The concept of affect has opened up the study of media practices and technologies as carriers and mechanisms that articulate, direct, intensify, and orient feeling within context-specific social and political configurations. Affect theory provides a way into these configurations, by rethinking and privileging the _felt_ aspects of everyday life, social change, and durable structures of power, in their (in some cases) nonrepresentational aspects. In studying affect, scholars aim to analyze what is not typically accounted for in media studies: how things feel, for whom, and with what potential. As Terri Senft (forthcoming) puts it, the concerns of affect theory exceed what can easily be located in the traditional study of meaning, representation, symbols, and signs. In _The Affect Theory Reader_, Melissa Gregg and Greg Seigworth define affect as “what arises in the midst of _inbetweenness_, in the capacities to act and be acted upon.” It is the term given “to those forces—visceral forces beneath, alongside, or generally _other than_ conscious knowing” that “drive us toward movement... thought and extension,” but can also overwhelm, arrest, and frustrate. Simply put, affects are “forces of encounter” and “gradients of bodily capacity” (2010, 1–2; see also Ahmed 2004). They are not necessarily _strong_ in...