Topic models are useful tools for discovering latent semantic structures in large textual corpora. Recent efforts have been oriented at incorporating contextual representations in topic modeling and have been shown to outperform classical topic models. These approaches are typically slow, volatile, and require heavy preprocessing for optimal results. We present Semantic Signal Separation (S³), a theory-driven topic modeling approach in neural embedding spaces. S³ conceptualizes topics as independent axes of semantic space and uncovers these by decomposing contextualized document embeddings using Independent Component Analysis. Our approach provides diverse and highly coherent topics, requires no preprocessing, and is demonstrated to be the fastest contextual topic model, being, on average, 4.5x faster than the runner-up BERTopic. We offer an implementation of S³, and all contextual baselines, in the Turftopic Python package.

Digitized literary corpora of the 19th century favor canonical and novelistic forms, sidelining a broader and more diverse literary production. Serialized fiction – widely read but embedded in newspapers – remains especially underexplored, particularly in low-resource languages like Danish. This paper addresses this gap by developing methods to identify fiction in digitized Danish newspapers (1818–1848).We (1) introduce a manually annotated dataset of 1,394 articles and (2) evaluate classification pipelines using both selected linguistic features and embeddings, achieving F1-scores of up to 0.91. Finally, we (3) analyze feuilleton fiction via interpretable features to test its drift in discourse from neighboring nonfiction.Our results support the construction of alternative literary corpora and contribute to ongoing work on modeling the fiction–nonfiction boundary by operationalizing discourse-level distinctions at scale.

Recent studies suggest that canonical works possess unique textual profiles, often tied to innovation and higher cognitive demands. However, recent work on Danish 19th century literary novels has shown that some non-canonical works shared similar textual qualities with canonical works, underscoring the role of text-extrinsic factors in shaping canonicity. The present study examines the same corpus (more than 800 Danish novels from the Modern Breakthrough era (1870–1900)) to explore socio-economic and institutional factors, as well as demographic features, specifically, book prices, publishers, and the author’s nationality – in determining canonical status. We combine expert-based and national definitions of canon to set up a classification experiment to test the predictive power of these external features, and to understand how they relate to that of text-intrinsic features. We show that the canonization process is influenced by external factors – such as publisher and nationality – but that text-intrinsic features nevertheless maintain predictive power in a dynamic interplay of text and context.

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.

We explore the relationship between stylistic and sentimental complexity in literary texts, analyzing how they interact and affect overall complexity. Using a dataset of over 9,000 English novels (19th-20th century), we find that complexity at the stylistic/syntactic and sentiment levels tend to show a linear association. Finally, using dedicated datasets, we show that both stylistic/syntactic features – particularly those relating to information density – as well as sentiment features are related to text difficulty rank as well as average processing time.

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.

We examine the relationship between the canonization of Danish novels and their textual innovation and influence, taking the Danish Modern Breakthrough era (1870–1900) as a case study. We evaluate whether canonical novels introduced a significant textual novelty in their time, and explore their influence on the overall literary trend of the period. By analyzing the positions of canonical versus non-canonical novels in semantic space, we seek to better understand the link between a novel’s canonical status and its literary impact. Additionally, we examine the overall diversification of Modern Breakthrough novels during this significant period of rising literary readership. We find that canonical novels stand out from both the historical novel genre and non-canonical novels of the period. Our findings on diversification within and across groups indicate that the novels now regarded as canonical served as literary trendsetters of their time.

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.

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.

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.