Article published In:
Scientific Study of LiteratureVol. 4:2 (2014) ► pp.178–195
From “compelling and mystical” to “makes you want to commit suicide”
Quantifying the spectrum of online reader responses
The exploration of what makes a story interesting remains a popular topic in narrative theory. This study aims to contribute to the study of narrative interest by analyzing of a corpus of online amateur reviews of Marilynne Robinson’s debut novel Housekeeping from Amazon.com, Goodreads.com, and Librarything.com. The expectation is that, even on these vast, fluid social networking sites, there will still be patterns in the content of reviews, indicating evolving or established positioning strategies and practices. This study presents a viable, replicable method for quantifying what this particular group of amateur critics value in a text, thereby arriving at a deeper understanding of online review forums and the people who use them.
References (28)
Andringa, E. (1996). Effects of “narrative distance” on readers’ emotional involvement and response. Poetics 23(6), 431–452. 
Aubry, T.R. (2011). Reading as therapy: What contemporary fiction does for middle-class Americans. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Boot, P. (2011, October). Towards a genre analysis of online book discussion: Socializing, participation and publication in the Dutch booksphere. Paper presented at the Association of Internet Researchers Conference, Seattle, WA.
. (2012). Literary evaluation in online communities of writers and readers. Scholarly Research Communications 3(2), 1–8. Retrieved from: [URL].
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Questions of method. In E. Ibsch, D. Schram, & G. Steen (Eds.), Empirical studies of literature: Proceedings of the second IGEL-conference, Amsterdam 1989 (pp. 19–36). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature (R. Johnson, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Bortolussi, M., & Dixon, P. (1996). The effects of formal training on literary reception. Poetics 23(6), 471–487.
Burke, W.M. (1991). Border crossings in Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping
. Modern Fiction Studies 37(4), 716–724.
Collins, J. (2010). Bring on the books for everybody: How literary culture became popular culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Earthman, E.A. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Reader’s processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English 26(4), 351–384.
Geyh, P.E. (1993). Burning down the house? Domestic space and feminine subjectivity in Marilynne Robinson’s “Housekeeping”. Contemporary Literature 34(1), 103–122.
Gleed, A. (2014). Booktrust reading habits survey 2013: A national survey of reading habits and attitudes to books amongst adults in England. Retrieved from the Booktrust website: [URL]
Greenblatt, S. (1988). Shakespearean negotiations: The circulation of social energy in renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California Press.
. (1995). Culture. In F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin (Eds.), Critical terms for literary study (pp. 225–232). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Janssen, S. (1997). Reviewing as social practice: Institutional constraints on critics’ attention for contemporary fiction. Poetics 24(5), 275–297.
Keen, S. (2007). Empathy and the novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kirkby, J. (1986). Is there life after art? The metaphysics of Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping
. Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 5(1), 91–109.
McCrum, R. (2003, October 12). The 100 greatest novels of all time: The list. The Observer. Retrieved from [URL]
Oatley, K. (1999). Meetings of minds: Dialogue, sympathy, and identification, in reading fiction. Poetics 26(5), 439–454.
Robinson, M. (2005). Housekeeping. London: Faber & Faber. (Original work published 1980).
Ryan, M. (1991). Marilynne Robinson’s “Housekeeping”: The subversive narrative and the new American Eve. South Atlantic Review 56(1), 79–86.
Ryan, M.-L. (2005). Tellability. In D. Herman, M. Jahn, & M.-L. Ryan (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory (pp. 589–591). London: Routledge.
Sanford, A.J., & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steiner, A. (2008). Private criticism in the public space: Personal writing on literature in readers’ reviews on Amazon. Particip@tions 5(2). Retrieved from [URL]
Verboord, M. (2011). Cultural products go online: Comparing the Internet and print media on distributions of gender, genre and commercial success. Communications 36(4), 441–462.
. (2014). The impact of peer-produced criticism on cultural evaluation: A multilevel analysis of discourse employment in online and offline film reviews. New Media & Society 16(6), 921–940.
Vipond, D., & Hunt, R.A. (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics 13(3), 261–277.
What is the best work of American fiction of the last 25 years? (2006, May 21). The New York Times. Retrieved from [URL]
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Kuijpers, Moniek, Piroska Lendvai, Massimo Lusetti, Simone Rebora, Lina Ruh, Jonathan Tadres, Tina Ternes & Johanna Vogelsanger
2023. Absorption in Online Reviews of Books: Presenting the English-Language AbsORB Metadata Corpus and Annotation Guidelines. Journal of Open Humanities Data 9 
Kuijpers, Moniek M.
2022. Bodily involvement in readers’ online book reviews: applying Text World Theory to examine absorption in unprompted reader response. Journal of Literary Semantics 51:2 ► pp. 111 ff.
Rebora, Simone, Peter Boot, Federico Pianzola, Brigitte Gasser, J Berenike Herrmann, Maria Kraxenberger, Moniek M Kuijpers, Gerhard Lauer, Piroska Lendvai, Thomas C Messerli & Pasqualina Sorrentino
2021. Digital humanities and digital social reading. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36:Supplement_2 ► pp. ii230 ff.
Thelwall, Mike
2017. Book genre and author gender: Romance>Paranormal‐Romance to Autobiography>Memoir. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:5 ► pp. 1212 ff.
Thelwall, Mike
2019. Reader and author gender and genre in Goodreads. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 51:2 ► pp. 403 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.