters.

A well-constructed literature review does three things:

1. It situates our argument: showing what’s already known, and how our question follows.

2. It maps the tension points: unresolved debates, blind spots, or questions left hanging.

3. It positions our work as necessary: it’s the next cut in the sculpture, not just an ornamental touch.

The goal isn’t to summarize everything, it’s to trace how the topic has taken shape in a way that makes room for our voice: timely, necessary, and distinct. This is where our contribution begins to take form.

Step 2: Find the Anchor Texts That Hold Up the Topic

We don’t need to read everything. We need to find the load-bearing texts: the ones that shape the topic’s intellectual weight. And those we need to reread for understanding.

In sculpture, the deepest cuts reveal the structure beneath the surface: the grain, the tension, the hidden form. These are the foundational strikes that everything else must answer to. Like the texts that we keep returning to, keep citing, keep contesting.

To locate them:

• Scan existing writing on the topic.

• Study recent overview articles on the topic.

• Use Google Scholar to trace citation trails: backward to roots, forward to offshoots.

Then we need to ask ourselves:

• What questions keep recurring?

• What assumptions go unchallenged?

• What concepts or data divide the topic?

These aren’t just references. They’re the intellectual armature, the internal structure that gives shape and coherence to the whole. Without them, our sculpting may produce detail, even flourish, but not something that endures.

Step 3: Map the Tensions, Not Just the Terrain

Strong literature reviews don’t just map what exists. They trace the fault lines.

Look for:

• Contradictions between arguments and findings.

• Theoretical blind spots.

• Foundational assumptions that don’t quite hold.

• Voices or cases that remain peripheral, or conveniently excluded.

These are the points where our work starts to matter. Tension reveals the puzzle. And no puzzle, no project. But a word of caution: the literature is vast, especially in interdisciplinary work. We can’t cite everyone. Nor should you try.

So to focus we can ask ourselves these questions:

• Which conversations does our work actually contribute to?

• Where will our argument be legible, and to whom?

• What’s the cost of citing too broadly, or too narrowly?

Sometimes not citing is a strategic choice. Other times, it’s an oversight. Make it a conscious decision, especially when crossing the boundaries between topics, fields or conversations. And engage existing voices with clarity and grace.

Step 4: The Literature Review Evolves with the Project

At the beginning, our reading is exploratory. We’re surveying existing work, trying to understand what’s been done and what’s missing. Later, as our argument sharpens, our literature review changes. It becomes a positioning tool, aligning our work with one branch of the conversation and differentiating it from others. This isn’t a flaw, it’s the process.

So, let’s not get stuck waiting to feel “ready” before we write. Our literature review won’t be perfect on the first pass. It’s part of how we think our way into the project.

Step 5: Connect the Dots Looking Backward

The entrepreneur Steve Jobs once said: “You can’t connect the dots looking forward, you can only connect them looking backward.” A literature review is exactly that. We trace ideas backward, not out of nostalgia, but because doing so reveals the logic of where others have been, and what still needs to be built. We begin to see which things repeat, which evidence holds, and which questions remain unanswered.

Our question becomes less a leap of faith, and more an inevitable next step. We don’t invent it. We see it, emerging from the structure we’ve laid bare.

Step 6: Write In Our Own Voice

When we write your review, don’t dump quotes. Don’t list who said what. Guide the reader across a structure:

• “While most agree on X, they diverge on Y...”

• “This literature explains A well, but overlooks B…”

• “Earlier work assumed C, but recent studies complicate that claim…”

We’re not just reporting what’s out there. We’re showing why this conversation matters now, and where our voice belongs inside it.

Final Thought: Absorb, Respect, Articulate

When we’re new to a subject, it can feel like stepping into a studio mid-process: tools scattered, dust hanging in the air, the marble already bearing marks we didn’t make.
The truth is, no one sculpts without influence. We work in the shadow of those who came before us, whose early strikes gave shape to the very questions we now ask.

The vision is never whole at the start. We all enter in the rough: the form uncertain, the edges unresolved. This isn’t a transitional phase; it’s the substance of the work. It’s where reading begins to press against reasoning. Where questions carve out contours. Where perspective begins to settle into structure. So yes, read widely, but not aimlessly. Trace the chisel marks backward. Honour the hands that held the tools before you. And then begin shaping forward.

You’re not behind. You’re in the stone. Now: reveal what’s there, and why it matters.

Let’s Keep Carving Together: Subscribe

If this post resonated with you, or if you're chipping away at your own block of marble, I’d love to stay in touch. Respect the Marble is a space for anyone thinking seriously about how we write, why it matters, and how finding our voice is a craft. Each post is paired with a Skillpower Session: practical notes on writing with clarity, structure, and care. Not to spam, just the occasional spark: honest reflections, useful tips, and the odd insight worth chiseling out.

I hope you'll subscribe, share your thoughts, or simply return. You can reply directly to any post or email me, I read every message. Writing is often solitary, but it doesn’t have to be isolating. Let’s keep this conversation going, together.