How should i handle seminal works in my lit review without overemphasizing them?

[Dennis.B]

I'm drafting the literature review for my dissertation and I'm struggling with how to handle seminal works that have been heavily critiqued. I feel like I need to summarize their core arguments for context, but dedicating several paragraphs to theories my own work will largely disagree with feels inefficient and might misrepresent my focus. I'm worried about giving outdated ideas too much space versus properly establishing the academic conversation.

[Scott47]

Yeah I’ve wrestled with that too. I kept the seminal work in the background with a quick nod to its existence, then I moved straight into the critiques and how the field currently treats the idea. I avoided reproducing the whole argument and focused on what my own question needs from that history. It felt tedious but it kept me from overloading the reader.

[MadisonW]

I also tried a small structural trick. One short sentence to acknowledge the source, then a separate 'contestation' paragraph where I spell out the critiques at a high level and center my contribution. I used citations and a few footnotes so the main text stays tight and the focus stays on the present conversation rather than the old debate.

[NathanS]

Not sure if the wall I hit is the right wall. Do you think the real issue is not the old theories but whether your own research question actually requires engaging with them at length? Sometimes I felt I was chasing a perfect literature map that wasn’t corresponding to what I wanted to test.

[Ella_G]

One time I drifted off topic about how to label sections and almost lost the thread. I did end up coming back to the point that the critique should be visible but not dominant; I sketched a tiny timeline in the margin showing how opinions shifted and then cut that back so readers see the current stance and your gap. I added a sentence that the older ideas are a starting point, not the destination, and then focused on what you actually do differently.