Book reviews written by readers and published on digital sites such as Goodreads are a new force in contemporary book culture. This article uses feminist standpoint theory to investigate the language used in Goodreads reviews to better understand how these reviewers articulate intimate reading experiences. A total of 692 reviews of seven bestselling fiction and nonfiction books are analyzed by two methods. The first, thematic content analysis, involves close reading of the reviews. The second, sentiment analysis, is an automated “distant reading” process. These methods prompt us, as researchers, to reflect on the way they foster or inhibit a sense of proximity to readers, even as they reveal predominant features of Goodreads reviews. Together, the methods reveal that 86.1% of Goodreads reviews describe a reading experience, and 68% specifically mention an emotional reaction to the book, with the emotion most intense in reviews of fiction. Reviews also create social connections by mentioning other readers, authors, characters, and people from the reviewer’s life. Through their emotional language and sociality, Goodreads reviews present distinctive, intimate reading practices, constituting a new cultural phenomenon, and a unique opportunity for investigation.
AhmedS. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
3.
AllingtonD. (2016). “Power to the reader” or “degradation of literary taste”? Professional critics and Amazon customers as reviewers of The Inheritance of Loss. Language and Literature, 25, 254-278.
4.
AllingtonD.BenwellB. (2012). Reading the reading experience: An ethnomethodological approach to “booktalk.” In LangA. (Ed.), From codex to hypertext: Reading at the turn of the twenty-first century (pp. 217-233). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
BerlantL. (1998). Intimacy: A special issue. Critical Inquiry, 24, 281-288.
7.
BerlantL. (2008). The female complaint: The unfinished business of sentimentality in American culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
8.
CollinsJ. (2010). Bring on the books for everybody: How literary culture became popular culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
9.
DriscollB. (2013). Twitter, literary prizes and the circulation of capital. In StinsonE. (Ed.), By the book? Contemporary publishing in Australia (pp. 103-119). Clayton, Australia: Monash University Publishing.
10.
DriscollB. (2015). Sentiment analysis and the literary festival audience. Continuum, 29, 861-873.
11.
DriscollB. (2016). Readers of popular fiction and emotion online. In GelderK. (Ed.), New directions in popular fiction (pp. 425-449). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
Feldman BarrettL. (2006). Are emotions natural kinds?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 28-58.
13.
FelskiR. (2015). The limits of critique. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
GiddensA. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
22.
GoldsmithM. (2016). Exploring the author–reader relationship in contemporary speculative fiction: The influence of author persona on readers in the era of the online “author platform.”Logos, 27(1), 31-44.
GutjahrP. C. (2002). No longer left behind: Amazon.com, reader response, and the changing fortunes of the Christian novel in America. Book History, 5, 209-236.
25.
HardingJ.PribramE. D. (2009). Emotions: A cultural studies reader. London, England: Routledge.
26.
HortonD.WohlR. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
27.
HowieL. (2011). Speaking subjects: Developing identities in women’s reading communities. In SedoD. R. (Ed.), Reading communities from salons to cyberspace (pp. 140-158). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
IllouzE. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
LatourB. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225-248.
31.
LongE. (2003). Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
LuhmannN. (1998). Love as passion: The codification of intimacy (GainesJ.JonesD. L., Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
McGlottenS. (2014). Virtual intimacies. New York: State University of New York Press.
34.
MurrayS. (2015). Charting the digital literary sphere. Contemporary Literature, 56, 311-339.
35.
MurrayS.WeberM. (2017). “Live and local”?Convergence, 23, 61-78.
36.
NakamuraL. (2013). “Words with friends”: Socially networked reading on “Goodreads.”PMLA, 128, 238-243.
37.
ProctorJ.BenwellB. (2015). Reading across worlds: Transnational book groups and the reception of difference. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
Rehberg SedoD. (2003). Readers in reading groups: An online survey of face-to-face and virtual book clubs. Convergence, 9, 66-90.
39.
Rehberg SedoD. (2011). “I used to read anything that caught my eye, but . . . ”: Cultural authority and intermediaries in a virtual young adult book club. In Rehberg SedoD. (Ed.), Reading communities from salons to cyberspace (pp. 101-123). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
RojekC. (2016). Presumed intimacy: Para-social relationships in media, society and celebrity culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
41.
RowberryS. P. (2016). Commonplacing the public domain: Reading the classics socially on the Kindle. Language and Literature, 25, 211-225.
42.
ScheerM. (2012). Are emotions a kind of practice (and is that what makes them have a history)? A Bourdieuian approach to understanding emotion. History and Theory, 51, 193-220.
43.
SimsionG. (2013). The Rosie Project. Melbourne: Text Publishing.
44.
SmithD. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
45.
SolomonR. C., (Ed.). (2003). What is an emotion? Classic and contemporary readings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
SweeneyM. (2010). Reading is my window books and the art of reading in women’s prisons. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
48.
TaylorJ. B. (2007). Readers’ advisory—Good for what? Non-appeal, discussability, and book groups (Part 1)Reference & User Services Quarterly, 46(4), 33-36.
49.
ThelwallM.BuckleyK.PaltoglouG.CaiD.KappasA. (2010). Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 2544-2558. doi:10.1002/asi.21416
50.
ThelwallM.KoushaK. (2016). Goodreads: A social network site for book readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 972-983.
51.
VliegheJ.MulsJ.RuttenK. (2016). Everybody reads: Reader engagement with literature in social media environments. Poetics, 54, 25-37.
52.
WhiteleyS. (2011). Text World Theory, real readers and emotional responses to The Remains of the Day. Language and Literature, 20(1), 23-42.
