Affect theory (drawing on Deleuze, Ahmed, Sedgwick) shifts focus from representation and meaning to the intensities, sensations, and emotional forces that texts produce. Rather than analyzing what texts mean, affect criticism examines what they do—how they move us, attach us to certain objects, and organize emotional and political economies.
Attend to textual features that produce sensation and emotional response: pacing, repetition, imagery, sound. Consider how affect exceeds or precedes semantic interpretation.
Affect is not emotion; affect is pre- or non-conscious intensity while emotion is a recognized, narrativized feeling. Affect criticism does not abandon interpretation but expands what counts as literary significance.
From your introduction to critical theory, you have a sense of how different theoretical frameworks shift what counts as relevant evidence in literary analysis. Structuralism attends to codes and systems; psychoanalytic criticism attends to unconscious desire; Marxist criticism attends to class and ideology. Affect theory makes a different move: it attends to what happens in and to bodies when they encounter a text — the pre-conscious, pre-semantic intensities that precede and exceed meaning. It asks not "what does this text mean?" but "what does it do, and to whom?"
The distinction between affect and emotion is the conceptual foundation. Emotion — fear, grief, joy, anger — is a recognized, narrativized feeling that belongs to a subject. You feel afraid because you have processed a threat, named it, and given it a story. Affect, in the Deleuzian sense, is what happens before that processing: the bodily intensity that comes before labeling. When you startle at a sudden sound, the half-second of pure physiological arousal before you identify it as a car backfire is closer to affect than emotion. Affect is impersonal and relational — it circulates between bodies and objects rather than residing in a subject. A crowd's collective energy, the way a particular piece of music makes a room feel charged, the creeping unease a horror film produces before anything frightening has explicitly happened — these are affect.
In literary analysis, this means attending to textual features that operate beneath or alongside meaning: rhythm and pacing (a long, run-on sentence produces a different bodily tempo than a series of staccato fragments), repetition (returning phrases accumulate emotional weight that exceeds their semantic content), imagery (visceral sensory description produces quasi-bodily response), and sound (the phonemic texture of poetry — harsh consonants, open vowels — affects the reader somatically). Sara Ahmed's work on emotional economies extends this framework to ask how affects like disgust, fear, or love are not just individual responses but circulate through social bodies, attaching to certain objects (immigrants, queers, criminals) and organizing political communities. A text that produces fear is not just representing an idea — it is participating in an emotional economy that has political effects.
The critical implication is that texts do work that interpretation misses if it focuses only on content and argument. A propaganda poster and a political essay might make the same explicit claim, but they work on readers differently — one through affect, one through argument. Affect criticism names that difference and takes it seriously. This does not abandon close reading; it redirects it toward features often neglected: the physical form of the text, the tempo of its sentences, the way it positions the reader's body in relation to the story. What feelings does this text produce, and in whom? What does it attach us to, and what does it make us want to avoid? These are legitimate critical questions that a purely semantic approach cannot answer.
Topics in reflective domains aren't scored by quiz answers. Read, reflect, and mark when you've thought it through.