#Bookstagram and beyond : the presence and depiction of the Bachmann Literary Prize on social media (2007-2017)

Although there has been ample empirical and theoretical research on the ‘field(s)’ of literary criticism and its changing institutional context, few scholars (Steiner 2008, Kellermann et al. 2016; Kellermann and Mehling 2017; Bogaert 2017) have actually attempted to directly ingest and mine the actual content of user-generated online literary criticism. While there is no shortage of broad trend watching and apocalyptic doom saying (activities seemingly endemic to literary criticism itself), the actual scope and productivity of phenomena like #bookstagram and activist counter-criticism like #diekanon and #frauenzählen (#countingwomen) remain largely unknown. In this paper, We discuss the position and characteristics of the Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis and briefly address the process of data mining and data collection. Secondly, the paper describes the evolution of the online presence of the Bachmann-Preis throughout the decade concerning its visibility and popularity on the social platforms. Finally, we then explore the actual content of the online community discourse corpora by performing a corpus analysis, examining word frequencies

Literary criticism 2.0 : a digital analysis of the professional and community-driven evaluative talk of literature surrounding the Ingeborg Bachmann Prize

In recent times, the knowledge of a limited number of professional literary critics has been challenged by technological developments and the “wisdom of the crowds”. Ample research has been devoted to shifts in traditional gatekeepers, such as hybrid publishers (Vandersmissen 2020) and prizes (English 2009, Sapiro 2016), and to the demise of professional critics’ authority at the hands of online literary criticism (Dorleijn et al. 2009, Löffler 2017, Schneider 2018; Kempke et al. 2019, Chong 2020). Nevertheless, comparatively little research (Allington 2016, Kellermann et al. 2016; Kellermann and Mehling 2017; Bogaert 2017, Pianzola et al. 2020) has actually attempted to directly ingest and mine the content of user-generated online literary criticism, as well to examine and the role of peer-to-peer recommendation systems and layperson critics as new literary gatekeepers and cultural transmitters. This project aims to study the differences between professional critics and this ‘wisdom of the crowd’, especially since traditional gatekeepers of the literary field (publishers, reviewers) are increasingly trying to tap the potential of online reading communities. We will present the preliminary results of the FWO-funded research project “Evaluation of literature by professional and layperson critics…

Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis for German: Analyzing Talk of Literature" Surrounding Literary Prizes on Social Media

Since the rise of social media, the authority of traditional professional literary critics has beensupplemented – or undermined, depending on the point of view – by technological developmentsand the emergence of community-driven online layperson literary criticism. So far, relatively littleresearch (Allington 2016, Kellermann et al. 2016, Kellermann and Mehling 2017, Bogaert 2017, Pi-anzola et al. 2020) has examined this layperson user-generated evaluative “talk of literature”instead of addressing traditional forms of consecration. In this paper, we examine the layper-son literary criticism pertaining to a prominent German-language literary award: the Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis, awarded during the Tage der deutschsprachigen Literatur (TDDL).We propose an aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) approach to discern the evaluativecriteria used to differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ literature. To this end, we collected a cor-pus of German social media reviews, retrieved from Twitter, and enriched it with manual ABSAannotations:aspectsand aspect categories (e.g. the motifs or themes in a text, the jury discus-sions and evaluations, ...),sentiment expressionsandnamed entities. In a next step, the manualannotations are used as training data for our ABSA pipeline including 1) aspect term categoryprediction and 2) aspect term polarity classification. Each pipeline component is developed usingstate-of-the-art pre-trained BERT models.Two sets of experiments were conducted for the aspect polarity detection: one where only theaspect embeddings were used and another where an additional context window of five adjoiningwords in either direction of the aspect was considered. We present the classification results forthe aspect category and aspect sentiment prediction subtasks for the Twitter corpus. Thesepreliminary experimental results show a good performance for the aspect category classification,with a macro and a weighted F1-score of 69% and 83% for the coarse-grained and 54% and 73% forthe fine-grained task, as well as for the aspect sentiment classification subtask, using an additionalcontext window, with a macro and a weighted F1-score of 70% and 71%, respectivel

Evaluation of literature by professional and layperson critics : a digital and literary sociological analysis of evaluative talk of literature through the prism of literary prizes (2007-2017) : project presentation

Recently, the CEO of a Dutch publishing company proposed that literary quality should be measured and predicted by means of algorithms and big data-based audience research, rather than by experts. His claim drew ire and caused the exodus of many of established authors; at the same time, the statement is indicative of a broader societal trend in which the knowledge of professional ‘pundits’ is rivalled and challenged by technological developments and the reliance on “the wisdom of the crowds”. Scholars have argued that debates on the validity of tastes and evaluation are indicative of “a waning consensus about what has cultural value”. This project aims to be a systematic study into the phenomenon of “layman/layperson criticism” and proposes to do both qualitative and quantitative research into these perceptions of readers by means of a digitally empowered method of literary sociology. For this, we draw on a broad corpus of critical discourse generated by six literary prizes in three different linguistic communities (German, Dutch and English) in the period 2007-2017, namely the Georg-Büchner-Preis and Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis, the Prijs der Nederlandse Letteren and the Fintro Literatuurprijs as well as the Booker and the Not the Booker Prize. The corpora consist of social media contributions on the one hand, such as tweets, Instagram posts Goodreads reviews, and official jury reports on the other hand, which are annotated and studied using Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA). We aim to answer questions such as: What are the criteria for telling ‘good’ from ‘bad’ literature used by both professional and layperson critics? What role does the attribution of societal engagement play in the judgment of contemporary literature? What are the (dis)similarities between the literary discourse on the various social media platforms or between the three language communities? What are the differences between academic prizes and literary prizes that draw on audience participation

Literary prizes in times of #Twitterature and #Bookstagram : a digital and literary sociological analysis of the Layperson evaluative 'talk of literature' regarding literary prizes on social media

Literary Prizes in times of #Twitterature and #Bookstagram: A Digital and Literary Sociological Analysis of the Layperson Evaluative “Talk of Literature” Regarding Literary Prizes on Social Media The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1993) argued that a text’s literary status as symbolic capital depends on the recognition by authorised institutions or individuals. Research on the field of literary criticism has often focused on this institutionalised consecration of literary texts, concerning traditional gatekeepers, such as prizes (English 2009, Sapiro 2016), or on professional critics’ threatened position of authority (Löffler 2017, Schneider 2018; Kempke/Vöcklinghaus/Zeh 2019, Chong 2020). Nevertheless, comparatively little research (Kellermann/Mehling/Rehfeldt 2016; Kellermann/Mehling 2017; Bogaert 2017) has actually attempted to directly ingest and mine the content of user-generated literary criticism shared on social media platforms, such as Instagram and Twitter. Consequently, relatively little attention has been paid to the role of Twitterers and Instagrammers as new literary gatekeepers and cultural transmitters. In this presentation, I aim to analyse lay critics’ evaluative “talk of literature” on Twitter and Instagram, two social media platforms with a distinct focus and “book communities”. For this, I will examine the tweets and Instagram-posts surrounding three prominent literary prizes from different language communities, namely the Dutch-language Fintro Literatuurprijs, the German-language Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis and the English-language Booker Prize, each supporting a different level of transparency[1] and audience participation. I intend to map the various evaluative criteria used by lay critics and to provide an answer to the question on which aspects of the prize itself and/or of the nominated and/or awarded titles – e.g. the jury discussion, a book’s plot or language use… – the lay “audience” concentrates and how these aspects are subsequently evaluated by them. By examining the online discussions and performing an aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) this data will enable me to trace shifts in the prizes’ coverage on these social media platforms. I posit that the layperson critic’s criteria and evaluation of the prizes and nominated or awarded titles is influenced by each prize’s level of audience participation and transparency and the social medium itself. Bibliography: Bogaert, Xiana. ‘ICH WÜRDE AM LIEBSTEN MIT DER JURY DISKUTIEREN! #TDDL‘. Der Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis: ein Vergleich zwischen der Jury- und Laienkritik auf Twitter. University of Ghent, unpublished thesis, 2017. Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Polity Press/Blackwell Publishers, 1993. Chong, Phillipa K. Inside the Critics’ Circle. Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times. Princeton University Press, 2020. English, James F. The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value. Harvard University Press, 2009. Kellermann, Holger, and Gabriele Mehling. „Laienrezensionen auf amazon.de im Spannungsfeld zwischen Alltagskommunikation und professioneller Literaturkritik”. Die Rezension. Aktuelle Tendenzen der Literaturkritik, edited by Andrea Bartl and Markus Behmer, Königshausen & Neumann, 2017, pp. 173–202. Kellermann, Holger, Gabriele Mehling and Martin Rehfeldt. „Wie bewerten Laienrezensenten? Ausgewählte Ergebnisse einer inhaltsanalytischen Studie”. Was wir lesen sollen: Kanon und literarische Wertung am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts, edited by Stefan Neuhaus and Uta Schaffers, Königshausen & Neumann, 2016, pp. 229–238. Kempke, Kevin, Lena Vöcklinghaus and Miriam Zeh. Institutsprosa: Literaturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf akademischen Schreibschulen. Spector Books, 2019. Sapiro, Gisèle. “The Metamorphosis of Modes of Consecration in the Literary Field: Academies, Literary Prizes, Festivals.” Poetics, vol. 59, Dec. 2016, pp. 5–19. Schneider, Ute. „Bücher zeigen und Leseatmosphären inszenieren – vom Habitus enthusiastischer Leserinnen und Leser.” Gelesene Literatur: Populäre Lektüre im Zeichen des Medienwandels, edited by Steffen Martus and Carlos Spoerhase, edition text + kritik 2018, pp. 113-123. Löffler, Sigrid. „Danke, kein Bedarf? Wie die totgesagte Literaturkritik ihr Ableben überleben kann.“ Stimmen der Zeit. – Freiburg, Br. : Herder, vol. 235, no. 12, 2017, pp. 805–814

“Scandal sells books”: An Analysis of the Reception and Perception of Scandals Surrounding Literary Prizes on Social Media

Due to their role as traditional gatekeepers in the field of literary criticism, literary prizes are responsible for the institutionalised consecration of literary texts. They are increasingly topic of research (e.g Moser 2004, English 2005, Leinen 2010, Ducas 2013, Röhricht 2016, Sapiro 2016, Auguscik 2017, Childress et al. 2017, Kennedy-Karpat and Sandberg 2017, Rahmann 2017). The general discourse surrounding prizes, however, tends to be negative (cf. English 2005, p. 187) and they are frequently subject of scandals. Nevertheless, scandal is “the instrument par excellence of symbolic action” (Bourdieu p. 84) and English argues that “scandal […] is constitutive of prizes” (English 2002, p. 113). Scandal is consequently inherent to literary prizes. In this presentation, I shall examine two scandals surrounding the Booker Prize and the Not the Booker Prize, respectively. The Booker Prize is no stranger to scandal, in fact its success relies on it (English 2002, p. 113) and Drabble states that the prize “has failed in its task of stimulating public interest” if it is not subjected to “bitter controversy and scandal” (p. 250). The case study in question is the 2013 scandal concerning the expanded nomination criteria, which allow any novel written in English and published in the UK or Ireland to qualify. Although its counter-prize is hardly as well-known and despite its goal to challenge the Booker Prize’s obscure nomination and judging practices, the Not the Booker has also known controversy. I shall take a closer look at the 2012 edition and the scandal pertaining to Ewan Morrison’s leaked e-mail, in which he lied about the competition and criticized the voting system, his refusal to withdraw, as well as the reactions of the organisers. Within this context, I thus aim to study the emerging and evolving figure of the layperson critic as an additional literary gatekeeper on social media platforms. For this, I will analyse the tweets that were created in the immediate wake of these scandals in order to gain insight into the content of the user-generated literary criticism created by new layperson gatekeepers regarding traditional gatekeepers. (note: 299 words, references excluded)   Bibliography: Auguscik, Anna. Prizing Debate: The Fourth Decade of the Booker Prize and the Contemporary Novel in the UK. Transcript, 2017. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Hans Haacke. Free Exchange. Polity Press, 1995. Childress, Clayton, et al. “Publishers, Authors, and Texts: The Process of Cultural Consecration in Prize Evaluation.” Poetics, vol. 60, Feb. 2017, pp. 48–61. Drabble, Margaret. “Pleasure and Prestige. A Writer Reflects on the Prize System.” British Book News, April 1989, pp. 250-251. Ducas, Sylvie. La littérature à quel(s) prix? Histoire des prix littéraires. La Découverte, 2013. English, James F. “Winning the Culture Game: Prizes, Awards, and the Rules of Art.” New Literary History, vol. 33, no. 1, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, pp. 109–135. English, James F. The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value. Harvard University Press, 2009. Kennedy-Karpat, Colleen, and Eric Sandberg. Adaptation, Awards Culture, and the Value of Prestige. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017. Leinen, Angela. Wie man den Bachmannpreis gewinnt. Gebrauchsanweisung zum Lesen und Schreiben. Heyne, 2010. Moser, Doris. Der Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis. Börse, Show, Event. Böhlau Verlag, 2004. Pickford, Susan. “The Booker Prize and the Prix Goncourt. A Case Study of Award-Winning Novels in Translation.” Book History, vol. 14, 2011, pp. 221–240. Rahmann, Kathrin. Von der Wirkung zur Wertung. Formal-ästhetische Werte in den Diskussionen des Ingeborg-Bachmann-Wettbewerbs 1999-2009. 2017. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, PhD dissertation. Röhricht, Karin. Wettlesen um den Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis. Korpusanalyse der Anthologie Klagenfurter Texte (1977-2011). Studienverlag, 2016. Sapiro, Gisèle. “The Metamorphosis of Modes of Consecration in the Literary Field: Academies, Literary Prizes, Festivals.” Poetics, vol. 59, Dec. 2016, pp. 5–19

’Five stars – it was amazing’ : towards an automated comparative analysis of layman and professional literary reviewing

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1993) argued that the literary status of a text as symbolic capital depends on the recognition by authorised institutions or individuals. Research on the field of literary criticism has often focused on this institutionalised consecration of literary texts, concerning traditional gatekeepers, such as professional critics, academies and prizes (English 2009, Sapiro 2016). Furthermore, it has described the threat posed to professional critics’ position of authority by layman literary criticism and the online book culture (Löffler 2017, Schneider 2018; Kempke/Vöcklinghaus/Zeh 2019, Chong 2020). Nevertheless, comparatively little research (e.g. Kellermann/Mehling/Rehfeldt 2016; Kellermann/Mehling 2017; Bogaert 2017) has analysed the emergence of layman criticism itself or the content of user-generated online criticism shared on peer-to-peer recommendation systems, like Goodreads. In this paper, I aim to analyse the practice of reading in the form of the evaluative “talk of literature” by amateur critics. In order to analyse this type of criticism, I will examine the reader-reviews about the books that were nominated and/or shortlisted in a specific year for three prominent literary prizes from different language communities that draw on audience participation, namely the Gouden (Boeken)Uil/Fintro Literatuurprijs, the Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis and the Not the Booker Prize. Each prize supports a different level of transparency and audience participation and the focus will be on those reviews written in Dutch (Fintro Literatuurprijs), German (Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis) or English (Not the Booker Prize), respectively. I intend to map the various evaluative criteria used by lay critics and provide an answer to following research questions: On which aspects, e.g. plot, language use… does a reader-reviewer concentrate when evaluating a text and how are these aspects subsequently evaluated? According to Bourdieu (1984) there are class-structured differences in cultural taste and consumption; does a similar difference exist in the context of criteria used by professional and layman criticism? Is Wegmann’s thesis that “Auseinandersetzungen mit ästhetischen Formprinzipien, mit der Poetik von literarischen Texten, ihrer Stilistik, ihren rhetorischen Mitteln” in the Web 2.0 “[t]endenziell eher unterrepräsentiert sind” (287) correct? We posit that this is not necessarily the case and that a prize’s set-up, as well as the level of audience participation and transparency may influence the reader-reviewer’s criteria and evaluation. Bibliografie: Bogaert, Xiana. ‘ICH WÜRDE AM LIEBSTEN MIT DER JURY DISKUTIEREN! #TDDL‘. Der Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis: ein Vergleich zwischen der Jury- und Laienkritik auf Twitter. 2017. University of Ghent, unpublished thesis. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984. Bourdieu, Pierre. The field of cultural production: essays on art and literature. Polity Press/Blackwell Publishers, 1993. Chong, Phillipa K. Inside the Critics’ Circle. Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times. Princeton University Press, 2020. English, James F. The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value. Harvard University Press, 2009. Kellermann, Holger, and Gabriele Mehling. „Laienrezensionen auf amazon.de im Spannungsfeld zwischen Alltagskommunikation und professioneller Literaturkritik”. Die Rezension. Aktuelle Tendenzen der Literaturkritik, edited by Andrea Bartl and Markus Behmer, Königshausen & Neuman, 2017, pp. 173-202. Kellermann, Holger, Gabriele Mehling and Martin Rehfeldt. „Wie bewerten Laienrezensenten? Ausgewählte Ergebnisse einer inhaltsanalytischen Studie”. Was wir lesen sollen: Kanon und literarische Wertung am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts, edited by Stefan Neuhaus and Uta Schaffers, Königshausen & Neumann, 2016, pp. 229-238. Kempke, Kevin, Lena Vöcklinghaus and Miriam Zeh. Institutsprosa: Literaturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf akademischen Schreibschulen. Spector Books, 2019. Löffler, Sigrid. „Danke, kein Bedarf? Wie die totgesagte Literaturkritik ihr Ableben überleben kann.“ Stimmen der Zeit. - Freiburg, Br. : Herder, vol. 235, no. 12, 2017, pp. 805–814. Sapiro, Gisèle. “The Metamorphosis of Modes of Consecration in the Literary Field: Academies, Literary Prizes, Festivals.” Poetics, vol. 59, Dec. 2016, pp. 5–19. Schneider, Ute. „Bücher zeigen und Leseatmosphären inszenieren – vom Habitus enthusiastischer Leserinnen und Leser. “ Gelesene Literatur: Populäre Lektüre im Zeichen des Medienwandels, edited by Steffen Martus and Carlos Spoerhase, edition text + kritik, 2018, pp. 113-123. Wegmann, Thomas: “Warentest und Selbstmanagement. Literaturkritik im Web 2.0 als Teil nachbürgerlicher Wissens- und Beurteilungskulturen.” Kanon, Wertung und Vermittlung: Literatur in der Wissensgesellschaft, edited by Matthias Beilein et al., De Gruyter 2012, pp. 279-292