Behind the book reviews: Enduring hierarchies of occurrence and unpredictable sentiments

• Examined 9814 Swedish fiction books and 8340 newspaper reviews (2001–2018). • Developed an NLP pipeline for automated sentiment analysis of book reviews. • Book reviews reflect enduring cultural hierarchies in literary recognition. • Cultural hierarchies favor younger authors, elite networks, and major publishers. • Sentiment in reviews is less predictable than review occurrence in newspapers. Book reviews are instrumental in assessing the public value of literary works. However, the path to literary recognition, considering the factors influencing why certain books are reviewed, earn acclaim, or face criticism, remains unclear. Amid ongoing discussions around the “crisis of criticism,” the study scrutinizes this discourse and employs two regression analyses to examine the occurrence and sentiment of reviews for 9814 fiction books originally in Swedish and 8340 reviews from major Swedish newspapers (2001–2018). The sentiment of book reviews is determined through a novel approach with an automated pipeline incorporating state-of-the-art natural language processing models. The article reveals enduring institutional, cultural, and demographic hierarchies that shape literary recognition through the occurrence of reviews. Key factors include literary prestige and author youth, alongside ties to elite literary networks, publication by major houses, and focus on literary fiction or poetry. Conversely, older authors with numerous books, bestsellers, or a focus on children’s literature exhibit reduced review probabilities. While review occurrence is highly predictable, sentiment proves less so. Moreover, reviews generally express positivity despite frequent reviewer discord. Our findings suggest that books are selected for review based on external factors such as reputation and credentials, thereby reflecting persistent patterns of cultural consecration. This resonates with the idea of a “conservative revolution”, where established hierarchies maintain their influence, rather than indicating a “crisis in criticism”. Nevertheless, the unpredictability of review sentiment and the lack of consistent consensus on quality underscore a deeper evaluative uncertainty that transcends the more stable hierarchies governing review selection.