@inproceedings{bizzoni-etal-2025-effects,
    title = "Effects of Publicity and Complexity in Reader Polarization",
    author = "Bizzoni, Yuri  and
      Feldkamp, Pascale  and
      Nielbo, Kristoffer",
    editor = {H{\"a}m{\"a}l{\"a}inen, Mika  and
      {\"O}hman, Emily  and
      Bizzoni, Yuri  and
      Miyagawa, So  and
      Alnajjar, Khalid},
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language Processing for Digital Humanities",
    month = may,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Albuquerque, USA",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/fix-sig-urls/2025.nlp4dh-1.13/",
    pages = "138--150",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-234-3",
    abstract = "We investigate how Goodreads rating distributions reflect variations in audience reception across literary works. By examining a large-scale dataset of novels, we analyze whether metrics such as the entropy or standard deviation of rating distributions correlate with textual features {--} including perplexity, nominal ratio, and syntactic complexity. These metrics reveal a disagreement continuum: more complex texts {--} i.e., more cognitively demanding books, with a more canon-like textual profile {--} generate polarized reader responses, while mainstream works produce more uniform reactions. We compare evaluation patterns across canonical and non-canonical works, bestsellers, and prize-winners, finding that textual complexity drives rating polarization even when controlling for publicity effects. Our findings demonstrate that linguistically unpredictable texts, particularly those with higher nominal density and dependency distance, generate divergent reader evaluations. This challenges conventional literary success metrics and suggests that the shape of rating distributions offers valuable insights beyond average scores. We hope our approach establishes a productive framework for understanding how literary features influence reception and how disagreement metrics can enhance our understanding of public literary judgment."
}