So, the point of the article seems to be that "Full Body reading" is a way of reading in which one is so immersed in the story that one can vividly imagine being involved in an intimate way in the story; that itself creates other stories (fan-fiction). Is that what the author is talking about or did I miss something?

On a side note, complete immersion is what makes books like Harry Potter and LOTR so gratifying to read (at least for me). They are believable enough that you just slide into that world.

I think you nailed it, but I'd add that it was also about how 'literary criticism', at least the kind taught in the school(s) she went to, seems to try to avoid all that 'emotional' stuff for a purely intellectual analysis of the text.

So she felt like she 'wasn't supposed' to do that 'complete immersion' think that you (and I!) like so much.

I think this shows, to me, why I like Michael Dirda's book reviews for the Washington Post so much.

He understands the criticism ("mind" part, I guess) of literature, and can help me understand that side of things.

But he loves a good book, and can really communicate that "full body" sense of how wonderful reading can be, when you really lose yourself in a good book.

Gee, maybe I should tell him that I appreciate his work :-)

In The Bestseller Code, Archer and Jockers touch on this to explain why literary criticism is out of touch with popular reading. They mention Uses of Literature by Rita Felski as as a "manifesto" of sorts about how criticism could take it more seriously.

I haven't completed it, but the sample from Amazon looks promising.

"people of all descriptions could enjoy a shift away from how hetero romances dominate mainstream storytelling"

I wouldn't ever expect this to happen. The super majority are heterosexual and gravitate to the relateable and familiar. Nothing short of everyone turning homosexual will change this fact.