We introduce EmotionArcs, a dataset comprising emotional arcs from over 9,000 English novels, assembled to understand the dynamics of emotions represented in text and how these emotions may influence a novel ́s reception and perceived quality. We evaluate emotion arcs manually, by comparing them to human annotation and against other similar emotion modeling systems to show that our system produces coherent emotion arcs that correspond to human interpretation. We present and make this resource available for further studies of a large collection of emotion arcs and present one application, exploring these arcs for modeling reader appreciation. Using information-theoretic measures to analyze the impact of emotions on literary quality, we find that emotional entropy, as well as the skewness and steepness of emotion arcs correlate with two proxies of literary reception. Our findings may offer insights into how quality assessments relate to emotional complexity and could help with the study of affect in literary novels.

This study extends previous research on literary quality by using information theory-based methods to assess the level of perplexity recorded by three large language models when processing 20th-century English novels deemed to have high literary quality, recognized by experts as canonical, compared to a broader control group. We find that canonical texts appear to elicit a higher perplexity in the models, we explore which textual features might concur to create such an effect. We find that the usage of a more heavily nominal style, together with a more diverse vocabulary, is one of the leading causes of the difference between the two groups. These traits could reflect “strategies” to achieve an informationally dense literary style.

Studies on literary quality have constantly stimulated the interest of critics, both in theoretical and empirical fields. To examine the perceived quality of literary works, some approaches have focused on data annotated through crowd-sourcing platforms, and others relied on available expert annotated data. In this work, we contribute to the debate by presenting a dataset collecting quality judgments on 9,000 19th and 20th century English-language literary novels by 3,150 predominantly Anglophone authors. We incorporate expert opinions and crowd-sourced annotations to allow comparative analyses between different literary quality evaluations. We also provide several textual metrics chosen for their potential connection with literary reception and engagement. While a large part of the texts is subjected to copyright, we release quality and reception measures together with stylometric and sentiment data for each of the 9,000 novels to promote future research and comparison.

Over the years, the task of predicting reader appreciation or literary quality has been the object of several studies, but it remains a challenging problem in quantitative literary studies and computational linguistics alike, as its definition can vary a lot depending on the genre, the adopted features and the annotation system. This paper attempts to evaluate the impact of sentiment arc modelling versus more classical stylometric features for user-ratings of novels. We run our experiments on a corpus of English language narrative literary fiction from the 19th and 20th century, showing that syntactic and surface-level features can be powerful for the study of literary quality, but can be outperformed by sentiment-characteristics of a text.

Using a large corpus of English language novels from 1880 to 2000, we compare several textual features associated with literary quality, seeking to examine developments in literary language and narrative complexity through time. We show that while we find a correlation between the features, readability metrics are the only ones that exhibit a steady evolution, indicating that novels become easier to read through the 20th century but not simpler. We discuss the possibility of cultural selection as a factor and compare our findings with a subset of canonical works.

In this paper, we explore the extent to which readability contributes to the perception of literary quality as defined by two categories of variables: expert-based (e.g., Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award) and crowd-based (e.g., GoodReads, WorldCat). Based on a large corpus of modern and contemporary fiction in English, we examine the correlation of a text’s readability with its perceived literary quality, also assessing readability measures against simpler stylometric features. Our results show that readability generally correlates with popularity as measured through open platforms such as GoodReads and WorldCat but has an inverse relation with three prestigious literary awards. This points to a distinction between crowd- and expert-based judgments of literary style, as well as to a discrimination between fame and appreciation in the reception of a book.

Predicting literary quality and reader appreciation of narrative texts are highly complex challenges in quantitative and computational literary studies due to the fluid definitions of quality and the vast feature space that can be considered when modeling a literary work. This paper investigates the potential of sentiment arcs combined with topical-semantic profiling of literary narratives as indicators for their literary quality. Our experiments focus on a large corpus of 19th and 20the century English language literary fiction, using GoodReads’ ratings as an imperfect approximation of the diverse range of reader evaluations and preferences. By leveraging a stacked ensemble of regression models, we achieve a promising performance in predicting average readers’ scores, indicating the potential of our approach in modeling literary quality.

Approaches in literary quality tend to belong to two main grounds: one sees quality as completely subjective, relying on the idiosyncratic nature of individual perspectives on the apperception of beauty; the other is ground-truth inspired, and attempts to find one or two values that predict something like an objective quality: the number of copies sold, for example, or the winning of a prestigious prize. While the first school usually does not try to predict quality at all, the second relies on a single majority vote in one form or another. In this article we discuss the advantages and limitations of these schools of thought and describe a different approach to reader’s quality judgments, which moves away from raw majority vote, but does try to create intermediate classes or groups of annotators. Drawing on previous works we describe the benefits and drawbacks of building similar annotation classes. Finally we share early results from a large corpus of literary reviews for an insight into which classes of readers might make most sense when dealing with the appreciation of literary quality.

e explore the correlation between the sentiment arcs of H. C. Andersen’s fairy tales and their popularity, measured as their average score on the platform GoodReads. Specifically, we do not conceive a story’s overall sentimental trend as predictive per se, but we focus on its coherence and predictability over time as represented by the arc’s Hurst exponent. We find that degrading Hurst values tend to imply degrading quality scores, while a Hurst exponent between .55 and .65 might indicate a “sweet spot” for literary appreciation.