Muhammed Salih,
- PG Student, Department of English, Nilgiri College of Arts and Science, Thaloor, Kerala, India
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a significant force in reshaping contemporary literary criticism. Traditionally, the interpretation of literature has relied primarily on human-centered methods such as close reading, contextual analysis, and theoretical framing. However, the integration of AI-based techniques including Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML), stylometry, and sentiment analysis has introduced new possibilities for examining literary texts at both micro and macro levels. These computational approaches allow researchers to analyse large corpora, recognize thematic patterns, identify narrative structures, and attribute authorship with an accuracy and scale unattainable through manual methods. AI also facilitates sociocultural and emotional mapping, revealing how language shifts over time and how literary texts reflect changing ideological and psychological landscapes. Despite these advancements, the role of AI in literary criticism remains contested. AI lacks intuitive understanding, emotional sensitivity, and cultural awareness. It may detect linguistic and structural patterns, yet it cannot independently interpret symbolism, metaphor, irony, or the lived human experiences embedded in literature. Furthermore, biases in training data and the risk of over-reliance on computational findings raise ethical concerns about representation and scholarly judgment. This paper argues that AI should be viewed not as a replacement for human interpretation but as a complementary analytical tool. When combined with critical thinking and cultural literacy, AI can enrich literary inquiry, broaden comparative analysis, and support new interpretative pathways. The future of literary criticism lies in collaborative engagement where human insight and computational precision work together to preserve the depth, complexity, and humanistic value of literature.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence, literary criticism, natural language processing, digital humanities, text mining, machine learning.
[This article belongs to International Journal of Trends in Humanities ]
References
- Jockers ML. Macroanalysis: Digital methods and literary history. University of Illinois Press; 2013 Apr 15. https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p079078
- Ascari M. The Dangers of Distant Reading: Reassessing Moretti’s Approach to Literary Genres. Genre: Forms of Discourse and Culture. 2014 Apr 1;47(1):1-9.
- Ramsay S. Reconceiving text analysis: Toward an algorithmic criticism. Literary and Linguistic Computing. 2003 Jun 1;18(2):167-74.
- Da NZ. The computational case against computational literary studies. Critical inquiry. 2019 Mar 1;45(3):601-39.
- Jockers ML, Mimno D. Significant themes in 19th-century literature. Poetics. 2013 Dec 1;41(6):750-69.
- Barnes JA, Harary F. Graph theory in network analysis. Social networks. 1983 Jun 1;5(2):235-44.
- Underwood T. Distant horizons: digital evidence and literary change. University of Chicago Press; 2019 Dec 31. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo35853783.html
- Orr L. Genre labels on the title pages of English fiction, 1660–1800. Philological Quarterly. 2011 Dec 1;90(1):67-95.
- He X, Lashkari AH, Vombatkere N, Sharma DP. Authorship attribution methods, challenges, and future research directions: A comprehensive survey. Information. 2024 Feb 28;15(3):131.
- Younes N, Reips UD. Guideline for improving the reliability of Google Ngram studies: Evidence from religious terms. PloS one. 2019 Mar 22;14(3): e0213554.
- Candel D. A report on the reports of the Stanford literary lab: A reason why the digital humanities may find it difficult to change literary history. Semiotica. 2018 Sep 25;2018(224):111-34.
International Journal of Trends in Humanities
| Volume | 03 | |
| Issue | 02 | |
| Received | 11/09/2025 | |
| Accepted | 14/07/2026 | |
| Published | 15/07/2026 | |
| Publication Time | 307 Days |