---
name: ci-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a project fits Critical Inquiry (CI) and which format to target. CI is the leading interdisciplinary journal of criticism and theory in the arts and humanities, associated with no single school and tied to no single discipline; the test is a theoretical intervention with stakes beyond one field, not subfield novelty or a competent close reading alone. Helps frame the project; it does not gather sources.
---

# Topic Selection & Fit (ci-topic-selection)

*Critical Inquiry* is the discipline-crossing flagship of **criticism and theory** in the arts and
humanities. The bar is not "a smart reading no one has done" — it is **"a theoretical intervention
that reorients a conversation across fields."** Use this skill to pressure-test fit before you invest.

## When to trigger

- Choosing among possible projects or framings for a CI essay
- A reader said the piece feels "like a seminar paper" or "department-internal"
- Deciding between a full **Article** and a **Critical Response**
- Wondering whether the project is really theory, or just an able reading

## The CI fit test

A strong CI essay usually clears all four:

1. **An intervention, not a reading.** It changes how readers think about a concept, a practice, a
   period, or a medium — it does not merely interpret one more text competently.
2. **Interdisciplinary stakes.** A scholar in a *different* field (an art historian reading a literary
   essay; a philosopher reading a film essay) should see why it matters. The claim travels.
3. **Theory doing real work.** A concept (from theory, philosophy, or the essay's own coinage) is put
   to work on objects and earns its keep — not name-dropped (see `ci-theory-and-method`).
4. **Ambition proportionate to scope.** A large, genuinely interesting claim, made answerable within
   **~9,500 words** (notes included) — neither a grand gesture without objects nor a tiny point.

## Reach past your home field (CI is interdisciplinary by design)

| Home field | Reach across the disciplines by… |
|------------|----------------------------------|
| Literary study | make the stakes conceptual, not only textual — what does the reading do to a *theory*? |
| Art / visual culture | draw the argument about images, seeing, or mediation that a non-art-historian needs |
| Film / media | tie the case to general questions of form, technology, temporality, or attention |
| Philosophy / aesthetics | ground the concept in objects or cases, not only in the literature of the concept |
| Politics / history | show the conceptual or critical stakes, not just the empirical record |

## Format choice

- **Article** — full argument, broad theoretical claim, **≤ 9,500 words** (incl. notes and all
  bibliographical information).
- **Critical Response** — a focused reply to or debate with a published CI piece, **≤ 3,000 words**;
  it argues, it does not summarize (see `ci-argument-and-intervention`).
- **Review** — a short notice, **≤ 500 words**.

## Anti-patterns

- "No one has read X through theorist Y" as the whole contribution (a reading, not an intervention)
- A literature survey or state-of-the-field with no claim of its own
- A grand theoretical gesture with no object to test it on
- A department-internal point with no reason for another field to care

## Output format

```
【Project】one sentence
【Intervention】what it changes for readers (not "what it reads")
【Interdisciplinary stakes】who outside the home field cares, and why
【Theory at work】the concept and the object it acts on
【Format】Article / Critical Response / Review
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】ci-scholarly-positioning
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — primary objects, theory shelf, archives and image sources
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — CI scope, formats, and word caps