An aspect from this week’s readings that stuck with me was the tension between understanding why readers choose the books they do and how those choices influence the publishing and publicity of texts. Long (via Wright) espouses that the individual book-selection process is mysterious; yet, within the same discussion, Wright argues that writers and publishing companies tend to produce books by following the public’s reading patterns rather than shaping the market themselves. This presents an interesting dynamic where book selection and reception operates on some hidden or unknowable logic, whilst publishing companies nevertheless try to track and follow it. From a monetary perspective, this raises questions about how valuable such insight into reader behaviour would be for publishers, and how heavily it already influences their decision-making.
This dynamic is clearly visible in the influence of social media platforms such as BookTok or Bookstagram, which have moved beyond popularising specific books to promoting trivial aspects of texts. Indeed, tropes such as ‘enemies to lovers’ or the ‘one bed, two characters’ scenario are now used as marketing tools. Whilst these labels are arbitrary and highly reductive ways to classify and select books, they are nonetheless widely adopted by authors who increasingly publicise their work under such headings on social media.
Moreover, bookshops such as Waterstones now feature dedicated BookTok sections, emphasising how thoroughly this reader-driven model of publication, which is fed by social media discussion, has become integrated into the offline literary world. This development provokes reflection on the authority of different endorsers, as we discussed in class. Whilst prizes or critical reviews of a book might allude towards its academic or creative accreditation, the prominence of BookTok sections in mainstream bookshops highlights the growing dominance of consumerism and monetary value within the literary world. Indeed, ordinary/amateur readers, mediated through social media platforms, increasingly function as a main authority determining which types of books receive more publishing opportunities, thereby skewing the publication market.
In this context, perhaps the issue is less that ‘there will be more people writing books than reading them’ (Zaid via Wright), but more pressingly that the same narratives and tropes are being repeatedly reproduced. Indeed, if publishers continue to place value on arbitrary but marketable tropes over literary skill or critical acclaim, diversity of form and innovation within literature risks being marginalised. Therefore, whilst social media is a powerful tool for encouraging reading and promoting the modern literary market, it is worth questioning whether this comes at the expense of talented authors whose work may not appeal to the masses online, but nevertheless be valuable.
