Readers of Popular Fiction and Emotion Online

  • Beth Driscoll
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

One of the striking features of popular fiction is that at least part of its readership can be identified as fans: deeply knowledgeable and passionately engaged with a book, author or genre, and active participants in the non-academic reception of these cultural products. In his book Popular Fiction: Logics and Practices of a Literary Field, Ken Gelder writes that popular fiction ‘often enjoys a particular kind of reader loyalty, one that can build itself around not just a writer and his or her body of work (which certainly happens) but the entire genre and the culture that imbues it. In other words, popular fiction has fans’ (2004, p. 81). Fan studies have historically recognized ‘textual productivity’ (Fiske 1992)—the creation of zines, newsletters, websites and so on—as a hallmark of engagement; more recently, the opportunities for such activity have been multiplied by the interactive digital spaces of Web 2.0 (Booth 2010; Hills 2013; Jenkins et al. 2013). Review sections on Goodreads and Amazon, book clubs on Twitter, networks of book blogs and comment threads on news articles all provide spaces where readers can write responses to popular fiction. This chapter begins with the position that a reader who creates a textual response to a book, author or genre is a fan, while remaining interested in the way in which different kinds of textual responses can reflect varying levels of investment.

Keywords

Sentiment Analysis Close Reading Book Club Critical Sociology Cultural Sociology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Works Cited

  1. Best, S., & Marcus, S. (2009). Surface reading: An introduction. Representations, 108(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth, P. (2010). Digital fandom: New media studies. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature (R. Johnson, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field (S. Emanuel, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (2007 [1986]). The forms of capital. In A. R. Sadovnic (Ed.), The sociology of education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ceilidh. (2014, October 18). An open letter to Kathleen Hale and Guardian books: Stalking is not okay. Bibliodaze. http://bibliodaze.com/2014/10/an-open-letter-to-kathleen-hale-guardian-books-stalking-is-not-okay/
  9. Driscoll, B. (2014). The new literary middlebrow: Tastemakers and reading in the twenty-first century. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driscoll, B. (2015). Sentiment analysis and the literary festival audience. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 29(6), 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dromi, S. M., & Illouz, E. (2010). Recovering morality: Pragmatic sociology and literary studies. New Literary History, 41(2), 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, A., & Stasi, M. (2014). Desperately seeking methodology: New directions in fan studies research. Participations, 11(2), 4–23.Google Scholar
  13. Feldman Barrett, L. (2006). Valence is a basic building block of emotional life. Journal of Research into Personality, 40(1), 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiske, J. (1992). The cultural economy of fandom. In L. Lewis (Ed.), The adoring audience: Fan culture and popular media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Franssen, T., & Kuipers, G. (2015). Sociology of literature and publishing in the early 21st century: Away from the centre. Cultural Sociology, 9(3), 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frow, J. (2014). Genre. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Fuller, D., & Rehberg Sedo, D. (2013). Reading beyond the book: The social practices of contemporary literary culture. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gelder, K. (2004). Popular fiction: The logics and practices of a literary field. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gruzd, A. and Rehberg Sedo, D. (2012). #1b1t: Investigating reading practices at the turn of the twenty-first century. Memoires du Livre/Studies in Book Culture, 3(2). http://www.erudit.org/revue/memoires/2012/v3/n2/1009347ar.html
  20. Hale, K. (2013). No one else can have you. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  21. Hale, K. (2014, October 18). Am i being catfished? An author confronts her number one critic. Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/18/am-i-being-catfished-an-author-confronts-her-number-one-online-critic
  22. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Love, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972–79. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  23. Hills, M. (2013). Fiske’s ‘textual productivity’ and digital fandom: Web 2.0 democratization versus fan distinction? Participations, 10(1). http://participations.org/Volume%2010/Issue%201/9%20Hills%2010.1.pdf
  24. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York/London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lexalytics. (2015). Sentiment analysis. http://www.lexalytics.com/technical-info/sentiment-analysis
  27. Litte, J. (2014, October 19). On the importance of pseudonymous activity. Dear author. http://dearauthor.com/features/essays/on-the-importance-of-pseudonymous-activity/
  28. Long, E. (2003). Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Love, H. (2010). Close but not deep: Literary ethics and the descriptive turn. New Literary History, 41(2), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moretti, F. (2005). Graphs, maps, trees: Abstract models for literary theory. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  31. Mozes, S. (2010, November 12). James Frey’s fiction factory. New York. http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/69474/index1.html
  32. Nakamura, L. (2013). Words with friends: Socially networked reading on Goodreads. PMLA, 128(1), 238–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radway, J. (1997). A feeling for books: The book-of-the-month club, literary taste, and middle-class desire. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ray Murray, P., & Squires, C. (2013). The digital publishing communications circuit. Book 2.0, 3(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Susen, S. (2014). Towards a dialogue between Pierre Bourdieu’s ‘critical sociology’ and Luc Boltanski’s ‘pragmatic sociology of critique’. In S. Susen & B. Turner (Eds.), The spirit of Luc Boltanski. London/New York: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  37. Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D., & Uppal, S. (2010). Data mining emotion in social network communication: Gender differences in MySpace. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 190–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wendall, S. (2014, October 18). The choices of Kathleen Hale. In Smart bitches, trashy books. http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/2014/10/the-choices-of-kathleen-hale/

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beth Driscoll
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations