Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature in the Digital Space. Charting a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon PDF Free Download
1 / 16/16
100%
Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften
Fachartikel aus:
Berenike Herrmann/ Maria Kraxenberger (Hg.): Weder Fail noch Lobgesang. Nichteindeutige Wertung von Literatur im digitalen
Raum (=Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften / Sonderbände, 6). 2025. DOI: 10.17175/sb006
Titel:
Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature in the Digital Space. Charting a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon
Autor*in:
Berenike Herrmann
Kontakt: berenike.herrmann@uni-bielefeld.de
Institution: Department of Literary Studies, Bielefeld University
GND: 1096480212 ORCID: 0000-0002-5256-0566
Contribution (CRediT): Conceptualization | Investigation | Project administration | Writing– original draft | Writing– review & editing
Autor*in:
Maria Kraxenberger
Kontakt: maria.kraxenberger@uni-mannheim.de
Institution: Department of English, University of Mannheim
GND: 1135302928 ORCID: 0000-0002-2132-8051
Contribution (CRediT): Conceptualization | Project administration | Writing– review & editing
DOI des Beitrags:
10.17175/sb006_001
Nachweis im OPAC der Herzog August Bibliothek:
1933312823
Erstveröffentlichung:
20.11.2025
Lizenz:
Sofern nicht anders angegeben
Letzte Überprüfung aller Verweise:
15.08.2025
Format:
PDF ohne Paginierung, Lesefassung
GND-Verschlagwortung:
Rezension| Buchkritik| Ambiguität| Bewertung| Digital Humanities| Rezeption
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Berenike Herrmann/ Maria Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature in the Digital Space. Charting a Multi-Faceted
Phenomenon. In: Berenike Herrmann/ Maria Kraxenberger (Hg.): Weder Fail noch Lobgesang. Nichteindeutige Wertung von Literatur
im digitalen Raum (=Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften / Sonderbände, 6). Wolfenbüttel 2025. 20.11.2025. HTML / XML /
PDF. DOI: 10.17175/sb006_001
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
Berenike Herrmann/ Maria Kraxenberger
Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature in the Digital
Space. Charting a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon
Abstract
Online-Buchrezensionen von Lai*innen sind weitverbreitet und Gegenstand interdisziplinärer Forschung.
Dieser Sonderband untersucht einen bislang vernachlässigten Aspekt dieser Forschung: mehrdeutige Wertung von
Literatur vor dem Hintergrund digitaler Transformation. Vier Beiträge analysieren genre- und sprachübergreifend
Formen evaluativer Mehrdeutigkeit anhand verschiedener theoretischer und methodischer Ansätze. Im Fokus
stehen (1) Mehrdeutigkeit im Rahmen sozialer Handlungen im Kontext digitaler Wreader-Communities und -
Plattformen, (2) das Verhältnis von mehrdeutiger und negativer Wertung, (3) Mehrdeutigkeit und Buch-Gattung,
etwa bei ›Klassikern‹ oder Kinderliteratur, (4) Bedingungen und Ausdrucksformen mehrdeutiger Wertungen
sowie (5) die Beziehung zwischen mehrdeutigen Online-Rezensionen und den Traditionen der professionellen
Literaturkritik. Auf der Grundlage neuerer Theorien zu Datafication von Kultur und Gesellschaft skizziert diese
Einführung unterschiedliche Praktiken nichteindeutiger literarischer Wertung im Netz.
Online book reviews by lay readers are a vast phenomenon and have attracted interdisciplinary research. This
special issue explores an under-studied aspect in this research: ambiguous literary evaluation under the conditions
of the digital transformation. Four papers highlight types of ambiguity, across genres and languages, using diverse
methods and theories. Key aspects are (1) ambiguity and social action across online wreader communities and
platforms, (2) the relation between ambiguity and negativity, (3) ambiguity and book genres, such as ›classics‹ and
children’s books, (4) the premises and expression of ambiguous evaluations, and (5) the relationship of ambiguous
online lay reviews to traditions of professional literary criticism. Drawing on recent theories of datafication in
culture and society, this introduction charts practices of ambiguous literary evaluation as a multi-faceted online
phenomenon.
I. Mapping the Field: Ambiguity and the
Changing Landscape of Literary Evaluation
Today, millions of people read and evaluate literary books and stories online.1 These practices are embedded
within a digital, networked culture that hinges on a common technological infrastructure.2 Since the onset of
global digital transformation in the late 1990s, ›users‹ have become prototypical social actors,3 using social
media platforms, apps, and other digital devices.4 Among the various online practices related to consumption,
news, and social interaction, it is striking how frequently literature becomes a subject of engagement–
through awarding stars and likes, writing reviews, producing and sharing videos (on platforms such as TikTok
and YouTube), as well as commenting on blogs and websites or even writing fan fiction.5 On the one hand,
these individuals act as consumers sharing their personal experience with the purchase (›fast delivery‹) and
the product itself (›the book was so good it made me cry‹); on the other hand, they increasingly function as
intermediaries within the literary domain, and even as gatekeepers who »actively participate in constructing
the worth of the objects they review«– a role traditionally performed by literary critics.6
[1]
Social actors as prosumers,7 or wreaders,8 have assumed a dual role in a cultural field undergoing profound
transformation. But why are they so numerous? And what motivates them? A possible starting point lies in
the human need for stories. As Gerhard Lauer puts it, we are »hungry for stories and will probably continue
[2]
1Cf. Murray 2018.
2Cf. Stalder 2018.
3Cf. Reckwitz 2017; Stalder 2018.
4Cf. Dijck 2018; Kraxenberger/ Lauer 2022.
5Among the most recent publication on the topic of digital discourse on reading are Kristina Petzold’s and Federico Pianzola’s
monographs: Petzold 2025; Pianzola 2025. Also, see Rebora etal. 2021 and a special issue in the Journal of Cultural Analytics on
digital cultures of evaluation across a range of discourses on the social web; Herrmann etal. 2022.
6Chong 2015, p. 133.
7Ernst 2015.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
to be for a long time«.9 Storytelling– the sharing of interpretations of and guidelines for everyday experience,
serving to reduce contingency and complexity– appears to be one of the key practices of humanity,
apparently a universal trait.10 The stories we continue to tell have remained remarkably constant over
millennia: they are »still about love and trust, heroic courage and fear, betrayal and other social messages«.11
And, interestingly, despite most recent substantial media changes the book as modern cultural artifact
for storytelling has retained– or even regained– its popularity (see Feldkamp etal., Freudenau etal., this
volume).12 ›Book love‹, to use a current buzz word, denotes the attachment to books as physical objects, their
iconic status as culturally valued goods, and the act of reading itself.13
In this volume, however, we are not so much interested in the stories or the material literary artifacts
themselves, but in people’s perspectives on them: book love and the need for stories seem to be coupled with
a need for interaction about books and stories. The evaluative discourse of readers about aesthetic artifacts,
including literature and books, is »surely as old as art itself,«14 yet under changing medial, economic, and
social conditions. Every day, people now engage in millions of digitally afforded evaluative practices revolving
around ›the book‹ and their (shared) experience of it.15 Their practices are driven by aesthetic, affective, and
social motives: in his recent book Wut und Wertung 16, Johannes Franzen argues that (especially negative)
emotions towards aesthetic artifacts are a key driver of cultural change. This argument is backed by Rita
Felski’s and Ika Willis’s observation that affect permeates literary reception on all levels.17 Regarding the social
dimension, over a decade ago, Andrew Piper pointed out that a need for sharing is at the center of digital
media used for reading: »We want other people to read the same thing we are reading (commonality); we
want to be able to send other people what we are reading (transferability); and we want to be able to talk
to other people about what we are reading (sociability)«.18 The social dimension of online reading has been
taken up by Federico Pianzola, who maps out a research paradigm of »Digital Social Reading«, combining a
detailed taxonomy of online evaluation and reception practices with large-scale quantitative analyses that
have become possible because of the datafication and platformization of social reading.19
[3]
The actions that communities of practice perform around literary artifacts are typically evaluative and thus
connected to values– and value systems– that are explicitly or implicitly invoked. If we look at Goodreads, the
largest English-language reviewing platform, launched nearly two decades ago, a reviewer’s assertion such
as »What a great book, I thought«20 can potentially refer to style, content, their interplay, but also to material
aspects such as cover design and paper quality, or to emotional responses and intertextual positioning– i.e.,
how the book relates to other books within its genre or by the same author. In this case, we are dealing with
a review of Jenny Erpenbeck’s novel Kairos, and the sentence refers to the structural dimension of the novel,
to its intertwining of two different types of content– a love story and a political history, with the latter being
pitched at an allegorical level of the prior:
[4]
8»Technology transforms readers into reader-authors or wreaders«, Landow 1997, p. 14.
9Lauer 2020, p. 15. Translation ours.
10 Cf. among others Boyd 2009; Bruner 2009; Tehrani 2013.
11 Lauer 2020, p. 15. Translation ours.
12 Internationally, book purchases have risen in the past few years, especially for young and female readers, which can be
clearly related to marketing via influencers on social media: especially on the platforms TikTok and YouTube, »booktok« and
»booktube« are attractive sub communities that spotlight both books as well as reading: Cf. Huber 2024; Martens etal. 2022;
Reddan etal. 2024.
13 Cf. Pressman 2021; Thumala Olave 2020.
14 Seibt 1996, p. 624: »Das Bedürfnis auf Kunst zu reagieren und sich über die Erfahrung von Kunst auszutauschen, ist sicher so alt
wie diese selbst«, Translation ours.
15 A social action-oriented approach to literary reviewing was first put forward by Renate von Heydebrandt and Simone Winko, a
praxeological one by Raphaela Knipp: Cf. Heydebrand/ Winko 1996; Knipp 2017.
16 ›ire and evaluation‹, Translation ours.
17 Cf. Willis 2017; Felski 2020; Franzen 2024.
18 Piper 2012, p. 84.
19 Pianzola 2025.
20 For the full text, see the review under Bjørg 2022.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
»I really love how Erpenbeck primary [sic!] writes a love story, with the description of the life in DDR in the
background. She gives a great picture of a piece of history, without actually writing the history.«21
[5]
With Renate von Heydebrand and Simone Winko we understand literary evaluation as an implicit or explicit
linguistic action, through which an object of reference is assigned a particular attributive value that is based
on an axiological value.22 In the example above, the reviewer’s evaluation is personal, and so far, positive: the
reviewer evaluates the object of reference, the book, explicitly and positively (»I love how Erpenbeck primary
writes a love story«; »a great picture of a piece of history«, emphasis ours) and harnesses as axiological
basis of their evaluation both the structural form of the novel as well as the particular choice of content.
So far, the evaluation is unambiguous, since an »attributive value is clearly assigned to a reference object
in the linguistic-pragmatic context at hand and no other readings or scope for interpretation questioning
the evaluation can be identified« (Moskvina/ Petzold, this volume, our translation). Yet, after this opening
paragraph, the reviewer goes on to show what they did not like about the book:
[6]
»At the same time, the book was a disappointment. It is way too long and the story looses [sic] its magic. Over
the middle hundred pages, we get several repetitions of the male protagonists [sic] jealousy. It is tiresome
and it should have been revised with a sharp knife. This part makes my admiration for the author drop. I get
it, it is a picture of an immature and egocentric man. Still, it is a way too big part of the novel.«23
[7]
In a way, the review is thus ambiguous. At the same time, it is structured very logically, and in fact, transmits
a clear and unanimous message: one argument (›great because of structure and content‹) is contrasted
with another one (›disappointment, because too long and repetitious‹), and together they form a type of
synthesis in a final statement: »The book is absolutely worthy of reading. But it started out so much better
than it turned out«. In accordance with their judgment, using the affordances of the platform Goodreads, the
reviewer awarded three out of five stars.
[8]
This example represents a type of reviewing which so far has not been in the focus of literary or cultural
sociological studies as such: it assigns no clear condemnation (or »fail«), but is no clear song of praise either;
the assigned rating sits in the middle section of the ordinal scale. In online reviewing, ambiguities come
in many shapes. The above example is an almost ideal case of a dialectic evaluation that proceeds in an
impartial, yet engaged way (concluding that the book is a worthwhile read, albeit with clear shortcomings).
Although there is no overall positive or overall negative judgment, taking it all together, the reviewer’s
assessment is in fact not ambiguous. At the same time, as we will see, vagueness and context dependency
give rise to other forms of ambiguity– ones in which it becomes difficult or even impossible to determine how
an evaluation is to be interpreted. Indeed, indeterminacy and underspecification are not the exception, but
rather the norm, as Anna Moskvina and Kristina Petzold (this volume) observe.
[9]
Reviewing ambiguity may also emerge through what has been termed ›ostentatious subjectivity‹, a feature
characteristic of many online reviews. As Renate Giacomuzzi argues, subjectivity plays a major role in the
»symbolic currency« of online lay criticism: authenticity.24 Authenticity is closely tied to the value of reviewers’
autonomy from cultural hegemonies and from the market, as a direct, and untainted grasp. At the same time,
it is a legitimization for emotional ad hoc evaluations, and importantly, for contradictory judgments. Here is
where authenticity can foster additional forms of ambiguity– including the expression of conflicting values
and moods and the diplomatic communication of negativity (see also Spengler, this volume).
[10]
21 Bjørg 2022.
22 Cf. Heydebrand/ Winko 1996, pp. 47–48.
23 Bjørg 2022.
24 Giacomuzzi 2021, p. 191.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
The contributions in this volume are thus interested in how different types of ambiguities manifest in
digital reviewing practices: in natural language use (Freudenau et al., Spengler, Moskvina/ Petzold), in the
numerical aggregations on the platform (Feldkamp et al., this volume), and in the interactions between
the two (Moskvina/ Petzold, this volume) as well as between reviews and other types of quality judgments
(Feldkamp et al., Spengler, this volume).
[11]
When applying a wide definition of the arts as aesthetic and fictional practices around artifacts that people
experience in everyday practices,25 i.e., the texts that are in fact being read (or listened to), bought, downloaded,
and discussed – fictional texts of all types and at all levels of difficulty, including neglected ones, longsellers,
or bestsellers26 come into view. From here, the next step is to ask questions about what those many, many
people ›on the web‹ actually do when they interact with fictional and literary texts evaluatively . This incorporates
the role of uncertainty and ambiguity in today’s world that is shaped by a proliferation of choices and where
a palpable contingency27 clearly (and maybe even especially) affects the cultural and aesthetic sector, and
thus literary experiences. Assuming that people normally apply strategies to reduce uncertainty,28 one might
expect online lay reviewing and rating to be largely unambiguous– especially when considering the medial
affordances of online social media discourse that appear to foster short and seemingly clear statements.
[12]
This assumption is strengthened when we think about the ›metric‹ dimensions of today’s society that Steffen
Mau has also called »evaluation society«:29 a constant and massive practice of (online) reviewing, facilitated
by digital medial affordances, gradually shifting important power relations. For example, in the cultural
sphere, evaluation culture has put the traditional hegemony of the ›high brow culture‹ and ›professional
criticism‹ under pressure, not only by ›shit storms‹, ›review bombs‹, and the like, but by the quantity and
popularity of repeated, networked, practice on social media. As a result, Johannes Franzen argues, have
matters of taste become matters of an extended public debate, with many more (types of) participants than
earlier: a much higher diversity in tastes and values is now forcefully publicly articulated. For the historical
structural change of media and communication, Jeff Jarvis suggests an extension of Marshall McLuhan’s
bodily metaphor: »[N]ow that all may speak, we have moved from the age of the ear (orality) to the eye
(text) and now to the mouth (networked discourse)«.30 Amateurs have claimed an equal voice, and while
the hegemony of a bourgeois ›high culture‹ has eroded, clashes between high brow and mass culture have
become more frequent as well as more fervent.31 Part of the amateur’s emancipation is a new type of cultural
critical professionalism that is not primarily based on school certificates, degrees, and job contract (the literary
critic), but on popularity, credibility, and merits accumulated within platformed communities of practice and
remuneration by ›the book market‹ (the influencer, the super user). If measured in these terms, certain types
of ›lay reviewers‹ of the web are thus in fact professionals (see Spengler, this volume). As Renate Giacomuzzi
argues, the reviewers-prosumers32 are much more successful multipliers for the publishing houses than the
writers of the ›feuilleton‹, the culture pages, that do not even exist any more in many newspapers across the
globe. The distinction between lay and expert reviewers thus appears increasingly untenable: »The attribute
of professionality is directly related to the connection with the market.«33
[13]
25 Cf. Franzen 2024, pp. 49–54.
26 Cf. Martus/ Spoerhase 2018; Collins 2010.
27 Cf. Schulze 2005.
28 Cf. Aspers 2018.
29 Mau 2017, pp. 139‐165. The emancipation of ›the audience‹ is a democratization of cultural power– everyone, from preschooler
to the elderly, is constantly invited (or urged) to evaluate experiences, services, and agents, and evaluations are used in ongoing
quality control and business administration.
30 Jarvis 2023, p. 150.
31 Cf. Franzen 2024, pp. 105‐131.
32 Cf. Giacomuzzi 2021, p. 191.
33 Giacomuzzi 2021, p. 185. Translation ours.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
An important aspect of the networked, transmedial, attention-oriented nature of digital communication is
that it not only enables direct contact between formerly separated socio-cultural spheres, but that it also
rewards and prompts affective participation. Both dimensions together seem to make online practices of
evaluation typically favor ›strong‹ types of evaluative statements, or as Andreas Reckwitz puts it, a »digital
affect culture of the extremes«.34 Research thus suggests that networked digital evaluation is typically
polarized: acts of affirmation and acclaim on the one hand, and »dark«, that is hateful and destructive
»participation«35 on the other. In the context of online lay book reviewing, this may lead us to expect either
›fails‹ or ›songs of praise‹.36 But yet, there is a considerable number of lay reviews and evaluations out there
that are in fact not straightforward, polarized, or single-minded. This is precisely where this special issue is
directed:
[14]
- Are such online reviewers behaving like the traditional literary critics that ponder pros and cons?
- And aren’t reviews rather clear (and thus non-ambiguous) if they can pinpoint strength as well as weaknesses
of a book?
- Are the truly ambiguous reviews thus those that are indecisive, unable to take a stance?
- Or those who do not clarify their criteria for judgment?
- Are other reviews ambiguous because negative judgment is very subtly addressed in superficially positive,
sugarcoated reviewing?
- How unambiguous are thus seemingly clear reviews with four or five star ratings?
- And are some of those apparent ambiguities even artifacts generated by a numerical dimension of the
discourse, where average ratings falsely suggest ambiguity, while different sub groups of reviewers actually
pull into opposite directions?
It appears remarkable that readers still remain »the most elusive objects of literary study«.37 After the reader
reception studies shift in literary studies in the 1970s, which however put an emphasis on aspects of the text,38
with some exceptions,39 literary studies have not asked many questions about readers. But this seems to
be changing. Since the 2010s, the literary-cultural landscape has co-evolved with the digital transformation
and produced an increase of literary participation which has been seen as a democratization, for example
by Gerhard Lauer40 and/or a decline of critical professionalism as voiced among others by Rónán McDonald,41
Sigrid Löffler,42 and Moritz Baßler.43
[15]
Yet, despite the availability of abundant and diverse data for studying evaluative reading practices, reviewing
practices are still of rather marginal importance for literary studies. This might be because the new forms
of ›doing literature reviews‹ are embedded in a participatory culture and foster democratization of cultural
evaluation both at the level of the actors and that of the artifact. The wreaders of the net are normally not
trained critics, and the books they write and talk about are typically ›popular‹ ones. But ever since ›everyone
is a critic‹,44 at least those scholars who work on the subject matters of contemporary literature and forms of
[16]
34 Reckwitz 2017, p. 270.
35 Quandt 2018.
36 Johannes Franzen shows how discourse about culture has become more polarized in the digital age. Meanwhile Philippa Chong
examines a positivity bias in professional reviewing under the same circumstances, factoring in the authors and their livelihood
much stronger than in the past. Cf. Chong 2020; Franzen 2024.
37 English 2021.
38 Cf. Jauß 1997. First published 1967/1970.
39 The tradition of empirical literary studies is situated in between psychology, media studies, sociology, literary studies, and more
recently, computational literary studies as part of the digital humanities. For an overview, see Kraxenberger/ Knoop 2020. The
handbook edited by Don Kuiken and Art Jacobs is but one example of a small but active community of practice: Cf. Kuiken/
Jacobs (eds.) 2021. Another one is the yearly convention of IGEL, the Society for the Empirical Study of Literature.
40 Cf. Lauer 2020.
41 McDonald describes online lay reviewing as »people power« that »decks out banality and uniformity in the guise of democracy
and improvement«. McDonald 2007, p. 17.
42 Cf. deutschlandfunkkultur.de, 16.07.2020.
43 Cf. Baßler 2021.
44 Jacobs etal. 2015.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
literary criticism have started to pay more attention to the phenomena of popularization, participation and
polarization in the literary field, and thus, ›the reader‹. Under these new conditions, new types of questions
are being asked about canonicity and cultural as well as aesthetic Bildung in a society that lends more visibility
to style-communities.45
Forms of ›hedonistic‹ reception, once scolded under the ›art paradigm‹, are now increasingly licensed –
including practices such as skipping sections, abandoning books mid-read, or labeling canonical works
as »boring«.46 By comparison with some twenty years ago, a new quantitative diversity in the basic values
underlying literary reviewing has become manifest: high-brow taste, with its embrace of the canonical (as
cultural heritage), its inclination towards aesthetic challenges for elaborated pleasure, and its orientation on
a Kantian impartiality and autonomy (see Spengler, this volume), is now but one way of approaching literary
artifacts among many. The cultural sphere as a whole has become more popularized– openly ›hedonistic‹
tastes appreciate entertainment, affect-orientation and identification, as well as ›simple‹ recognizable
schemata and material books as objects of fandom and sub culture. The digital revolution has thus leveled
certain power relations (and produced new ones). The effects of those substantial (and ongoing) changes still
have to be fully understood, as do the aspects of doing literature reviews that in fact continue with earlier
practices.47
[17]
As reported, a growing body of research located at the intersection of literary studies, digital humanities,
media studies (computer mediated discourse) and cultural sociology has shown how readers interact,
evaluate, rank, recommend, and thereby produce ›reviewing culture‹ themselves.48 Here, the metric, or
numerical, dimension of online reviewing by stars or hearts arguably plays an important role: numbers
convey non-ambiguity, simplification, verifiability and neutrality– and as Johannes Spengler puts it, by means
of reduction, quantification appears to produce order.49 But does an ordinal middle position actually tame
uncertainty, or objectify it? We do not yet know, as most studies have focused on evaluative extremes,
particularly positive evaluations.50 Another question is whether books can even be meaningfully compared
on the basis of metrics and ratings: doesn’t the tertium comparationis (the common denominator of the
comparison) vary from genre to genre and type of audience? And is it maybe unclear in the first place? (see
Moskvina/ Petzold, this volume). Such questions have hardly been asked, as ›ambiguous‹ dimension of
evaluations, including the use of ordinal middle positions (›three out of five stars‹) of rating scales, but also
textual reviews that juxtapose both positive and negative aspects of a work, and truly ambivalent, uncertain,
or plainly ambiguous statements, have, to date, received little attention by research.
[18]
This is all the more surprising given that non-straightforward evaluations and reviews can mean a whole
range of things: They may depict a differentiated weighing up of the weaknesses and strengths of the
evaluated text. Else, they may be identified not predominantly by mid-scale ratings, but in the failure to
provide enough context or reasoning for one’s attributive values– in the text. In some of these cases, but
not in all, mid-scale ratings may arguably reveal problems with aesthetic and moral judgment, or an insecure
grasp of value systems as posited by cultural criticism. In others, even positive ratings with five stars may be
quite ambiguous. And in large parts of the book reviewing sphere, the topic of negative judgment is closely
[19]
45 Cf. Beilein etal. 2011; Kaulen/ Gansel 2015; Pfeiffer 2024.
46 Franzen 2024, pp. 188‐225. Franzen discusses the example of one the canonical books of German literary history, Theodor
Fontane’s Effi Briest (1895), a work from Poetic Realism, which is part of the school curriculum. He discusses how numerable
readers on Goodreads and Amazon disdain the book even though it carries the aura of high culture and the canon (and others in
fact are full of praise): an emancipation of the audience.
47 Cf. Thomalla 2018. In her analysis of social reading online, Erika Thomalla finds remarkably conservative and familiar procedures
of reading, assessment and canonization that follow hermeneutic traditions– that, however, are not the practices of ›critique‹.
48 Cf. Pianzola 2025; Stefan Porombka finds that under the conditions of being »permanently online, permanently connected«
to the web, reading has become an active mode of cultural production, with practices such as ›liking‹, ›recommending‹,
›commenting‹ and ›disseminating‹. Porombka 2018.
49 Cf. Spengler 2024, p. 6; Mau 2017, p. 12.
50 Most studies have found a positivity bias, and an orientation on experience rather than on the criteria typically applied in
professional literary criticism. See for example Bachmann-Stein 2015; Kellermann/ Mehling 2017; Porombka 2011; Stein 2015.
For a recent overview, see Petzold 2025. For a quantitative perspective on platform reviewing, see Hu etal. 2007.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
related to forms of ambiguous reviewing, as there seems to be a tendency to embed negativity within a
friendly, polite message. By contrast to other online spheres, this sphere runs on the principle of amiability,
following from the literary critic’s traditional motto »Punch Up, Never Down«.51 Within such horizontal, peer-
oriented communities of practice, ›playing it nice‹ becomes a coping mechanism for navigating epistemic,
social, and affective uncertainties– a dynamic that minimizes face-threatening acts (see Freudenau etal., this
volume, Moskvina/ Petzold, this volume, Spengler, this volume). As for instance Philippa Chong’s empirical
cultural-sociological study demonstrates, even contemporary forms of ›professional‹ literary reviewing often
reflect similar constraints.52
In any case, the sheer existence of non-straightforward reviews is at odds with the scholarly and medial
attention to polarization, impermeable positivity biases, and unleashed negativity in today’s networked digital
society. It appears that a closer look at ambiguous and negative evaluations53 is promising for an exploration
of readers’ and reviewers’ actual evaluative and appreciative behavior, potentially prompting an update of
theories of the social-cultural sphere.54
[20]
Such an endeavor, however, poses methodological challenges. Much online reviewing can be analyzed either
at large scale or presents itself by aggregated measures such as numbers of likes or average ratings. On large
platforms such as Amazon, Goodreads, or LovelyBooks, the average ratings must not to be taken at face
value: mean average ratings55 over many books, such as in between 2.5 and 3.5 stars on a scale ranging for
instance from 1 to 5 stars, might in fact mask variation across the actual individual ratings, with potential
positions towards the extremes of the scale. It is thus necessary to find study designs and methodological
approaches that discern ›really‹ ambiguous, indecisive, or pondering evaluations from numerical artifacts
(see Feldkamp etal., this volume, for an approach that factors in a number of platform-independent proxies
for literary quality). A question that is imminent for platformed reviewing is the role of metrics such as
Likert scales or the number of likes, especially in relation to the textual reviewing practices: how do ordinal
and numerical judgments relate to evaluative language with its content and sentiment dimensions?56 Anna
Moskvina and Kristina Petzold (this volume) take up this question and ask whether the positive reviews as
indicated by four and five star ratings (and the like) on online reading platforms are necessarily unambiguous.
This approach allows them to assess in a differentiated way ›clarity‹ (unambiguity) of judgment, potentially
independent on the polarity of the evaluation (positive, negative, neutral).
[21]
The papers in this volume ask about different aspects of literary evaluation on the web that impact the way
in which readers judge books– among these are different genres and types of objects,57 types of (intended)
audiences, different groups of reviewers, and the specific platforms and their uses.58
[22]
51 Chong 2015.
52 Cf. also Jan Süselbeck for the German-speaking context. Cf. Süselbeck 2015; also Chong 2020; Franzen 2024.
53 In large parts of the book reviewing sphere, the topic of negative judgment is closely related to forms of ambiguous reviewing,
as there seems to be a tendency to embed negativity within a friendly, polite message. This sub sphere of online discourse
which runs on positivity and where face-threatening acts are largely forbidden (see Moskvina/ Petzold, this volume; Spengler,
this volume) extends to professional reviewing, as Philippa Chong shows. Cf. Chong 2020.
54 Here, lay readers’ statements can be contrasted in several ways to the practices of analytical and often polemical criticism
that follow the example of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (with the prototypes of biting slam or eulogy). The latter are edited and
also represent much rarer events than the evaluative practices on review platforms. Altogether, we think it is important that
›reception‹ should be distinguished from ›criticism‹ and ›evaluation‹. It is an open question as to where (on which platform)
which of those dimensions are more dominant. Despite the extended discourse situation and the palpable social dimensions of
platform reviewing, quite a few studies treat reader reviews as testimonies of reception, see e.g. Rehfeldt 2017a; Schruhl etal.
2017.
55 In fact, using the mean as a measure of centrality to average over user ratings is seen by many statisticians as problematic, as
›star ratings‹ and such are ordinal, and not interval or ratio data.
56 Cf. Mudambi etal. 2014.
57 Cf. Koolen etal. 2020; Boot/ Koolen 2020.
58 Cf. Koolen etal. 2020; Reinwand-Weiss/ Roßkopf 2021, pp. 84–93; Petzold/ Moskvina in print. Online reviewing can vary by the
predominant function of a particular platform (such as book selling, recommendation, or social exchange), by the particular
community of practice, and the medial affordances of doing the reviewing.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
Also, as mentioned above, the axiological values driving and emerging from the practices of literary reviewing
are of interest: what are the (literary, book-related) premises brought forward by the user when judging the
quality of types of books in ambiguous, indecisive or ambivalent ways? What role do the material features of
the book play? How is textual beauty and style as a formal feature addressed? How about offers for affect and
identification? Is the book situated within a relational system of other books, and genres, maybe also literary
periods?59 In the case of children’s literature, for example, how do reviewers balance didactic-educational
values with literary-aesthetic dimensions? How do reviewers address picture books as a medium that
combines multiple sign systems (language and pictures) and that forms a complex multi-modal or intermedial
product? What impact does the reception in reading-out loud situations play– especially considering that
the audience consists of both adults and children (Cf. Freudenau etal. , this volume for a case study of a
children’s picture book)?
[23]
Finally, any inquiry into online lay reviewing must address the linguistic and medial expressions of value
systems underpinning literary evaluation. A driving factor of doing the reviewing is authenticity, which
appears to license content ambiguity and moderates a language of politeness (which through indirectness
fosters a semantic ambiguity). Another one is attention that in turn drives originality. Here, many questions
remain to be asked in a fast changing sphere about the ambiguities of linguistic practices at the levels of
whole reviews, as well as sentences, phrases, adjectives and other linguistic signs, such as emoji font types,
and color, but also other modes such as facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, and dance, as well as
the digital affordances of the platform such as the ordinal scales of stars and likes, and their aggregated
averages. This volume is just the beginning of asking such questions, and hopefully will prompt many more.
[24]
II. Tracing Ambiguity: Four Case Studies
The special volume has its origins in a panel at the 27th Germanist*innentag, whose insights and findings
are deepened and expanded by the contributions collected here. Its aim is to shed light on the phenomenon
of ambiguous (and negative) literary evaluation under the conditions of the digital transformation of literary
criticism. To this end, we have collected studies reporting concrete case studies across genres and languages
that depart from different methodological and theoretical premises.
[25]
The four papers included in this special issue all look at cases of ambiguity in practices of online literary
reviewing. Literary reviewing is a cultural practice mediated by a number for factors, such as the affordances
and constraints of their specific medial form, group-related conventions, the object of review, and the stable
or situation-dependent dispositions of the user and their self-concept (see Moskvina/ Petzold, this volume).
As our papers are situated in different academic traditions, they vary considerably by main perspectives
assumed, as well as by the (genres of the) reviewed books, the books’ intended audiences, the types of
digital media and online platforms (Goodreads, Amazon, BücherTreff.de, book blogs, Instagram), the review
communities, their digitally represented collective practices, and the typical aspects of the reviews in terms of
reviewing form, content, and (underlying) values.
[26]
The contribution by Pascale Feldkamp, Yuri Bizzoni, Mia Jacobsen, Mads Rosendahl Thomsen, and Kristoffer
L. Nielbo is a computational literary study with a strong quantitative component, motivated by questions
from the sociology of aesthetic success and reader appreciation. It addresses aspects of the numerical in
people’s practices on Goodreads, a highly popular and thus statistically large book review platform. The
authors approach the quantitative data available from reviewers’ contributions on the platform as a proxy
for literary success and reader appreciation: by a rule of thumb, higher average ratings indicate a greater
success, and higher average appreciation. Such extrapolations are possible because the platform aggregates
[27]
59 Cf. Heydebrand/ Winko 1996.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
many readers’ opinions indicated by ordinal ratings into one quantitative value: the average rating. Previous
studies have typically focused on predicting literary success by analyzing titles considered the ›very best‹ or
›very worst‹. In contrast, and in alignment with this volume’s interest in ambiguous and potentially ›mediocre‹
reviewing judgments, the paper is interested in books with average ratings accumulated from ratings in the
middle section of the ordinal Likert scale that ranges from 1 to 5 stars.
Interestingly, the paper shows that such average platform ratings do not necessarily indicate ›mediocrity‹ as a
collective judgment. Rather, average ratings might in fact obscure a polarized rating behavior. To interrogate
the nuanced nature of »mediocre« ratings, the authors conducted an empirical analysis, departing from
a dataset drawn from the Chicago corpus (N = 9,000 novels published in the United States between 1880
and 2000) to control for distribution and popularity (books included in library holdings around the globe).
From this corpus, they extracted a subset of novels (n = 2,150) that occupy the middle quartile of Goodreads
average ratings, specifically those falling within a range of 3.72 to 3.91 on the Goodreads rating scale. To
control for platform effects, they identified ›successful‹, ›prestigious‹, or ›canonical‹ works within this subset
by additional proxies of literary appreciation. The analysis revealed that the books with average ratings at
platform scale can be taxonomically classified into three distinct subgroups: (1) Books that the majority of
readers rated in fact as ›neither great nor terrible‹, corresponding to a number in the ›middle‹ of the ordinal
scale (2 or 3 stars per unique review) on the platform Goodreads, and that in addition did not feature as
›high quality‹ by any of the other literary quality proxies consulted; (2) books that again receive mostly ratings
in the ›middle‹ of the ordinal scale on the platform Goodreads, but that are at odds with other proxies of
literary quality. These in fact seem to polarize a wider evaluative landscape in literary culture. Those books
are typically less well-known than the books in the last group. (3) Books that polarize audiences on Goodreads
as well as in other proxies of literary quality. Those are typically widely read (e.g., Nabokov’s Lolita) and
considered to be ›great‹ by a portion of Goodreads users, but as ›terrible‹ by another portion: Their apparent
mediocrity is an effect of two very decisive readerships pulling into opposite directions. The polarization effect
is reflected also by the other literary proxies.
[28]
The contribution by Tanja Freudenau, Marlene Antonia Illies, Jan-Niklas Meier, Ulrike Preußer, Sandra Siewert,
and Christian Volkmann puts a main focus on educational and didactic dimensions of literary evaluation
and puts center stage a genre that is marginalized in (traditional) media: children’s books. Here, the net,
through large reviewing platforms as well as other sites, in fact works as a motor of emancipation in Jeff
Jarvis’s sense,60 giving those books and their reviewers ›a voice‹. In particular, the contribution is interested
in »negative and ambiguous-reflective evaluation practices on a sales-oriented online platform«.61 The paper
thus addresses the topics of (1) multimodal or intermedial narrative text, (2) parents/ educators of pre-
school children as an intended, or factual, audience, and (3) questions of underlying axioms relating to
morality and aesthetic quality. The authors depart from the observation that children’s book reviewers
typically focus on straightforward pedagogical-didactic criteria rather than on those of aesthetics and literary
quality. By contrast to other genres, the review genre typically incorporates a full summary of content (no
spoiler alert necessary), an assessment of readers’ age, tips for conveying the predominant educational
purpose by means of pedagogical actions, and a usually clear purchase recommendation. If presented at
all, literary aesthetics judgments are normally not explicitly rooted in assessing the text’s details. Before
this background, the authors adopt a position that criticizes the predominant educational ›instrumental
focus‹ of children’s literature criticism. Of particular interest are the comparatively fewer number of reviews
that contain negative or ambivalent evaluations. These potentially require a more detailed justification and
deliberation of composition and (aesthetic) effect. The paper presents the results from a computer-assisted
analysis of a corpus of negative or ambivalent reviews of Marcus Pfister’s The Rainbow Fish (German: Der
Regenbogenfisch, 1992), a popular contemporary classic of children’s literature that has accumulated almost
2,900 reviews on German-language Amazon from 2002 to 2023. The quite naïve morals of the story address
[29]
60 »[N]ow that all may speak, we have moved from the age of the ear (orality) to the eye (text) and now to the mouth (networked
discourse)«. Jarvis 2023, p. 150.
61 German: »Das schlechte Bilderbuch: negative und uneindeutig-reflexive Wertungspraktiken auf einer verkaufsorientierten
Online-Plattform«, Translation ours.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
the fish’s essential corporality, its rainbow scales, which invest it with extraordinary beauty, but which is
met by jealousy by the community and apparently coupled with the fish’s arrogance. Aspects like the simple
social-psychological mechanics and a potentially unreflected degree of violence have provoked criticism,
yet, on the online platforms the positive rating supersede the negative and mediocre ones by far, with an
average rating of 4,7 out of five stars. The paper examines the 3.8% of all collected reviews that allocate
either one, two, or three stars. In this dataset, using an annotation procedure for literary axioms slightly
adapting Heydebrandt / Winko 1996, the authors find that ›morality‹ is overall the most frequent axiom,
and also the value that is most often coupled with a negative evaluation. They also find a strong qualitative
relation between morality and an interpretative form of recounting the story, where textual passages cater
to justify the negative evaluation of content. Rather than a rebuttal, this is a specification of Peter Boot’s62
tentative observation that positive evaluations more often contain a recounting of the story: By contrast
to the full content accounts of the story observed by Boot, the recounting here is strongly evaluative and
apparently selective. Furthermore, the authors find that reference to children is often made and thus the
reviewers appear as gatekeepers: they recommend / do not recommend the book for children. In addition,
by contrast to other genres of book reviews, the children’s book reviews do not normally put a focus on the
axiom of subjective pleasure and the flow of reading experience, but on the didactic merits of the read– an
axiom of effect-oriented action guidance (key word: ›suitability for children‹). Furthermore, the multimodality
of the picture book appears as a salient feature and is overall positively related to the axiom ›beauty‹– but
many reviewers do not give any reasons for their judgment although a discussion of aesthetic criteria may be
fathomable.
Finally, from their study, the authors suggest two types of evaluative ambiguity: global ambiguity if reviewers
do offer arguments for evaluative statements, but do not arrive at one clear overall judgment; and local
ambiguity where isolated evaluative statements are made without justifying arguments, remaining superficial
statements of taste due to a lack of reflected premises.
[30]
The paper by Anna Moskvina and Kristina Petzold presents a mixed-methods analysis of online reviews
of books of different literary and non-literary genres that puts a focus on types of ambiguities of digital
evaluation practices. From an interdisciplinary perspective in between literary studies and corpus linguistics,
the authors look at the linguistic forms of evaluative practices and ask to what extent ›clarity‹ in the
linguistic expression can function as a possible distinguishing criterion between evaluation practices on
different platforms and between ordinal and textual evaluations. Their hypothesis is that the specific usage
environment of platforms such as German-language Amazon that are more strongly oriented towards
quantification (by awarding stars) and direct purchasing decisions produces more unambiguous reviews. In
contrast, non-commercial platforms centered on exchange and discussion, where quantification is optional
(such as BücherTreff.de), appear more conducive to ambiguous or nuanced reviews. The authors analyze a
review corpus using three different methods: manual annotation, dictionary-based sentiment analysis, and
qualitative content analysis. Surprisingly, they find no statistically significant differences across platforms
for the categories ›clearly positive‹, ›clearly negative‹, ›ambiguous‹ and ›neutral‹.63 What emerges instead is a
general dominance of positive reviews relative to ambivalent or argumentative ones, and a striking rarity of
clearly negative reviews. This positivity bias may result from pre-selection effects: users often choose books
they expect to like, meaning negative reviews typically occur only after erroneous purchases. While negative
comments do occur, they are more frequently found at the sub-review level rather than as overall judgments.
The authors thus argue that ambiguous reviews are the primary place for criticism both on Amazon and
BücherTreff.de: either users only rarely find books truly awful (see above), or they just do not judge ›bad‹
books clearly negatively. The authors also discuss that predominant purchase platforms such as Amazon are
[31]
62 Cf. Boot 2022, pp. 15–16.
63 For the applied category system see Graf etal. 2021.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
approached as spaces of recommendation, and which are thus not modeled on traditional literary-critical
discourse, where books may well be judged as utter failures.64 Rather, one here expects the transmission of
potentially successful decisions of purchase and reading.65
At the same time, the two corpora vary most distinctly in the proportion of evaluative statements in general:
Amazon reviews contain more evaluative statements than BücherTreff.de, where much more recounting
of the story and book metadata happens– an observation that the authors explain with the predominant
function of the platforms.
[32]
However, in both corpora they find the same kind of significant difference for the distribution of ›clarity‹
across star categories– the proportion of non-ambiguous reviews is highest for five-stars reviews and
lowest for three-stars reviews. The ordinal middle position thus most often contains positive and negative
statements at the same time, as well as ambivalent statements.
[33]
On a methodological note, they find a difference between manual annotation and sentiment analysis, which
may indicate that style in online reviews is often figurative (judging from the failure of sentiment analysis to
disambiguate figurative language and negation).
[34]
Furthermore, the authors examine the relation between ordinal ratings and different types of ambiguity,
finding that linguistic communication often does not translate into the rating: the statements contain more
ambiguities than the ratings may suggest. Here, interestingly, weighing of axioms by individuals or with
reference to communities plays a role, as well as unintended inconsistencies in terms and concepts and
conditional limitations of evaluations. Finally, there are books that are viewed as deliberately triggering
ambiguous or ambivalent reviews and that lead some reviewers to high ratings especially because of this
effect (see also Feldkamp et al.). The authors conclude that the widespread assumption of a digital review
culture dominated by »praise and foolishness«– i.e., under-complex, unequivocally positive lay reviews–
cannot be sustained. Although clearly positive reviews are common on Amazon and BücherTreff.de, their
study demonstrates that the clarity of literary evaluation depends on far more variables than the platform
alone or the presumed critical competence of the reviewing public.
[35]
In the final paper, Johannes Spengler addresses the topic of negative judgments in the book blogging sphere.
From the vantage point of applied literary studies, he takes a deep look into the connections between
contemporary ›lay‹ online criticism and the history of literary criticism. As key aspects he discusses the
ideal of an impartial and autonomous criticism confronting the commercial practices of the book market,
as well as amateur professionalism under the conditions of the digital transformation. He departs from
the observation that in today’s book market, bloggers and book influencers have been taking on the role of
professional intermediaries. He argues that in literary criticism generally, the genre of the polemic negative
review (German: ›Verriss ‹) has been seen as an antidote to dependency on the book market. With the advent
of digitization, from around 2000 onwards, this role appears to have become even more urgent, as evaluation
practices are increasingly embedded in an attention economy: the lines between reviewing, popularization,
and advertisement are becoming even more blurred. From this perspective, Spengler observes that the
fundamental dilemma of literary criticism seems to repeat itself in the field of amateur critics: asserting
one’s own impartiality and autonomy. His essay examines which strategies amateur critics use to voice
negative criticism, and how book bloggers deal with negative judgments. Drawing on user-generated content
from blogs, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, Spengler finds that amateur critics often employ discursive
methods of evaluation similar to those of professional critics. With reference to Phillipa Chong’s work, he
argues that negativity is largely attuned by politeness strategies, and the motto »Punch Up, Never Down«.
[36]
64 We add traditional here, as not only Philippa Chong has recently detected a growing positivity bias in professional reviewing,
which takes into account the authors and their livelihood much more strongly than in the past. Cf. Chong 2020.
65 Cf. Rehfeldt 2017b, p. 248.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
While politeness is a universal mechanism for dealing with uncertainties of epistemic and social types, in
today’s many-to-many communication of the networked online literary reviewing communities, it is crucially
mediated by the symbolic currency ›authenticity‹: users appear honest and unbiased while communicating
with the target audience, their peers, at eye level. A pivotal feature of online lay reviewing is that the authority
of judgment is not primarily constructed any more by argumentation in the textual reviewing practices (as it
was / is in professional criticism), but by field dynamics: the distribution of visibility and attention– which in
turn is administered by the seemingly objective ratings and rankings of the ›Like Economy‹.66 As to ambiguity
and uncertainty, it is interesting that specifically the clarity of the judgment (both in praise and in reprimand)
is the grounds on which traditional highly prominent figures like Marcel Reich-Ranicki based the reputation
or credibility of the criticism. By comparison, the face-saving, the uncertainty-taming strategy ›playing it
nice‹ of lay critics of the net when addressing shortcomings and negative judgments overall begets more
ambiguity of a certain type. In conclusion, Spengler argues that the forms of community that are emerging on
the net give evidence of a high degree of self-reflection on evaluation practices and strategies for dealing with
instrumentalization by literary producers.
III Adding Ambiguity: Summary and Outlook
This special issue aims to add a largely missing perspective to the research on online lay literary evaluation:
ambiguity. In the course of our editorial work– alongside key methodological and data-related questions– we
became increasingly aware of the wide range of forms of ambiguity that emerged across the contributions.
This raised questions not only about the aggregation of ratings on platforms, but also about the textual
dimensions of particular reviews, as single sentences can be quite clear in isolation, yet produce ambiguity
when embedded in larger textual contexts. We also learned about the role of politeness and ambiguity
especially for negative reviews and the role played by the current ›communication paradigm‹ of authenticity.
We touched upon the issue of context, missing information, and need for disambiguation at word, sentence,
and utterance level. Interestingly, ambiguity reveals a dual nature: in today’s complex, information-saturated
and diversified world, it can signal a breakdown of sense and values– but it can also serve as a strategy
for producing meaning and fostering sociality across different communities (and platforms). We observed
that ambiguity in evaluative practices varies between communities, but also across genres– for example,
in children’s books, where underlying premises as a rule monitor ethical deliberations, but not questions
of aesthetic pleasure. When asking about the change, or constancy, of ambiguous online lay reviews by
comparison to traditions of professional literary criticism, it became clear that autonomy of taste and
judgment are still an ardent issue, however with almost reverse perspectives on ›the popular‹ and ›the
elevated‹. We learned about adjectives and other linguistic signs used in ambiguous and unambiguous ways,
which is a suitable ground for further studies that look at the forms of ambiguity in evaluation at the linguistic
and multimodal levels, including videos, body-movement and tonal pitch. Clearly, culture is ever evolving,
fueled by people’s need for (fictional and non-fictional) stories and thought, as well as needs for sociality,
and affect. In a multi-voiced and encompassing network of expressions of tastes, pleasures, and opinions,
ambiguity– in its many facets– appears to play a much more important role than previously assumed.
[37]
66 Cf. Gerlitz 2011.
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
Bibliography
Patrik Aspers: Forms Of Uncertainty Reduction: Decision, Valuation, and Contest. In: Theory and Society 47 (2018), 2, pp. 133–149. PDF. DOI: 10.1007/
s11186-018-9311-0
Andrea Bachmann-Stein: Zur Praxis des Bewertens in Laienrezensionen. In: Christina Gansel/ Heinrich Kaulen (eds.): Literaturkritik heute: Tendenzen–
Traditionen– Vermittlung. Göttingen 2015, pp. 77–92. PDF. DOI: 10.14220/9783737002462
Moritz Baßler: DER NEUE MIDCULT. Vom Wandel populärer Leseschaften als Herausforderung der Kritik. In: POP 10 (2021), 1, pp. 132–149. PDF. DOI:
10.14361/pop-2021-100122
Matthias Beilein/ Claudia Stockinger/ Simone Winko: Kanon, Wertung und Vermittlung, Literatur in der Wissensgesellschaft. Berlin, Boston 2011. PDF. DOI:
10.1515/9783110259964
Bjørg: Review of Kairos by Jenny Erpenbeck. In: goodreads.com. October 22, 2022. HTML. [online]
Peter Boot/ Marijn Koolen: Captivating, Splendid or Instructive? Assessing the impact of reading in online book reviews. In: Scientific Study of Literature 10
(2020), pp. 66–93. PDF. DOI: 10.1075/ssol.20003.boo
Brian Boyd: On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction. Cambridge, US-MA 2009. PDF. DOI: 10.4159/9780674053595
Jerome Seymour Bruner: Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, US-MA 1986. PDF. DOI: 10.4159/9780674029019
Phillipa K. Chong: Inside the Critics’ Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times. Princeton 2020. PDF. DOI: 10.1515/9780691186030
Phillipa K. Chong: Playing Nice, Being Mean, and the Space In Between: Book Critics and the Difficulties of Writing Bad Reviews. In: Ariane Berthoin Antal/
Michael Hutter/ David Stark (eds.): Moments of Valuation. Oxford 2015, pp. 133–146. PDF. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702504.003.0007
Jim Collins: Bring on the Books for Everybody: How Literary Culture Became Popular Culture. Durham 2010. DOI: 10.1515/9781478092018
deutschlandfunkkultur.de: Sigrid Löffler über Amateure vs. Profis– Machen Blogger die Literaturkritik kaputt? In: Deutschlandfunk Kultur. July 16, 2020.
HTML. [online]
José van Dijck: The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. New York 2018. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
James English: A Future for Empirical Reader Studies. In: Journal of Cultural Analytics. Blog entry, October 19, 2021. HTML. [online]
Thomas Ernst: ›User Generated Content‹ und der Leser-Autor als ›Prosumer‹. Potentiale und Probleme der Literaturkritik in Sozialen Medien. In: Heinrich
Kaulen/ Christina Gansel (eds.): Literaturkritik Heute. Göttingen 2015, pp. 93–112. PDF. DOI: 10.14220/9783737002462.93
Pascale Feldkamp Moreira / Yuri Bizzoni / Mia Jacobsen / Mads Rosendahl Thomsen / Kristoffer L. Nielbo: The Goodreads’ ›Mediocre‹: Assessing a Grey Area
of Literary Judgements. In: Berenike Herrmann / Maria Kraxenberger (eds.): Weder Fail noch Lobgesang. Nichteindeutige Wertung von Literatur im digitalen
Raum (= Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften / Sonderbände, 6). Wolfenbüttel 2025. 20.11.2025. HTML / XML / PDF. DOI: 10.17175/sb006_002
Rita Felski: Hooked: Art and Attachment. Chicago 2020. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226729770.001.0001
Johannes Franzen: Wut und Wertung: Warum wir über Geschmack streiten. Frankfurt / Main 2024. [Nachweis im GVK]
Tanja Freudenau / Jan-Niklas Meier / Ulrike Preußer / Sandra Siewert / Marlene Antonia Illies / Christian Volkmann: Das schlechte Bilderbuch. Negative und
uneindeutig-reflexive Wertungspraktiken auf einer verkaufsorientierten Online-Plattform. In: Berenike Herrmann / Maria Kraxenberger (eds.): Weder Fail
noch Lobgesang. Nichteindeutige Wertung von Literatur im digitalen Raum (= Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften / Sonderbände, 6). Wolfenbüttel
2025. 20.11.2025. HTML / XML / PDF. DOI: 10.17175/sb006_003
Carolin Gerlitz: Die Like Economy. Digitaler Raum, Daten und Wertschöpfung. In: Oliver Leistert/ Theo Röhle (eds.): Generation Facebook: Über das Leben im
social Net. Bielefeld 2011, pp. 101–122. [Nachweis im GVK]
Renate Giacomuzzi: Die verkehrte Welt der Literaturblogs. Zur Position freier Literatur- und Leserblogs im Feld der Literaturkritik. Göttingen 2021, pp. 183–
198. PDF. DOI: 10.14220/9783737013239.183
Guido Graf/ Ralf Knackstedt/ Kristina Petzold (eds.): Rezensiv– Online-Rezensionen und Kulturelle Bildung. Bielefeld 2021. PDF. DOI:
10.14361/9783839454435
Berenike Herrmann/ Noah Bubenhofer/ Daniel Knuchel/ Simone Rebora/ Thomas Messerli: Cultures of E/valuation on the Social Web. A very short
introduction to the special issue. In: Journal of Cultural Analytics 7 (2022), 2, pp. 1–3. PDF. DOI: 10.22148/001c.33086
Renate von Heydebrand/ Simone Winko: Einführung in die Wertung von Literatur: Systematik – Geschichte – Legitimation. Paderborn 1996. [Nachweis im
GVK]
Nan Hu/ Paul Pavlou/ Jie Zhang: Why Do Online Product Reviews Have a J-Shaped Distribution? Overcoming Biases in Online Word-of-Mouth
Communication. In: SSRN Electronic Journal (01.03.2007). PDF. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2380298
Till Huber: BOOKTOK. In: POP. Kultur und Kritik 13 (2024), 1, pp. 71–76. PDF. DOI: 10.14361/pop-2024-130110
Ruud S. Jacobs/ Ard Heuvelman/ Somaya Ben Allouch/ Oscar Peters: Everyone’s a critic: The power of expert and consumer reviews to shape readers‹ post-
viewing motion picture evaluations. In: Poetics 52 (2015), pp. 91–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2015.07.002
Jeff Jarvis: The Gutenberg Parenthesis: The Age of Print and its Lessons for the Age of the Internet. New York 2023. [Nachweis im GVK]
Hans Robert Jauß: Literaturgeschichte als Provokation. Frankfurt / Main 1997. [Nachweis im GVK]
Heinrich Kaulen/ Christina Gansel: Literaturkritik heute: Tendenzen– Traditionen– Vermittlung (= V&R Academic). Göttingen 2015. PDF. DOI:
10.14220/9783737002462
Holger Kellermann/ Gabriele Mehling: Laienrezensionen auf amazon.de im Spannungsfeld zwischen Alltagskommunikation und professioneller
Literaturkritik. In: Andrea Bartl/ Markus Behmer (eds.): Die Rezension. Aktuelle Tendenzen der Literaturkritik, Würzburg 2017, pp. 173–202. [Nachweis im GVK]
Raphaela Knipp: Literaturbezogene Praktiken. Überlegungen zu einer praxeologischen Rezeptionsforschung. In: Navigationen – Zeitschrift für Medien- und
Kulturwissenschaften 17 (2017), no. 1. PDF. DOI: 10.25969/MEDIAREP/1736
Marijn Koolen/ Peter Boot/ Joris J van Zundert: Online Book Reviews and the Computational Modelling of Reading Impact. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings
2723 (2020), pp. 149–169. PDF. [online]
Maria Kraxenberger/ Christine A. Knoop: Grundriss der empirischen Literaturwissenschaft: Eine Gebrauchsanweisung. In: Yasuhiro Sakamoto/ Felix Jäger/
Jun Tanaka (eds.): Bilder als Denkformen. Berlin 2020, pp. 215–220. DOI: 10.1515/9783110582406-018
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
Maria Kraxenberger/ Gerhard Lauer: Wreading on Online Literature Platforms. In: Written Communication 39 (2022), 3, pp. 462–496. PDF. DOI:
10.1177/07410883221092730
Don Kuiken/ Arthur M. Jacobs (eds.): Handbook of Empirical Literary Studies. Berlin; Boston 2021. PDF. DOI: 10.1515/9783110645958
George Paul Landow: Hypertext 2.0. The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. (= Parallax: Re-visions of culture and society) 1997.
[Nachweis im GVK]
Gerhard Lauer: Lesen im digitalen Zeitalter. Darmstadt 2020. [Nachweis im GVK]
Marianne Martens/ Gitte Balling/ Kristen A. Higgason: #BookTokMadeMeReadIt: Young adult reading communities across an international, sociotechnical
landscape. In: Information and Learning Sciences 123 (2022), 11/12, pp. 705–722. PDF. DOI: 10.1108/ILS-07-2022-0086
Steffen Martus/ Carlos Spoerhase: Gelesene Literatur in der Gegenwart. In: Steffen Martus/ Carlos Spoerhase (eds.): Gelesene Literatur: Populäre Lektüre im
Medienwandel. München 2018, pp. 7–2. [Nachweis im GVK]
Steffen Mau: Das metrische Wir: über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen. Berlin 2017. [Nachweis im GVK]
Rónán McDonald: The death of the critic. London 2007. [Nachweis im GVK]
Anna Moskvina / Kristina Petzold: »Einfach klasse!« Eine Mixed-Methods-Analyse zur Eindeutigkeit literarischer Wertungspraktiken auf Amazon und
BücherTreff.de. In: Berenike Herrmann / Maria Kraxenberger (eds.): Weder Fail noch Lobgesang. Nichteindeutige Wertung von Literatur im digitalen Raum (=
Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften / Sonderbände, 6). Wolfenbüttel 2025. 20.11.2025. HTML / XML / PDF. DOI: 10.17175/sb006_004
Susan M. Mudambi/ David Schuff/ Zhewei Zhang: Why Aren't the Stars Aligned? An Analysis of Online Review Content and Star Ratings. In: 47th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa 2014, pp. 3139‐3147. PDF. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.389.
Simone Murray: The Digital Literary Sphere: Reading, Writing, and Selling Books in the Internet Era. Baltimore 2018. [Nachweis im GVK]
Kristina Petzold: Buchblogs zwischen Passion und Profession: Zur Diskursivierung digitaler literaturbezogener Anschlusskommunikation als Arbeit. Göttingen
2025. PDF. DOI: 10.14220/9783737016667
Kristina Petzold/ Anna Moskvina: Online Reviews as Communal Formations. A Corpus Linguistic Approach. In: Journal of Cultural Analytics. Special Issue (in
print).
Jasmin Pfeiffer: »BIG BOOK HAUL BABY!« Literaturkritik auf YouTube. In: Stephanie Catani/ Christoph Kleinschmidt (eds.): Soziale Medien und
Gegenwartsliteratur. Berlin, Boston 2024, pp. 233–244. PDF. DOI: 10.1515/9783110795424-016
Federico Pianzola: Digital social reading: sharing fiction in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, US-MA 2025. PDF. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/14588.001.0001
Andrew Piper: Book was There: Reading in Electronic Times. Chicago 2012. [Nachweis im GVK]
Stephan Porombka: Auf der Suche nach den neuen Bewegungsfiguren. Über das Lesen im Netz. In: Steffen Martus/ Carlos Spoerhase (eds.): Gelesene
Literatur: Populäre Lektüre im Medienwandel. München 2018, pp. 137–148. [Nachweis im GVK]
Stephan Porombka: Weg von der Substanz. Hin zu den Substanzen. Literaturkritik 2.0ff. In: Matthias Beilein/ Claudia Stockinger/ Simone Winko (eds.):
Kanon, Wertung und Vermittlung: Literatur in der Wissensgesellschaft. Berlin 2011, pp. 293–304. PDF. DOI: 10.1515/9783110259964.293
Jessica Pressman: Bookishness: Loving Books in a Digital Age (= Literature Now). New York 2021. DOI: 10.7312/pres19512
Thorsten Quandt: Dark Participation. In: Media and Communication 6 (2018), 4, pp. 36–48. PDF. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v6i4.1519
Simone Rebora/ Peter Boot/ Federico Pianzola/ Brigitte Gasser/ J. Berenike Herrmann/ Maria Kraxenberger/ Moniek M Kuijpers/ Gerhard Lauer/ Piroska
Lendvai/ Thomas C. Messerli/ Pasqualina Sorrentino: Digital humanities and digital social reading. In: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36 (2021),
Supplement_2, pp. ii230–ii250. DOI: 10.1093/llc/fqab020
Andreas Reckwitz: Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten: Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne. Berlin 2017. [Nachweis im GVK]
Bronwyn Reddan/ Leonie Rutherford/ Amy Schoonens/ Michael Dezuanni: Social Reading Cultures on BookTube, Bookstagram, and BookTok. London 2024.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003458616
Martin Rehfeldt: Leserrezensionen als Rezeptionsdokumente. Zum Nutzen nicht-professioneller Literaturkritiken für die Literaturwissenschaft. In: Andrea
Bartl/ Markus Behmer (eds.): Die Rezension. Aktuelle Tendenzen der Literaturkritik. Würzburg 2017a, pp. 275–289. [Nachweis im GVK]
Martin Rehfeldt: »Ganz große, poetische Literatur– Lesebefehl!« Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten von Amazon-Rezensionen zu U- und E-
Literatur. In: Sebastian Böck/ Julian Ingelmann/ Kai Matuszkiewicz/ Friederike Schruhl (eds.): Lesen X.0. Göttingen 2017b, pp. 235–250. PDF. DOI:
10.14220/9783737007450.235
Vanessa-Isabelle Reinwand-Weiss/ Claudia Roßkopf: Erkenntnisse aus bildungstheoretischer Sicht:#»immer auf der Suche zu sein«. In: Guido Graf/ Ralf
Knackstedt/ Kristina Petzold (eds.): Digital Humanities. Bielefeld 2021, pp. 79–110. DOI: 10.14361/9783839454435-006
Friederike Schruhl/ Matthias Beilein/ Silvia Serena Tschopp: Überlegungen zu einer historischen Leseforschung der Gegenwart. In: Sebastian Böck / Julian
Ingelmann/ Kai Matuszkiewicz/ Friederike Schruhl (eds.): digilit. Göttingen 2017, pp. 281–298. DOI: 10.14220/9783737007450.281
Gerhard Schulze: Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Frankfurt / Main 2005. [Nachweis im GVK]
Gustav Seibt: Literaturkritik. In: Heinz Ludwig Arnold/ Heinrich Detering (eds.): Grundzüge der Literaturwissenschaft. München 1996, pp. 623–340. [Nachweis
im GVK]
Johannes Spengler: »Kein Buch für mich« – zum Umgang mit negativen Urteilen in der Buchblogsphäre. In: Berenike Herrmann / Kraxenberger Maria (eds.):
Weder Fail noch Lobgesang. Nicht-eindeutige Wertung von Literatur im Digitalen Raum (= Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften / Sonderbände, xx).
Wolfenbüttel 2025. 20.11.2025. HTML / XML / PDF. DOI: 10.17175/sb006_005
Johannes Spengler: »Lesen als Wettbewerb#: Selbstvermessung und Challenges von Buchblogger:innen«. In Schriften aus der Fakultät Geistes- und
Kulturwissenschaften der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, herausgegeben von Niklas Schmitt, Katerina Shekutkovska, und Lina Strempel, Bd. 50.
University of Bamberg Press. 2024. DOI: 10.20378/irb-95402
Felix Stalder: The Digital Condition. Cambridge 2018. [Nachweis im GVK]
Stephan Stein: Laienliteraturkritik? Charakteristika und Funktionen von Laienrezensionen im Literaturbetrieb. Göttingen 2015, pp. 59–76. PDF. DOI:
10.14220/9783737002462.59
Jan Süselbeck: Verschwinden die Verrisse aus der Literaturkritik? Zum Status polemischer Wertungsformen im Feuilleton 2015, pp. 175–196. PDF. DOI:
10.14220/9783737002462.175
Jamshid J. Tehrani: The Phylogeny of Little Red Riding Hood. In: PLOS ONE 8 (2013), 11. PDF. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078871
Herrmann/ Kraxenberger: Ambiguous Evaluation of Literature | ZfdG Sonderband 6, 2025
Erika Thomalla: Bücheremphase. Populäre Literaturkritik und Social Reading im Netz. In: Steffen Martus/ Carlos Spoerhase (eds.): Gelesene Literatur:
Populäre Lektüre im Medienwandel. München 2018, pp. 124–136. [Nachweis im GVK]
María Angélica Thumala Olave: Book love. A Cultural Sociological Interpretation of the Attachment to Books. In: Poetics 81 (2020), PDF. DOI: 10.1016/
j.poetic.2020.101440
Universität Paderborn (eds.): 27. Deutscher Germanistentag. Last access: 14.07.2025. HTML. [online]
Ika Willis: Reception. London 2017. DOI: 10.4324/9781315666587
