Graphic novels through the lens of Goodreads reviews: Artistic,textual,or blend of both?

Abstract

In this study, a textual analysis of the linguistic characteristics of Goodreads user-generated reviews associated with popular graphic novels revealed reviewers’ rich evaluations of both textual and visual characteristics of the novels as well as the embodied orientation of the reviewers’ narrations, wherein positive emotions associated with the reading experience dominated. Overall, the blend of users’ unique perceptions of textual and visual characteristics of graphic novels contributes to the genre’s vivid representation and discoverability. The machine analysis of user-generated reviews revealed a high rate of function words, pronouns, and auxiliary verbs, which may suggest reviewers’ social orientation. This high rate of function words and the overall positive tone of the reviews may also be interpreted as reviewers’ attempts to promote their reviews and influence others’ reading choices.

Keywords

Graphic novels user-generated reviews Goodreads book reviews

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

Blank

Hale

(2018) Digital traces of distinction? Popular orientation and user-engagement with status hierarchies in TripAdvisor reviews of cultural organizations. New Media & Society 20(11): 4218–4236.

Aron

Coups

(2006) Statistics for Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Atkinson

(2011) The context and genesis of musical tastes: Omnivorousness debunked, Bourdieu buttressed. Poetics 39(3): 169–186.

Blair

(1990) Language and Representation in Information Retrieval. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bourdieu

(2012) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. New York, NY: Routledge.

Brandt

Herzberg

(2020) Is a cover letter still needed? Using LIWC to predict application success. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 28: 417–429.

Brenner

(2011) Comics and graphic novels. In. Wolf

Coats

Enciso

et al. (eds) Handbook of Research on Children’s and Young Adult Literature. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 256–274.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Chung

Pennebaker

(2007) The psychological functions of function words. In. Fiedler

(ed.) Social Communication. New York, NY: Psychology Press, pp. 343–360.

10.

Cohen

(1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 37–46.

11.

Cook

(2016) Now I ‘see’: The impact of graphic novels on reading comprehension in high school English classrooms. Literacy Research and Instruction 56(1): 21–53.

12.

Davis

(2010) Maus goes to college: Graphic novels on reserve at an academic library. In. Weiner

(ed.) Graphic Novels and Comics in Libraries and Archives: Essays on Readers, Research, History and Cataloguing. Jefferson, MO: McFarland, pp. 81–86.

13.

Frey

Fisher

(2004) Using graphic novels, anime, and the internet in an urban high school. The English Journal 93(3): 19–25.

14.

Furner

(2007) Dewey deracialized: A critical race-theoretic perspective. Knowledge Organization 34(3): 144–168.

15.

Garrison

Gavigan

(2019) Picture this: Using graphic novels to explore social justice issues with young adults. Teacher Librarian 46(3): 8–12.

16.

Hajibayova

(2019) Investigation of Goodreads reviews: Kakutained, deceived or simply honest? Journal of Documentation 75(3): 612–626.

17.

Hajibayova

(2019b) Guardians of the knowledge: Relevant, irrelevant, or algorithmic? Information Research 24(4): 839. Available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/24-4/paper839.html

18.

Hajibayova

(2020) An investigation of cultural objects in conflict zones through the lens of TripAdvisor reviews: A case of South Caucasus. Journal of Information Science 46(5): 710–722.

19.

Holtzman

Tackman

Carey

, et al. (2019) Linguistic markers of grandiose narcissism: A LIWC analysis of 15 samples. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38(5–6): 773–786.

20.

Hoover

(2012) The case for graphic novels. Comminfolit 5(2): 174–186.

21.

Hughes

Morrison

(2014) The evolution of teaching with graphic novels. Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 6(2: 116–127.

22.

Hurst

Marsh

Brown

, et al. (2017) Cats, comics, and Knausgård: Promoting student reading at a U.K. academic library with a leisure reading collection. New Review of Academic Librarianship 23(4): 442–452.

23.

Jiménez

Meyer

(2016) First impressions matter. Journal of Literacy Research 48(4): 423–447.

24.

Jiménez

Roberts

Brugar

, et al. (2017) Moving our can(n)ons: Toward an appreciation of multimodal texts in the classroom. The Reading Teacher 71(3): 363–368.

25.

Kousha

Thelwall

Abdoli

(2017) Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68(8): 2004–2016.

26.

Lampel

Bhalla

(2007) The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving the gift of experience. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(2): 434–455.

27.

Landis

Koch

(1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174.

28.

Ott

Cardie

, et al. (2014) Towards a general rule for identifying deceptive opinion spam. In: Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics volume 1: Long papers 521, Baltimore, MD, June, pp. 1566–1576. New York, NY: ACM.

29.

Mai

(2011) Folksonomies and the new order: Authority in the digital disorder. Knowledge Organization 38(2): 114–122.

30.

Matz

(2004) Collecting comic books for an academic library. Collection Building 23(2): 96–99.

31.

Meyer

Jiménez

(2017) Using every word and image: Framing graphic novel instruction in the expanded four resources model. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 61(2): 153–161.

32.

Meyer

Mahalingappa

Brugar

(2019) Thinking inside the box: Using graphic novels to English language learners in the social studies classroom. In. de Oliveira

Obenchain

Kenney

, et al. (eds) Approaches to Teaching the Content Areas to English Language Learners in Secondary Schools: English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Cham: Springer, pp. 311–325.

33.

Nyberg

(2010) How librarians learned to love the graphic novel. In. Weiner

(ed.) Graphic Novels and Comics in Libraries and Archives. Jefferson, MO: McFarland, pp. 26–40.

34.

O’Reilly

Marx

(2011) How young, technical consumers assess online WOM credibility. Qualitative Market Research 14(4): 330–359.

35.

Patton

(1999) Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research 34(5): 1189–1208.

36.

Pennebaker

(2011) The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

37.

Pennebaker

King

(1999) Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 1296–1312.

38.

Pennebaker

Boyd

Jordan

, et al. (2015) The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

39.

Rafferty

(2019) Disrupting the metanarrative: A little history of image indexing and retrieval. Knowledge Organization 46(1): 4–14.

40.

Reid

(2018) Selling graphic novels in a changing American marketplace. Publishers Weekly, 19 October. Available at: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/78393-selling-graphic-novels-in-a-changing-american-marketplace.html (accessed 31 May 2020).

41.

Rochon

Saffran

Berndt

, et al. (2000) Quantitative analysis of aphasic sentence production: Further development and new data. Brain and Language 72(3): 193–218.

42.

Schwarz

(2006) Expanding literacies through graphic novels. English Journal 95(6): 58–64.

43.

Slater

Kardos

(2017) Graphic novels: Collecting, cataloging and outreach in an academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 43(2: 116–120.

44.

Tausczik

Pennebaker

(2010) The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29: 24–54.

45.

Thelwall

(2017) Book genre and author gender: Romance>paranormal-romance to autobiography>memoir. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68: 1212–1223.

46.

Thelwall

(2019) Reader and author gender and genre in Goodreads. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 51(2): 403–430.

47.

Thelwall

Bourrier

(2019) The reading background of Goodreads book club members: A female fiction canon? Journal of Documentation 75(5): 1139–1161.

48.

Thelwall

Kousha

(2016) Goodreads: A social network site for book readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68(4): 972–983.

49.

Verboord

(2012) Female bestsellers: A cross-national study of gender inequality and the popular–highbrow culture divide in fiction book production, 1960–2009. European Journal of Communication 27(4): 395–409.

50.

Verboord

(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.

51.

Wang

Liu

Han

(2019) Exploring Goodreads reviews for book impact assessment. Journal of Informetrics 13(3): 874–886.

52.

Wang

Kolsinski

Stillwell

, et al. (2014) Can well-being be measured using Facebook status updates? Validation of Facebook’s Gross National Happiness Index. Social Indicators Research 15: 483–491.

53.

West

(2013) Tag, you’re it: Enhancing access to graphic novels. Libraries and the Academy 13: 301–324.

54.

Wittgenstein

(1953) Philosophical Investigations (trans, GEM Anscombe). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.

55.

Yoo

K-H

Gretzel

(2009) Comparison of deceptive and truthful travel reviews. In. Höpken

Gretzel

Law

(eds) Proceedings of Sixteenth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Travel and Tourism in Amsterdam. Amsterdam; Wien: Springer, pp. 37–47.

56.

Zuccala

Verleysen

Cornacchia

, et al. (2015) Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books. ASLIB Journal of Information Management: New Information Perspectives 67(3): 320–336.