Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.

Prestige vs popularity: constrasting the literary ecosystem

The digital ecosystem of literary prestige seems to be returning to where prestige came from previously. That is to say–where Ezra Pound’s patronage was instrumental in slingshoting the careers of H.D. and T.S. Eliot, now patronage networks have arisen again. The increased volume of published work has made it increasingly difficult for aspiring authors to access prestige networks, but a sure bet is the support of a contemporary distinguished author. Where book lists of “100 books all men should read before they die” was a way for the working and middle classes to understand what flavour of taste had been baked in the upper echelons of society, now the Booker Prize determines what literature is “good”. For all that the literary ecosystem has changed in the past few decades, through the rise of social media and the fall of libraries, a few things seem to have stayed the same or at least be returning to centre now.

Popularity, on the other hand, now comes from completely different sources than you might expect in the pre-internet era. The overwhelming amount of content available drives readers to desperately search for any way to discern which of the thousands of fantasy novels they might enjoy. Film and TV adaptations are the preeminent solution here: successfully adapted books see a matching increase in book sales and literary popularity. Reviewers continue from times before the internet, but take a far different form from a write-up in the side column of a newspaper–everyday people explain their bubbly insights on the latest romantasy novel and become BookStagram or BookTok influencers, guiding popular taste to such an extent that going viral on BookTok can sell out an author’s presales. It’s no surprise then that traditional publishers are scrutinizing BookTok closely to try and identify what exactly it is that the nebulous “they” want. They don’t often succeed in replicating individual book successes.

With such a difficulty in finding an audience for any book, it’s no surprise that some publishers are going to the extremes. Celebrities from a variety of backgrounds are transitioning to publishing not just autobiographies and reflections about their life and field, but even publishing works that have no seeming distinctions beyond being written by an actor or singer. These books often see massive marketing campaigns and average substantially more success than most titles published, even published traditionally.

The ways in which authors access popularity now that the digital world has collided with the literary ecosystem has changed dramatically. Prestige, however, seems desperate to recreate the same pathways that have existed as long as literary prestige itself.

the effects of making choices in digital humanities

There are dimensions in text. They’re inherent to both the text and our interpretations of it. Layers, texture. But those dimensions are usually flattened in the way academics present our insights on our field to the public. Something that feels very vivid–the texture of miasma and contagion theories and the way they apply to Gothic literature–is something boring or flat to engage with as the average person. If you’re particularly lucky as an academic, someone might ask you a question. It’s far more likely that question will be “Why does this matter?” The texture is lost somewhere, in the translation between academics and the public.

Because Digital Humanities (DH) is a responsive field, this is where you can manage to retain some of that texture. In the methods of analyzing text, you can illustrate the texture of your intention. When you digitally map the occurrence of keywords in a piece of Gothic fiction and link those words to contagion and miasma, you begin to convey precisely what you mean to someone else. Your insights become visible and your choices become clearly political. And even beyond what dimensions are added through the additional choices you have to make, the choices you were already making become visible to both you and your audience. The process of translating insights about a piece of text into the digital realm forces a process of understanding the dimensions of that text. The layers stop being an assumption of the insight, and become the centrepiece.

That process of understanding is, in my opinion, the most valuable thing to come from DH. It’s impossible to control how people will respond to and interpret a thing that you make. DH puts you in a much better position to communicate your ideas more clearly, but that too can have flaws or gaps between academics and the public that are difficult to identify except through trial and error (although that process is also enabled through digital humanities in a way that is not possible through traditional methods of publishing academic ideas). However, it is certain that the process of thinking through what choices you are making and what elements you are communicating–what you care about and what you dismiss–is a process that results in a much more comprehensive understanding of what you are trying to say. That is how you understand the textures, dimensions, and layers you are playing with in humanities.

css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel