Literature, In Trouble?

"...I don't mean that literature has to always have a meditative and philosophical slant, but when writing descends to levels of serving only the senses and not the spirit, it becomes debauched and demeaning, "goes an op-ed in Khaleej Times. When people write cookie-cut books with the sole intention of adding the suffix of 'author' to their names to fuel their professional lives or to boost their egos, literature falls from grace."

While I agree with this op-ed somewhat, I don't know how writers alone can shift the needle in this when I feel publishers and audiences play a bigger role in what comes out. Is the writer taking aim at books by celebrities or influencers?

The piece seems to exhibit a longing for a time that may not have existed and a dread of an encroaching literary apocalypse that may not be. I recognise bits of my old self in some of these outpourings. Going into writing, one has – and will develop – certain ideas about what the craft is and what purposes it serves, which will be worn down by time and exposure to all sorts of material.

My early takes on certain genres and writing styles have been whittled down in this manner over the years, which is why nowadays I wince when I read takes like this:

I wonder what significance modern writing (I hesitate to categorise today's frivolous bookly endeavours as literature) will have for mankind and its future. Is the era of writing for change, to positively influence societies, to impart courage, to reflect the good and denounce the bad and to comfort a deeply wounded global civilisation over? Is literature now turning into mere candy floss with little gains for the reader except satisfying the senses?

I wonder what kind of "candy floss" literature is the writer referring to. No examples are provided. However, Rabindranath Tagore's Gitanjali, Anne Frank's The Diary of a Young Girl, and Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning were cited as examples of works that "shine a torch on the resilient nature of human beings in the face of hardships" and offer readers hope that they too can prevail, with "the will and mindset."

While there is acknowledgement of the need for chick lit and the like, "but as along as the written word does not bring perspective to our everyday struggles and give us an opportunity for emotional catharsis and empathetic considerations, no writer has done justice to this glorious craft."

It's 2024 and this sort of thinking still exists, steady as a rock in rough seas. I shouldn't be amazed. Silos are meant to be impervious. Either that or it's a slow op-ed day and they're fishing for engagement.


Lit is lit
I doubt there was ever a golden age of literature. Then and now, publishing has been a free-for-all since the masses were taught to write. Institutions can gatekeep but it's futile. Bawdy rhymes, gory horror, spicy smut and the like were the rage back then as they are today, and not all of it polished. Ever heard of the penny dreadful?

Now, it's Fifty Shades of Grey. The Secret. Partisan political punditry. Steamy yet toxic Wattpad romances. All existing side by side with the classics, scholarly works, investigative journalism, memoirs, and other bestsellers. And does "cookie-cut" refer to the slew of Instapoetry tomes in the wake of successes by the likes of Rupi Kaur and Lang Leav?

Authorship carries a certain cachet, so of course some would find it appealing. That aside, writing unserious stuff can be as fun as reading it, so it wouldn't surprise me if the genesis of some "serious" writers involved forays in spheres of mass-consumption such as fan fiction. And if more people are seeking escapes in such stuff, why? If more are writing material that serve "only the senses and not the spirit", why?

And who's to say that "fluff" doesn't "bring perspective to our everyday struggles and give us an opportunity for emotional catharsis and empathetic considerations"? Maybe the authors wrote it into the "fluff", or it's what readers feel after spending an afternoon with some. Surely there are other reasons for their popularity other than the nature of the contents.

For every score of "fluffy" titles that come out, there could be a handful of painstakingly crafted, well-thought-out works of some literary merit. Just about every writer writes for some degree of personal gratification – the most vital being able to eat – regardless of aim or what they tell themselves and interviewers. That their works somehow achieve an altruistic goal is at best happenstance.


Right words, right time
Les mots justes, to paraphrase Gustave Flaubert. When a reader chances upon a title, they could be in some sort of pickle. So if reading that title happens to open a door towards the solution to their woes or solve it outright, all well and good. The merits of such titles or whether they should be written can be discussed, but why toll the bell for something that isn't dying but thriving?

Writing "for change, to positively influence societies, to impart courage, to reflect the good and denounce the bad and to comfort a deeply wounded global civilisation" is a pursuit for the privileged. Who can think big if one is worried about food, shelter, and healthcare? If the highbrow goals of the craft need to be carried, that responsibility should fall to writers who can – noblesse oblige and all that.

In literature, fluff has always co-existed with serious. One does not have to thrive at the expense of another. The amount of fluff doesn't cancel the existence of other works, so they'll always be available. All one has to do is seek.

How Much Tech Should Be Involved In Books?

...The CEO of a major international publishing house expressed hope that AI will help boost book production and keep the number of hires low. Tech-assisted spelling and grammar correction, plagiarism detection, and perhaps marketing tagline generation would be great.

But heaven forbid that algorithms will learn to write so well, their words will pluck at our heartstrings like the fingers of a practised harpist. Also, enough of making it so that we can download books into our brains...


Read the full piece here.

Hopes For A New Dawn For Malaysian Bookselling

Several organisations in the Malaysian bookselling and book-publishing sectors were interviewed in this article in theSun regarding the closure of bookstores in the past few years and some trends in reading and book-buying.

The article has a hopeful tone and ends on a positive note. But how will bookstores capitalise on the supposedly growing print leadership, the quality of what's being read notwithstanding? What would they need to do to remain viable? Growing big may not be the answer as prices of books and the costs of running a bookstore keep rising, placing hurdles before the ambitions of the next mega bookstore.

Could one answer lie in being small instead? Instead of one or two major book emporiums, maybe a scattering of smaller bookstores all over, serving local patrons and their specific tastes and doubling as a community centre, where locals advertise rooms to let and more, organise local events and fundraisers, and spotlight products by micro industries?

I don't want to see the end of the brick-and-mortar bookstore in my lifetime. A good chunk of my life revolved around bookstores. They supported my hobbies and several became my haunts. One gave me a job. Some from my generation onwards don't feel that connection to many bookstores (any more), and I don't blame them. With the economy and the currency the way they are, staying afloat is taking all they have.

No hate for big bookstores. I just feel that in the current economic climate, they make less sense and are tougher to run. A mega bookstore that only offers a wide range of books and stationery won't get far. Also, BookXcess has a different business model that lets it sell books for cheaper, so I doubt we can compare it with other bookstore chains, and the falling ringgit has raised its prices too – been to its recent Big Bad Wolf sale?

Like small bookstores that end up catering to a community, megastores can be a high-profile platform to jump-start local literary initiatives through author events, readings, book launches and such. Having other non-book-related activities: micro-bazaars, career talks, blood donation and charity drives, etc., might make a bookstore more welcoming and more of a communal space rather than just a market for books. Bookstore chains can also hold pop-ups with targeted selections for where they are set up, especially in neighbourhoods without their outlets.

Instead of agonising over how much a promo will cost and what can be earned from sales, maybe just do it? That's how the smaller outfits lift their profile, because they are nimble enough to adjust and take risks to draw more people. Plus, their brands may not warrant protection, unlike those of established chains. The goodwill from such side projects accumulate silently and the results may take a while to manifest but if "everything" has been tried, what else is left?

Of course, bookstore-goers should reciprocate when the stores do their darnedest for them. Incidents of book vandalism, theft, and rubbish left on bookstore shelves demonstrate just how little regard some people have for bookstores and books. Such behaviour has no place in any book culture. While bookstores do have an obligation to their patrons, the sanctity of the store and the stock must be respected too.

Malaysia is still some distance away from having a book culture it can be proud of, but it'll get there.

Malicious Sockpuppetry, Racism, And Plagiarism

The latest Goodreads drama over author Cait Corrain's setting up sockpuppet accounts to downvote books by several authors and upvote their upcoming romantasy debut came to a head when their agent and publisher cut ties with them when the whole thing blew up.

At least one observer expressed puzzlement over Corrain's actions: why would a debut author set to make a huge splash self-sabotage like this? Just how much of an emotional stake did they have on the debut that they would resort to gaming the system in their favour?

Corrain has issued a statement, claiming that a medication-induced mental breakdown over her novel's performance compelled her to review-bomb the books. Considering that her targets were mostly writers of colour, some don't buy that, including The Mary Sue: "Starting a new medication doesn't turn someone into a racist."

Goodreads has always been in the spotlight for shenanigans such as review-bombing, the practice of inundating titles on the site with one-star reviews to make it less popular. This strategy is egregious, especially when it targets authors from minority groups and upcoming titles that have yet to be released. While Goodreads has pledged to do something about it, cracking down on review-bombers and and such is tough. Any engagement on the platform is seen as valid, regardless of intent.


Pathologically self-destructive?
Corrain isn't the only author behaving badly of late. Barely a week after her scandal another Twitter (no way I'm calling it X) dust-up involving authors has one accuse another of plagiarism because their POC protagonist has solar-related powers, "just like mine!" The claim has been met with derision, because who has a monopoly on the sun? Some commenters have helpfully provided a list of fictional characters and mythological figures associated with the sun, just to rub it in.

Another author charged some parties with plagiarising his fan fiction: a sequel to the JRR Tolkien classic The Lord of the Rings. And who did he try to sue? Amazon, for "infringing" his work's copyright with the Rings of Power TV series, and the Tolkien estate. Predictably, the move backfired. The estate has since sued the fanfic author for copyright violation, and obtained an injuction to prevent him from distributing the book and to destroy all physical and digital copies. He was also ordered to pay legal costs.

An earlier case was about books that non-fiction ghostwriter Kristin Loberg worked on, which were found to contain plagiarised material. Publishers of some affected works reissued updated versions of the books without the borrowed parts and mentions of Loberg.

The LA Times noted the publishers' silence over the Loberg issue and suggested that Lobergs' workload – 46 books in about 17 years – was one reason behind her corner-cutting. "In addition to outside sources, Loberg frequently borrowed sections from her projects with other clients," goes the report. "The result was a sort of ouroboros of wellness content across multiple books."

The imagery of a snake devouring itself from the tail onwards aptly describes the self-destructive behaviour of these authors. Some of them can't seem to help themselves. Are they deluded or creating outrage to farm for attention or clout? At least one person believes it could be the latter in the case of They Who Tried to Copyright the Sun™ because no one can get their head that far up their ass. These days though, it's hard to tell. Could be both for all we know.


Tougher than swimming upriver
Several authors targeted by Corrain say this sort of attack and how the publishers involved handled it is "illustrative of racism deeply rooted within the literary industry." "Black people, we got to work twice as hard to get half as far," author RM Virtues told The Daily Beast. "In the publishing industry: twice as hard to get a quarter as far. And she had time to do all of this? To us?"

Publishing in the anglophone world remains overwhelmingly white, despite the growing inclusion of Black, Indigenous or people of color (BIPOC) in the sector. Which is perhaps why businesses like those of Dhonielle Clayton, who's aiming to make books more diverse by pitching ideas for fiction with characters from various backgrounds, play a vital role.

"In an industry that's long had a diversity problem, Ms. Clayton has sometimes struggled to get publishers on board," The New York Times reported. "She's received countless rejections, and has heard many variations of the argument that books centered on people of color don't sell. But in the past decade, her packaging business has sold 57 books; 41 of which have been sold since 2020."


Expanding and deepening the pool
Diverse books appear to be on the up and up, an encouraging trend that makes opinion pieces like this one in The Telegraph glaring. While I'm against censorship and retroactive editing of previously published works, to say that sensitivity reading and "woke books" have destroyed publishing is a bit much.

Publishers pushing for diverse books is not "shallow", though I believe it has more to do with the bottom line rather than altruism. So what if the titles cited in The Telegraph tanked even though publishers paid a bomb for them? Maybe work out more realistic publishing deals and stop shelling out so much for books?

And the "independent publishers" the article mentions who are stepping in with good stories "while major publishing houses are busy maximising their ideological purity and preventing themselves from making money"? A publisher that "has published books including former Levi's executive Jennifer Sey's "Levi's Unbuttoned: The Woke Mob Took My Job But Gave Me My Voice" and journalist Chadwick Moore's biography of Tucker Carlson, a New York Times bestseller."

Jennifer Sey, a former Levi's executive, is part of a think tank that is against COVID-19 measures such as masking and vaccine mandates. She also opposed school closures during the COVID pandemic and is a critic of the "woke mob" and cancel culture. Besides the Tucker Carlson biography, Chadwick Moore also wrote a book that decries "forced" diversity, equity, and inclusion training in the US as part of "a corrupt political ideology".

Stellar examples of free speech. Genre-bending queer feminist Westerns sound more palatable and less toxic than what amounts to right-wing figures making bank by peddling their outrage and victimhood. Voices worth uplifting might include those represented by indie publisher Whiskey Tit in Hancock, Vermont:

Take Charlotte and the Chickenman by Aina Hunter, about a futuristic society in which a group of animal rights activists proposes consuming white people as the most ethical form of eating. Or Postal Child by Granville author Joey Truman, about a boy who grows up in an abusive environment in Brooklyn and finds solace in befriending pigeons.

Just because diverse books aren't minting millions doesn't mean they're not being read. How much of it has to do with the gatekeeping that happens in the industry post-publication? How hard are publishers marketing diverse works? If anything, more effort is needed to diversify the publishing industry as more and more minority writers find their voices and hone their craft.

If publishers aren't keen on works by or about people of colour because "they don't sell", readers can make sure they do by broadening their horizons and reading more of such works. When the numbers go up, perhaps publishers will listen, and not because of the need for diversity for its own sake.

I Should Say Something

When it was first reported, the ban on When I Was A Kid 3 and the circumstances that led to it shook me a bit. What a mess.

A while back, an Indonesian NGO led a protest at the Malaysian embassy in Jakarta over a chapter in the book that was said to have denigrated an Indonesian maid. The NGO asked for a total stop to the printing and sale of the book in Malaysia, and even for the author's motives to be investigated.

The book has been out for almost a decade – why protest now? Who's backing this NGO and what is their angle? Why target the author, someone without a steady income or safety net? Is this really about justice and dignity?


Punishment, not penitence
Sadly, Malaysia has a long history of mistreating migrant workers, so the outrage is justified. But I can't help thinking the protesters may have leaned a bit too deep into "Malaysians always treat us badly" territory.

A friend wondered why the author, who's self-published, wasn't allowed to edit or remove the offending chapter. Also, why limit the ban on the sale and printing of the book to Malaysia, when the cartoon is said to be so bad it should be prohibited everywhere?

I don't think the protesters wanted to give him that choice. Gathering at the embassy was meant to put our backs to the wall. Nor do I believe that the NGO can do much about what happens to the book outside the Nusantara region.

Petitioning for the ban on the sale and printing of the book in Malaysia means cutting off his income, but when one thinks about it, isn't the NGO also profiling Malaysians in general as racist to Indonesians or abusive to Indonesian migrant workers?

The protesters may be concerned that reading the comic would lower our regard for Indonesian migrants further, but it's not like only Malaysians are capable of being racist towards Indonesians.

Based on this, one can only conclude that the aim was to punish. They probably assumed the worst of him, a Malaysian, so that they can make an example of him. Malaysians are the core audience of his works and employ a lot of Indonesian migrant labour, so by denying us this book we end up being punished too.


Barking up the wrong tree?
As if the lot of migrant workers will improve overnight once the book is banned. Abusive private employers may think twice about mistreating their migrant help when they hear about this ban, but after a while, they will forget and revert to type.

Richer employers, meanwhile, will continue to get away with mistreating migrant labourers because the system is broken – not something NGOs can fix by protesting at foreign embassies. Also gone is the chance to teach Malaysians how not to be racist – who knows what they will learn from the protesters.

Racism is impossible to justify. However, I feel that the author, as someone who has benefitted from the kindness of others, heard so many stories, and genuinely engages everyone who has supported him, would never purposely disparage another human being.

Jeopardising his income and putting him through a legal wringer for what's likely to be an editorial oversight is unnecessary. His work sometimes displays crude humour but he is no Charlie Hebdo.

Some commentators concur that the portrayal, taken without context, is racist but then go on a whatabout over why Mein Kampf is still sold in Malaysian bookstores. Trying to help, perhaps, but a comic book with one bad chapter can't be compared to a thematically racist tome bearing the words of a bigoted and genocidal dictator.

Also, Mein Kampf has been in the public domain since 2016. Even before that, anyone can download a copy online, provided their government didn't outlaw the book. Selling it for profit is unscrupulous.


Let it stop here
I'm certain the Malaysian authorities want this issue to go away as soon as possible, hence the decision to ban the book. Oddly enough, watches by Swatch were also banned using the Printing Presses and Publications Act, for the same reasons.

How lamentable has this whole thing been. Fidelity to a story is one thing, but with so many factors at play when putting it out in public these days, even the most dedicated and meticulous storytellers have to be extra mindful.

To his credit, he seems to have accepted the ban and expressed contrition over any hurt feelings. But I fear that some quarters will keep the outrage going for their own agendas. Bad news are a great vehicle for parties looking for attention – or with an axe to grind.

The offending volume has been (or is being) pulled off the shelves. The author is sorry and he's not contesting the authorities' decision. That things seem to have settled down is a relief. Don't let this drag on.

Let it stop with the ban.

Feeling Less Sanguine About AI In Publishing

I've said before I never set out to chronicle developments in AI-assisted writing and publishing, but the technology has become so pervasive, ignoring it is difficult, especially when the media seems to love running headlines on the subject like it's the advent of Skynet. On some days, it feels like we're edging closer to that reality. On other days, we're already there.

Alex Reisner studied a dataset used by Meta to train its large language model LLaMA and found that the data included content from pirated books. "The future promised by AI is written with stolen words," Reisner writes in The Atlantic. He adds that...

Upwards of 170,000 books, the majority published in the past 20 years, are in LLaMA’s training data. ... nonfiction by Michael Pollan, Rebecca Solnit, and Jon Krakauer is being used, as are thrillers by James Patterson and Stephen King and other fiction by George Saunders, Zadie Smith, and Junot Díaz." What's more, LLaMA isn't the only AI this dataset is training.

Legalities of the creation, usage and ownership of the dataset aside, large language models can now be prompted to write in the "voices" of certain authors, and sometimes, they do a pretty good job. How far can their imitation go if continually trained with more data? Will they be good enough to replace those authors entirely? A chilling possibility in an age of tech-enabled deepfakes and identity theft.

Swiftly written books, some with AI assistance, published in the wake of a major event is one way to make coin. But when it's about a tragedy, I think it's distasteful, as in the case of a book about the Maui wildfires.

According to Forbes, "The 44-page book, available as an e-book or paperback, claims to have been written by a Dr. Miles Stone, but the about-the-author section on the Amazon page simply reads, 'I'd rather not say,' and no such person seems to exist in the public record, according to a LexisNexis search."

Independent fact checking organisation Full Fact looked into this and debunks the idea that the fires were premeditated because "how else could these books have been published so fast?" Amazon Direct Kindle, hello?

Scammers cobbling material into books is a longtime grift but with AI, churning out such books is now easier. Despite shorter pages and fast production times, numerous volumes can rack up a tidy sum even if priced cheaply. And nobody seems to care whether real authors or experts are behind these books. No surprise if "Dr. Miles Stone" doesn't exist – you can't call out a phantom for plagiarism, bad takes, or misinformation.

Perhaps we should care. AI-written how-to books are also flooding the market, and given how it writes, misinformation can be deadly. Books on foraging – looking for edibles in the wild – have to be well researched because misidentifying species of plants and fungi can be fatal. And what if real authors, especially accredited experts, are named as the writers of such books? AI, impersonating humans and trying to terminate people through books? An interesting premise for a sci-fi novel, albeit a horrifying one.

Let's not forget how this avalanche of machine-generated dross drowns out the presence of properly researched and published books by people who care more than the average spammer.

Not everyone is wary of AI. Tech entrepreneur and writer Ajay Chowdhury doesn't seem worried about AI replacing writers, even as he uses it to help him write ... with a little caveat. "The utopia to me is people using AI to enhance their creativity," he tells Sky News. "The side that worries me is if large corporations start to think we don't need creatives any more."

Chowdhury isn't the only writer who's excited about having AI help. Several local authors and publishers seem cool with it. No doubt the technology can be useful. Writers who are disabled would benefit from having an AI-powered assistant, and not just for helping around the house.

However, some businesses have started ditching humans for AI to speed things up, cut costs, or both. AI may never fully replace human creativity and adaptability, but disruptive tech affects lives and companies chasing the bottom line will do what they can to save a few bucks. Governments, institutions and tech firms can pitch in to arrest the growth of AI, but it's too late to lock the barn doors.

Jamie Canaves at Book Riot thinks the conversation about AI shouldn't be about how good/bad it is or whether it will replace people – a distraction, she believes, from the real questions.

Who are developing and investing into this tech? What they want to do with it. Do these people care about how it's being used? Do they care about the impact it causes? Because if the makers and funders of these AI models aren't thinking about regulations and limits, somebody has to, or the misuse of this tech will hurt more than help.

AI is here and it's not going anywhere. It will be part of our lives whether we want to or not. We either adapt or fade away.

Holding Onto Hope For Books And Bookselling

I didn't set out to follow the development of AI in publishing, but I seemed to have fallen into a rabbit hole while researching for a couple of AI-related pieces. And it seems the debate is still raging and developments in the field keep coming in.

This article highlights the changes AI will cause to parts of the publishing sector. Expect AI to take over a lot of human involvement in marketing, promotions and publicity; translation; and audiobook narration in particular. More and more writers are using large-language models to draft books, with some employing AI to conceptualise and create book covers.

And check this blast from the past about a guy who used tech to harvest bits from the web to write tons of books and publish them on Amazon. This reminded me of "blogs" made with content reaped from other websites by bots; at least one of my posts was harvested this way. Was this the precursor of the large-language models behind the likes of ChatGPT? Who'd have thought.

Will AI eventually replace humans entirely? A lot of doomsaying is clouding the fact that the technology isn't perfect, and that it is only as good as the material it is being trained with. Visual artists have more to fear than writers, perhaps, but the article offers some hope...

Ebooks did not kill print. Audiobooks are not destroying print, either. Amazon may have forever changed the industry, but the format that makes publishing truly publishing is not going away anytime soon. Perhaps the industry will weather the AI storm as well.

What might not "weather the storm" is the physical bookselling industry. Borders Malaysia is shutting down operations and will fully exit on, of all days, this Merdeka Day. Once considered MPH's rival, apart from Popular, Borders Malaysia was an offshoot of the now-defunct Borders Group Inc. in the United States, which shuttered in 2011. Prices of books have shot up along with costs within the book supply chain, and print appears to be increasingly unsustainable.

In the US, bookstores are still around, though they're apparently not the place to work if you want a living wage. The piece about independent bookstores goes on to disabuse readers of the long-held romantic notions about working at such places: "Much as the fringe benefit of access to review copies might be nice, it does not pay the bills, whether you’re in New York City, Seattle, or a smaller community in the Midwest."

Numbers are tossed, figures are bandied about. Sobering numbers that underscore a fact that having a bookstore or library, or being able to run or work in either, is a privilege...

These jobs, so often seen as dreamy or as a calling, are coded in language that undermines their reality: you need to have another job, several other jobs, no debt, no bills, and no other obligations to survive in any place in the country to take one.

Indeed, in times of peace and plenty, such institutions can exist and even thrive as long as all the basics are taken care of and the boat is sailing smoothly. However, economic wobbles wrought by climate change, COVID-19, and conflicts in several fronts worldwide have shorn our spending power, forcing us to prioritise other things. Some TBR piles have started growing slowly or not at all.

Books have always been luxuries in the past, democratised by the printing press and later, digital technology. Good books take a lot of resources to make, especially limited-edition hardcopies with fancy covers and special paper. For those simply looking for a read or a dozen, going digital would be the way.

Like books, timepieces too were a luxury, only affordable by the rich and powerful, because of their intricate engineering. At some point the wristwatch industry re-embraced its gilded past after it was almost wiped out by the proliferation of digital watches, touting a return to tradition and craftsmanship.

Books might take a similar path, though masterpieces like Dave Eggers' artsy edition of The Eyes & The Impossible may never leave the house with their masters for a long flight with nothing to read. That's one possible path, though one also has hopes that paper books will remain viable within one's lifetime. And diehard bookworms can find succour in that, among other benefits, one retains more reading from physical books rather than digital copies on screen.

I can't bring myself to bid adieu to physical books and bookstores within my lifetime. They've been part of my life for so long, even as I have and will say goodbye to other things and people. I feel somehow, like in the US, indie bookstores that are small, cosy and offer more personalised service, will become more the norm than emporium-sized mega bookstores that have diluted their brands by offering more non-book items. Air-fryers in a Popular outlet? Alamak! And not a recipe book to go with them.

The meditative experience of walking along and perusing shelf after shelf of books will probably overcome our attachment to digital media, likewise the lure of finding the unexpected among rows and rows of tomes. Each book is like a treasure chest of words, forming images, vistas, and lived experiences – and one is never sure whether it's a keeper until it is read, cover to cover. And one eventually has to venture beyond the four walls of one's room, cosy as it may be.

So yes, I believe that books and bookstores have a future, even as machines evolve – or are made to – become closer to us. Even if books eventually retreat into private spaces beyond public reach, as in days of old, at least they will be there, waiting for their day in the sun again.

Romantic, much? Perhaps. Some bookworms tend to be hopelessly so.

Fundamentally Frightening

What is the link between the docuseries Shiny Happy People and the book-banning movement in the United States?

The series is about the Duggar family, the star of a TLC channel reality-TV series 19 Kids and Counting (19 being the latest count before the show's cancellation; the number changed as a new child is born). They're devout Independent Baptists, and have links to the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) and the Advanced Training Institute (ATI), both founded by American Christian minister, speaker, and writer Bill Gothard.

Writing in Book Riot, Kelly Jensen describes the IBLP as "one of the most dangerous Christian fundamentalist movements" in the United States, and that the homeschool curriculum the IBLP developed via the ATI "showcases the talking points being spewed by right-wing bigots bent on banning books." Also...

[Bill] Gothard’s teachings note that women remain subservient to men, that children be subservient to their parents, and that physical punishment is not only acceptable but expected in order to train obedience. These are but the tip of the iceberg.

I was reminded of this article after reading about some politician reportedly stating that "Western understanding on human rights concepts should not be accepted in Malaysia as its proponents are believers in Darwin’s theory of evolution, which goes against Islamic theories on creationism."

Local religious fundamentalists share a fair bit with their counterparts in the West. Like the Duggars, not a few parents also eschew family planning and believe that G*d alone dictates how many children they'll have. So one shouldn't be surprised that they don't subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution. The Malay edition of The Origin of Species is banned here.

Perhaps suspicious of the curriculum in US schools, some Christian fundamentalist parents homeschool their offspring, often using curricula fashioned by organisations such as Gothard's ATI. Jensen highlights an example of what it contains...

...Take for example the “Christian Mom” who decided that her kids could no longer watch Ms. Rachel, a YouTube star whose show for toddlers teaches music, colors, shapes, and more. Why did she have a problem with such a straightforward show?

She and her family do not believe in dinosaurs and they do not believe in pronouns (Ms. Rachel has a regularly appearing and deeply beloved guest on the show, Jules, who uses they/them pronouns).

Jensen goes on to state that "Homeschool programs like these promote isolation, promote dependence on white male authority figures, and create such a culture of fear that indoctrinates do not speak up for fear of retaliation and excommunication." Who the heck benefits from the creation of such a society?

Eventually, this sort of fundametalism will bleed into other aspects of people's lives. The US abortion fight is the result of this encroachment, as is the ban on alcohol sales in coffee shops, supermarkets and convenience stores here, plus the imposition of a "modest" dress code in some public places.

Not only are book bans here "archaic", as reportedly described by the Penang Institute, but ineffective and seemingly arbitrary. Ban something and everyone rushes out to get a copy to see what the fuss is about. There is no deep, honest, mature and meaningful engagement with or discussion of the material.

We're losing the ability to think for ourselves because people in power cannot trust us to come to proper conclusions – or conclusions they want us to reach? – about what we see, hear, or encounter, so they're deciding that for us. Could there be something else other than an authoritarian bent behind this impulse?

Are some of the ways we react to things also to blame, especially with how we consume media like fast food and junk food: obsessively, with little pause and little heed for our health? Or how we argue the talking points about certain topics?

Regardless, trust is a two-way street, and there can be no way to move forward if bad-faith actors dictate what or who we should and should not read, listen to, watch, consume, or be offended by.

Ugly

Reading about book vandalism at Tsutaya Books at Pavilion Bukit Jalil is saddening – and enraging. Since opening, the outlet has had to set aside "mountains of books have been damaged, intentionally - with pages ripped out, covers torn, children’s pop-up books that no longer 'pop-up'." This is beyond the occasional paper cup, plastic bottle or, worse, left on bookshelves.

As a result, the outlet has begun shrink-wrapping its books, and rightly so. Books displayed on the shelves belong to the store and they have the right to protect them for the sake of its customers who'd prefer getting their hands on pristine goods.

When in bookstores and libraries, we should strive to ensure unwrapped copies we browse or flip through are returned to their original places on a shelf in good condition. We don't do as we please in other people's homes, even if invited to do so, so why this callous treatment of a shop's merchandise?

What compels a right-minded person to damage covers and rip out pages from books, especially new ones? In Kuala Lumpur, a World Book Capital some more. Where does this impunity come from? And why do such behaviours persist?

One is tempted to link this behaviour to the example shown by certain figures in recent years, that it's fine to flout a few rules if you have connections, or if you don't get caught. If the higher-ups can get away with it, some might argue, why can't they? "Ah-lah, it's JUST a BOOK. They have insurance wat."

Were errant children involved? Because I can't wrap my head around the thought of an adult knowingly vandalising new books in this manner, then putting the item back on the shelf and pretend nothing ever happened. If parents are covering for their kids, congrats, they've just taught their children to hush up misdemeanours instead of owning up to them.

And insurance claims, if any, for damaged merchandise is a net loss to the outlet and customers who want it. I doubt any insurance company would accommodate a business plagued by vandals for too long.

A reading culture goes beyond buying and reading lots of books. It's also about being aware of what goes into the production of one, knowledge of the publishing ecosystem, attitudes towards book publishing and bookselling institutions, and how each printed tome is treated.

Such acts have further tarnished our reputation. When did we start becoming such asses? It's not the first time a bookstore was subjected to average Malaysian whims. And we're also known for other examples of awful behaviour.

Tsutaya is Japan's largest bookstore chain, and its opening at Pavilion Bukit Jalil was so hyped. People were lining up to get in on opening day. And yet, this happened. Will other overseas firms have to consider "the ugly Malaysian" a risk of doing business in Malaysia?

If a business's trust in its customers is betrayed, then the business has the right to limit what patrons can do within its premises until that trust is earned again. Tsutaya Bukit Jalil expressed hope that the cling film will come off their books someday. That day might be a long way off.

Taking Offence

Actor and author Tom Hanks has weighed in on the recent trend of editing classics and other long-published works for newer, more sensitive audiences.

"Well, I'm of the opinion that we're all grown-ups here," Hanks was quoted as saying. "And we understand the time and the place and when these things were written. And it's not very hard at all to say: that doesn't quite fly right now, does it?

Many, I'm sure. share Hanks' opinion. As adults we should know how to control ourselves whenever we encounter something that offends our sensibilities. Sexist portrayals of women, racist depictions of minorities and such in art and literature should be read within the context of their eras. Content that might be triggering to readers ... that should be discussed separately.

"Let's have faith in our own sensibilities here, instead of having somebody decide what we may or may not be offended by," he added. "Let me decide what I am offended by and not offended by."

Trouble comes when someone decides they are offended by something in a book and are upset when others don't feel the same, so they set out to change that. This is partly behind the movement to ban books – that's what it is – in the US and the horsepower on that bandwagon has been so impressive, others have hitched their carriages to it.

Even with all the details emerging from reports on the issue, the findings of The Washington Post still astounds. The Post analysed a set of challenges to books filed in "the 2021-2022 school year with the 153 school districts that Tasslyn Magnusson, a researcher employed by free expression advocacy group PEN America, tracked as receiving formal requests to remove books last school year." They found that...

Nearly half of filings — 43 percent — targeted titles with LGBTQ characters or themes, while 36 percent targeted titles featuring characters of color or dealing with issues of race and racism. The top reason people challenged books was “sexual” content; 61 percent of challenges referenced this concern.

The paper also revealed that "The majority of the 1,000-plus book challenges analyzed by The Post were filed by just 11 people."

Each of these people brought 10 or more challenges against books in their school district; one man filed 92 challenges. Together, these serial filers constituted 6 percent of all book challengers — but were responsible for 60 percent of all filings.

Ye g*ds. Ninety-two challenges by one person?

The rationale for many of the objections are the usual: they don't want young people reading about sex or LGBTQ lives and issues, these books normalise LGBTQ, and so on. Better to learn about all that from the likes of Fox and Moms for Liberty, right?

Also mind-blowing is the objection filed by a parent over The Hill We Climb, an edition of the poem by American National Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman, which was read aloud at the inauguration of President Joe Biden. Why? "Cause confusion and indoctrinate students," the complainant wrote. On two pages of the book: "Is not educational and have indirectly [sic] hate messages."

C'mon now, a poem from a National Youth Poet Laureate is "not educational" and has "hate messages"? Also, the complainant seemed to have mistakenly attributed authorship of the opem to Oprah Winfrey. That the complainant has links to groups like the Proud Boys and Moms for Liberty (HA!) and is a Ron DeSantis supporter is probably no coincidence.

Taking offence has become a pastime of sorts with certain people. Armed with the outsized influence and reach granted by social media, they set chatrooms and threads on fire, infecting the susceptible with their outrage and indignation, dampening voices trying to cool things down. So many fall for this incendiary rhetoric and BS.

It feels like more and more are giving up the ability to question, research and think critically and leaving all that to certain authority figures who would turn out to be less than authoritative than they'd like to think.

Musings On This World Book Day

For work, I dived into the origins of World Book Day and I was pretty surprised. The first Day of the Book in the Spanish region of Catalonia was the brainchild of a publisher and big fan of Miguel de Cervantes, who wrote what is considered to be the first modern novel.


Books, roses, and charities
What happened during the early World Book Days? Bookselling, I presume – specifically, outdoor bookselling, pasar pagi style, plus maybe some writer meet-and-greet sessions. The sources I searched don't say what happened during those early Book Days. But the original date was 7 October, to mark Cervantes's birthday.

The Day of the Book was moved to 23 April because fall weather can be a bit nippy for outdoor book-browsing, and book lovers can browse. This date coincided with the long-running St George's Day, and since then, the Day of Books and Roses became an annual Catalonian affair. Besides book stalls and author signings, roses are also sold on the day, in honour of St George.

UNESCO adopted the date as World Book Day, using it to commemorate several other authors besides Cervantes but there's some debate as to what the date signifies for each author. Some say Cervantes and William Shakespeare died on 23 April but no, no, others say, because the countries adopted different calendars, so Shakespeare died on some other date.

Rather than split hairs over this detail, UNESCO stuck with 23 April. But unlike the UNESCO event, World Book Day in the UK and Ireland is more of a charity do that kicks off on the first Thursday in March. Starting from 1998 in the UK, children in full-time education are given book vouchers. There's even a World Book Night, run by a charity organisation.

Besides World Book Day, Spain also gave us the World Book Capital initiative. Madrid once held a string of book-related events throughout a year, and some thought this practice should go global. Madrid became the first WBC in 2001 and, in case anyone has forgotten, Kuala Lumpur was designated WBC in 2020.


A gloom descends
How inspirational. Some of us would perhaps feel wistful at the thought of sparking something similar. Did Vicente Clavel envision that his idea would become a world event? And isn't the story of Don Quixote about the power of a dream?

Looking around though, being sanguine about books and publishing right now is kind of, well, quixotic. And following dreams didn't quite work out for Don Quixote.

Just as Michelle Yeoh's Oscar win has gotten folks asking questions, many in the book industry probably wondered what would our reading and publishing landscape look like "if things were different". Having ideals is well and fine, but they tend to wither in the face of realities.

In Afghanistan, women and girls are being denied an education, and a private library was forced to close by the Taliban (women "have no right to read books"?). The authorities appear unmoved by the support Afghan women are getting from some of their menfolk. Back home, our Indigenous languages and local dialects are in danger of dying out; some have gone extinct. And the theme for this year's World Book Day is Indigenous languages.

Books and copyright, the two things World Book Day celebrates, are being contended in the case of the Internet Archive vs Hachette. The Internet Acrhive, an American digital library, scanned and distributed books via its National Emergency Library during the start COVID-19 pandemic. Several publishers led by Hachette filed a lawsuit against IA, crying copyright infringement. A judge sided with the publishers, but a final judgement is still pending.


Books on fire
But perhaps the biggest pall cast over this year's World Book Day, besides what's happening in Afghanistan, is the stepping up of book bans in parts of the world. In the US, more books have become targets of censorship, particularly those that deal with racism and prejudices against ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. Right-wing and Christian nationalist groups are involved, and some state officials have enacted laws that prohibit certain titles from being taught in schools or made available in school libraries. And they are thinking of going after publishers too.

Book-ban proponents say they want to shield children from "obscene" material but what's obscene is how minorities in America are (still) treated and how ingrained prejudices against them are. Another obscenity is the rampant fetishisation of LGBTQ+ individuals that reduces them to what they do in bed, when that is just a tiny part of their identity.

Literary advocacy group PEN America's report on the growing censorship in US schools and libraries paints a gloomy picture. Its Index of School Book Bans lists 2,532 instances of individual books being banned, affecting 1,648 titles by 1,261 authors, from July 2021 to June 2022. Authors of targeted books are fighting back, and libraries, institutions and other advocacy groups are joining in.

Filipino author and journalist Miguel Syjuco warned about creeping censorship in his opening keynote for the Cooler Lumpur Festival of ideas back in 2014, saying that "the house is on fire". Didn't take too long for the flames to grow fiercer and spread wider, and not just because of climate change.

I'm keeping an eye on this, as is Book Riot, though standing in solidarity with besieged writers, librarians, educators and students in affected places feels like a hollow gesture when considering our own censorship issues. Fighting a state can be financially and emotionally taxing if one is not prepared, so kudos to those taking a stand.


A quixotic undertaking?
World Book Day 2023 looks set to be dismal. But should it be? Books and other literary materials are a soft target for censorship hounds during shaky sociopolitical situations. That such materials are targeted this way can be a testament to the power of the written word, validating the Catalonian reverence for books that led to the creation of their own day.

Banning books to "arrest social change" is "irresistible to short-termist authorities" despite its tendency to fail, wrote book critic John Self last year for Banned Books Week, but he also noted that it is a miracle "that marks on a page or screen can enable communication from one brain to another on the far side of the globe, or the other end of the century."

And that miracle comprises works of all genres under the sky, from the lone nom de plume on Wattpad chiselling out chapter after chapter to blockbusters by marquee authors under publishing titans. All of whom deserve a place in the sun, in an e-reader, or on a bookshelf. It must be preserved, even as others try to erase it.

Also, everyone in the book industry plays a role in the development of minds and the progress of a people and a nation, so we must demonstrate that we can be entrusted with that role and carry it out responsibly. That would include fighting unwarranted censorship, even though it would mean working within the framework of a country's laws and norms.

The struggle doesn't have to be violent or law-breaking, nor should it. Someone at Tor.com spoke out against book bans and suggested ways to help the fight against them. And here are some stories about how some parents, teachers and librarians are pushing back against challenges to books.

We've all come a long way since language and writing were invented, and the road ahead is longer still. But I believe we're well on the way towards an ideal book-loving society that nurtures and defends the craft and industry of words.

Getting there will feel like tilting at windmills, but the day of the book will come.

The Salt In A Publishing Star

If you're a bestselling author who has sold tens of millions of copies of more than 260 titles, and whose titles often feature in the New York Times bestsellers lists, would you be salty if your latest title ends up at a lower ranking on an NYT list than you thought?

If you're James Patterson, you probably would be.

At Slate, Laura Miller drops her two cents about this, pointing out that the NYT bestsellers lists are not reliable yardsticks for a book's popularity because they "are the product of a lot of math, but also a good deal of art." And there are ways of getting onto those lists that can be considered unethical.

However, Miller suggests that the "disdain" heaped upon Patterson's oeuvre has made him thin-skinned. She also notes that...

Publishers Weekly magazine has declared Patterson the best-selling author of the preceding 17 years. Yet in the same magazine’s list of the 150 bestselling books since 2004, not a single title out of Patterson’s hundreds of books appears. Patterson sells boatloads of books; he just hasn’t sold boatloads of any particular book. He makes up for the difference in volume.

So she suspects that "Patterson can’t help but be nettled by the fact that for all his dozens of bestsellers, no single one of them has had the iconic staying power of, say, The Stand or The Hunger Games."

I get that some authors want to be remembered for certain things, and a pile of negative reviews on the likes of Goodreads is not one of them. By now I would think someone like Patterson has outgrown the need for bestsellers lists. At least he's still in the news, and doing better than Dan Brown, John Grisham and, uh ... EL James?

As a publishing titan, he can contribute by nurturing more writers. Doesn't he have an online masterclass in writing? He could also provide something of a boost to other writers, particularly the lesser-known co-authors of some of his works. "I wrote this with James Patterson" might elicit a raised eyebrow or a snooty snort, but at least it gets one's attention. That is a vital first step in the publishing world.

And considering how competitive the book industry is, being able to strike gold as an author is a huge deal. I think Patterson should come to terms with the fact that he's making big bank churning out "boilerplate thrillers that snoots love to look down on" and he's doing well out of that, compared to many others.

The guy's pushing eighty. He should just roll with it and ignore the snobs. Too much sodium is bad for one's health.

Ghostwriter In The Machine: Much Closer Than We Think

Just days after my piece on ChatGPT's use in writing books went live, more developments in that field emerged. The AI interface is now cited as an author of more than 200 books on Amazon, and that number is set to grow. But over at Inside Hook, they aren't too concerned about AI overtaking humans in writing books:

As long as these books are properly labeled and part of Amazon’s self-publishing milieu, this might be more of a novelty at the moment. And we still approve of ChatGPT as a tool, even in publishing — but given that the program is still riddled with mistakes and odd errors, skilled human writers and editors are still 100% necessary, even for the most mundane of guides (or bad space erotica).

I'd have agreed with this a couple of weeks ago, except that OpenAI has announced the arrival of GPT4, said to be the advanced version of the AI model behind ChatGPT. Now some, like Kenneth Whyte at The Whig, are predicting the impending end of the human author in several sectors, including journalism where pithy, punchy machine-made copy will do for readers struggling against a tsunami of automated output...

...all of it optimized to outperform human product in algorithmic searches. The machine story will be good enough for most people and for most purposes. The content churned out by today’s media companies will be somewhere between worth less and worthless, making it difficult for those companies to afford original, high-value human journalism.

This avalanche will extend to book publishing, according to Whyte's projections, as the internet facilitates the (self-)publishing of AI-assisted books in genres where literary flair isn't a prerequisite, such as "guidebooks, basic biographies, basic histories, basic personal finance, basic personal advice, basic diet and health books, puzzle collections, and how-to series." There's even an AI-powered book-marketing service now.

Similar bells are also tolling for audiobook narrators as firms offer libraries of AI voices for various uses beyond Waze direction prompts, smart appliances and virtual assistants.

Against this wave of intelligent automation, The Writers Guild of America, a labour union of writers in numerous media sectors, seeks to ban AI work from being used as source material and introduce measures to protect their writers from being made redundant by AI. The guild also claimed that "AI software does not create anything. It generates a regurgitation of what it’s fed" and that "plagiarism is a feature of the AI process".

All these aside, the AI tsunami is all but inevitable as technology becomes even more essential to our lives. Over time, as the trend takes off, more will use AI to create content under shrinking time constraints. As quantity grows, quality will matter less and less, up to a point where writing is no longer art or "artsy" but a mass-consumed commodity. "In a nutshell," Whyte states, "generative AI has the potential to destroy a lot of value in the literary world without producing a single great work of literature."

But just as one out of a million monkeys at typewriters will somehow create a masterpiece, trained AI models can make art if given enough chances. An acquaintance playing around with ChatGPT Plus is startled (as am I) but pleased with the results, albeit with a little tweaking, and is planning a volume (or several) of AI-aided short fiction and poetry.

Yes, writers can finally write more and write often with AI and some seem fine with that, like romance authors. As more embrace AI as a writing tool, more books will be produced and, presumably, more gems and new voices will emerge and get read, and publishers will have to take notice as genres that were once considered niche enter the mainstream through sheer volume of work and readership. Though I don't think AI can crank out a romance novel because the writing for that genre is "formulaic".

Perhaps what fogeys like me will miss about publishing once AI assistance becomes the norm are the variety in our editing-room war tales, the joy of discovering the elusive sparkle in the mire, and the cataloguing of writer snafus for memoirs that may never see the light of day. Where's the allure in sifting through the slush pile when everything looks immaculately machine-manufactured? And AIs don't make hilarious typos, do they? Nor are they likely to engage in witty repartee. Y'know, human things.

Well, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

When the Gutenberg press was invented, it was a matter of time before books no longer belonged solely to the privileged. Then the internet happened and everyone can now be a writer, publisher, journalist, and opinion-shaper, for better or worse.

As treasure hunters of the literary kind, editors, publishers and agents now have a burgeoning galaxy of stars to search for the next supernova hit. The vastness of the infinite is daunting but I believe we're up to the challenge.

And it's not as if AI is infallible. There are cases where AI made mistakes and even amplified misinformation. Gatekeepers will not be out of a job, far from it. If the post-truth situation is projected to be as dire as this post says, we have our work cut out for us. Hiccups in these early AI assistants only mean we have more time to adapt.

Pressed Over Bookshop Presence

Self-published author Grace G. Pacie can't seem to get her book into bookshops, a problem she shares with "other successful self-published authors". She reckons it's because...

...retail book buyers are hiding from us. Retail book buyers have concealed themselves behind such a curtain of secrecy, that we just can’t reach them to tell them about our success. ... I’ve met all their criteria, distributed my paperback through a non-Amazon channel and made it available through Gardners Books. Every attempt to reach the big retail decision-makers in this highly centralised market has ended in failure.

Even though the fruits of Pacie's research on managing time "has attracted such amazing media attention that my title hit number three in the Amazon Bestseller lists for Business Time Management Skills, and number four in Self Help Time Management this month"?

Some retailers tend to prefer names that sell by the score (each day, preferably), so that might not be a surprise. Other considerations might be due to retail agreements that favour big names and big presses even more, further relegating self-published titles to the wayside.

Which might not be wise, according to our self-published author who can't get into bookshops. Because: "While the global publishing market is predicted to grow at 1%, the self-publishing market is expected to grow at 17% per year, and with a self-published book market worth $1.25 billion a year, change is inevitable."

Now, among collections of self-published books one would find some with unappealing covers, back cover copy that goes over the top, and less-than-ideal editing. Some authors who "go it alone" because they feel shut out of traditional publishing ecosystems by what they see as excessive gatekeeping often do so without subjecting their work to rigorous refinement, eager to see their babies on the shelf. The growing use of AI in producing books, some of which still qualify as books even with low page counts, might also explain this growth. So kudos to self-published authors who take the time to improve their work before putting it out there.

Just as not all self-published work is unpresentable, not all bookshops are prejudiced against the self-published. Perhaps smaller neighbourhood bookstores might offer a spot on their shelves for independently published authors? They tend to because, for one, they're more amenable to small-scale, more personalised selling agreements. Also, stocking self-published works burnishes the image of the neighbourhood store as an indie outfit where hidden gems lurk.

In a similar vein, supporting small presses outside the publishing sphere dominated by the Big Five – or Big Four? – may pay off for the reader looking for something different as they contribute to the industry via their wallets.

Because, as Kendra Winchester writes in Book Riot, "big publishing isn’t the only place where excellent books are made."

Smaller presses provide a place for a lot of books big publishing doesn’t want to take a risk on, like books in translation, experimental works, and books by authors from marginalized identities. Smaller presses know their communities and invest in the literature that they specialize in, making a way for a wider range of books to be published.

Winchester goes on to build her case for indie presses, which also include university presses, as publishers of works from the communities they serve and are, thus, platforms for the voices of these communities, as opposed to big-name presses that mainly push marquee names and blockbusting titles.

Not getting a space at brick-and-mortar bookshops shouldn't be a downer, considering that a lot of commerce happens online these days. Surely the fact that Pacie's book was well-received despite its apparent absence in bookstores means it's worth checking out. Perhaps it's because bookstores have an edge, according to a Forbes Advisor analysis, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends: they are looking like the most recession-proof type of U.S. business in 2023.

Forbes Advisor ... calculated that the number of bookstores in the U.S. increased by 43% during the latter part of the pandemic and they also “enjoyed steady wage growth” during this time (+16%) as well as during the Great Recession (+13%). These stats, plus their “moderate startup cost” (around $75k, apparently), earned bookstores the top spot in the recession-proof rankings.

Regardless, books don't write themselves and bookstores, digital or terrestrial, need books to sell. And if people want to read something, they will look for it. So, authors, get your work out and put it where it can be found. But please, get it proofed and edited.

Don't Mourn The Longform Review

A discussion in an online readers' group over someone lamenting the death of "traditional book reviews" and the rise of bookstagramming turned the old gears once more.

Such grist for the mill seems to frequently come out of the Indian subcontinent, which boasts a long and colourful history of publishing along with robust and riveting discourse.

Some examples of bookstagramming provided include that of a graphic designer who offers minimal takes on books using emojis. At the end, the writer wonders whether Instagrammers can contend with privileged pedestals such as the New York Times bestseller list.

As expected, members of the online group commenting on the piece were put off by it. Someone pointed out the writer's choice of words, which I felt were polarising: the "new" ("short", "quick", "millennial" - ugh) versus the "old" ("stuffy", "hallowed", "needlessly long").

I also had to check the date: published 7 February 2021. Bookstagramming has been around before then. How long was this piece sitting in the writer's computer? Or has India finally woken up to the trend?

(Uh-oh. The writer majored in literature. Probably ego-searches on occasion. Better watch my step.)

Now, the piece makes some good points. For one, the ecosystem surrounding "traditional" book reviews has always been a rarefied circle jerk. Certain reviewers have a cosy relationship with the papers they write for, who in turn have connections to the big publishers and literary agents. These same people tend to end up in some book award panels too.

Even when the printing press was invented and the written word became more accessible, gatekeeping determined what gets and does not get published. Then and now, getting a byline in a paper is a big deal. While some have higher aspirations, middling critics like myself have more pragmatic goals: gaining free books, extra cash and writing cred.

But this cosy relationship narrowed the number of books that "matter", so the same authors and publishers tend to grab the headlines year after year. From their lofty lecterns under distinguished mastheads, marqueed reviewers sometimes take potshots at certain works, shielded from the anger and call-outs from readers.

Restaurant critic Pete Wells's takedown of Guy Fieri's American Kitchen and Bar in the New York Times was entertaining, but it was mean towards a guy who's a lot more than the hair, shades and loud shirts. (Okay, not a book review, but.) And what to say of Michiko Kakutani, who has been held in awe, dreaded and loathed for decades?

While the piece doesn't delve too deeply into the history of book reviewing to stick with the traditional-versus-Instagram tangent, the tone sounds off-putting. Was there a need to compare bookstagrammers with a controversial Indian author?

And if readers today are too "lazy" to even read captions on Instagram posts, perhaps it's because they feel that their limited time, squeezed out of a packed schedule weighed down by the stresses of modern life, is better spent elsewhere.

So what if "anyone" can influence what their peers read, especially with social reading platforms such as Goodreads? People in such circles tend to or would come to know one another, so they're comfortable with and confident in what they see there.

Also, people are more educated now. Technology is connecting people, granting them access to knowledge, and giving them a soapbox. Folks are finding their voices and skipping past the gates to be heard and read. Describing these newcomers in language that screams "hoi polloi" is tasteless and foolhardy; being picked apart alive by weaver ants seems more merciful.

Critics now are more exposed to the risks of being wrong or challenges posed by those who know more but aren't part of the nexus. So they better learn to tread lightly instead of longing, even briefly, for an imagined golden age when, presumably, it was fine to write with your head in the clouds - or up your ass.

But does that mean "traditionalists" and "purists" have to start bookstagramming to stay relevant? Whatever works, I guess. However, some rules - like ignore your personal feelings and biases, don't be too rough, and suchlike - can be set aside so you can get creative and interesting, but not mean and divisive.

Critics, for a start, should take to heart the monologue by Anton Ego, the food critic in the Disney production Ratatouille, which sums up the realities of criticism and is lent significant gravitas by the voice of the late Peter O'Toole.

But a larger pool of material means more to read and digest, which means gatekeepers are still relevant, perhaps more than ever. In George Orwell's "Confessions of a Book Reviewer", one line goes "Until one has some kind of professional relationship with books one does not discover how bad the majority of them are."

As someone with a professional relationship with books, I've found this to be true.

Orwell adds that a short pithy statement is the only criticism most books warrant, while a professional reviewer would only bother with a book if they were paid to review it. But:

...the public will not pay to read that kind of thing. Why should they? They want some kind of guide to the books they are asked to read, and they want some kind of evaluation. But as soon as values are mentioned, standards collapse. For if one says ... that King Lear is a good play and The Four Just Men is a good thriller, what meaning is there in the word 'good'?

So if a book isn't worth the time, maybe an emoji or a GIF meme will suffice - better than rendering superlatives hollow through overuse. Using cleavers on sparrows might grab more attention but it's wasteful and unnecessarily theatrical.

By now, I think there's enough space for criticism in many formats, of any length, and that space is still growing. A humongous marketplace of opinions should be celebrated and readers can take their pick in an environment where quality does shine.

However, as long as "traditional" book reviews are still being written, the format will never die. Longform articles will always have a key role in some situations when an emoji or a hundred-word caption won't do.

With growing scrutiny and greater access to information, perhaps they will get better and become more deserving of those hallowed pedestals than before.

Too Precious For Its Own Good?

In a local book lovers' Facebook page, a conversation developed around an article that was critical of Rupi Kaur's poems. "I wish we had a new label to describe Kaur’s output," proclaims the writer. "Poetry is too delicate and precious a word to be besmirched by such associations."

Really? Then perhaps poetry needs to be less precious to make it more accessible. Perhaps it also needs to be less delicate to stand up to growing scrutiny.

And if poetry has become too "precious" and "delicate" due to gatekeeping by the likes of the writer, then perhaps few are better suited to batter down those gates than Rupi Kaur.

Let me own up to my gatekeeping tendencies, which until recently tended to lean towards the literati side. The yardstick these days seems to be how viral it is, which determines how well it sells.

But things can go viral for less-than-savoury reasons.

Rupi's success did not come out of nowhere. The lore states that she was discovered on Instagram and when she went to print the fanbase followed.

Nor does the vector matter in virality. Any publicity, however bad, is better than none, so in writing his piece the writer at LiveMint is spreading the fever.

---

Granted, Rupi's prose is easy to hate on. It's so ... plain, goes one complaint. Sounds like hardly any effort went into it! Just everyday sentences that are broken at random points!

And she didn't do herself a huge favour by saying: "I'm a very empathetic person to a fault, my Dad will tell you. I see somebody remotely having a bad day and suddenly I'm on the floor crying."

These days, one can produce something trite or gimmicky, seemingly without any effort, hype it up by word of mouth and it flies off the shelves. Fewer and fewer works bear the polish and perfume traditionally associated with the craft.

Seeing these people - some of whom are already celebrities - getting rich and being feted like the greats of old must chafe for some.

"Couldn't have they found someone else?" But you have to look at the audience, don't you? What is it that they found appealing about this poet or their work? Do they deserve the same smear of tar from these creators' detractors?

"If only So-and-So or This Other Person were similarly successful." Maybe they already are? And by "successful", is it by their yardsticks or yours? Perhaps the price of fame within the arena Rupi found herself in might not be worth it? Commercial success, as we know by now, may not mean quality.

And if Louise Glück received the 2020 Nobel Prize for Literature, surely someone is looking out for the likes of her, so maybe we can rest easy.

---

Publishers and retailers today, particularly the big names, relentlessly seek the next big thing. If they're no longer good at highlighting new or hidden talents, they did it to themselves by chasing the bottom line and growing too big to fail, even a little.

So potentially good stuff gets sidelined for the sake of those churned out by recognisable names: viral names or names in the news that, hopefully, mean large profit margins that'll keep them afloat for another year.

A diverse publishing ecosystem comprising multitudes of smaller players exposes people to more names, including those the LiveMint writer feels are more deserving of the attention Rupi is getting. But the mere mention of "break it up" or "go small" seems to send chills down the spines of executives.

Maybe the LiveMint writer's ire is misdirected here.

Let's not forget that some of the lionised figures in poetry, despite their failings and the brickbats of others, have gone viral in their day and age.

Then and now, notoriety is more efficient than merit in spreading the word.

---

In the article, the writer acknowledged that, despite what they feel about Rupi's works, "there's a wave of opinion that argues that writers like Kaur speak for immigrants, people of colour, and women. Her unadorned directness, glib motivational slogans, and, at times, nonsensical blandness have broken the barriers of elitism in poetry." (Okay, the last bit is a little backhanded.)

If she's writing about her own darkness, her courage to confront or relive that pain each time she pens another verse should be noted. Don't discount the possibility that many out there are finding solace and hope in her work during these difficult times.

(And it has a local book lovers' circle debating the nature or definition of poetry. Also a plus when interesting viewpoints emerge. For me, as well - viewpoints, not necessarily interesting ones - which is why I'm putting them down here instead of a Facebook reply.)

Everything has its role in an environment. All sorts of things exist, flourish, and can only grow in fertile soil, which also harbours things we don't like. We can be honest with that.

After all, literature is a messy and happening sphere that thrives on diversity. Sanitised soil seldom nurtures flower nor fruit.

So what to call Rupi's work, then? Perhaps we should stick with "poetry". The field is big enough to accomodate her and if it has any borders, it's probably the ones we draw around ourselves and what we know.

Some Novel Titles

At a café, I spied a row of novels. Some of these titles sound ... interesting.

吃定總經理 / Eyeing the General Manager / GM Sasaranku
總裁賴定你 / The CEO Relies on You / CEO Bergantung Padamu
惡魔大總裁 / The Devilish CEO / CEO Ku Setan
邪王的嬌妻 / The Evil King's Lovely Wife / Bini Molek Raja Durjana
壞總裁的剋星 / The Wicked CEO's Bane / Duri Dalam Daging CEO
替身格格 / Stand-in Princess / Puteri Gantian
惡魔的求婚 / The Devil's Marriage Proposal / Setan Datang Meminang
丫鬟不願嫁 / Maid Don't Wanna Marry / Dayang Tak Nak Nikah
絕情貝勒 / Heartless Lord / Kejamnya Tuan
公爵的豔遇 / The Duke's Encounter / Pertembungan Dengan Kerabat

I translated parts of the text with Google Translate, which deciphered zongcai (總裁) as "chairman" one day and "CEO" days later. Beile (貝勒) is a title for a Manchurian noble, and Tishen Gege (替身格格) sounds a lot like the premise of a popular Chinese drama series.

A small sample, but one can see a pattern and infer which eras the stories take place, from medieval era and Qing Dynasty to modern times.

Why a market for this is huge – and why such novels get written – is obvious. Not every book has to enlighten or educate. Books are also a form of entertainment, and not everybody wants to walk in familiar shoes on familiar streets. The boots of a mage or the greaves of a knight in a faraway or fantasy setting would be more tempting than the flip-flops of a weary executive seeking to "eat, pray, love".

Am I going anywhere with this? Not really. Curious about the titles, I tried typing them out and translated them later. I didn't want all that work to be wasted and it's nice to see something familiar in other languages.

The Opacity And Remoteness Of Academic Texts

"The idea that writing should be clear, concise, and low-jargon isn't a new one — and it isn't limited to government agencies, of course", writes Victoria Clayton in The Atlantic. "The problem of needlessly complex writing — sometimes referred to as an 'opaque writing style' — has been explored in fields ranging from law to science. Yet in academia, unwieldy writing has become something of a protected tradition."

Indeed, but why?

[Steven] Pinker, a cognitive scientist, says it boils down to "brain training": the years of deep study required of academics to become specialists in their chosen fields actually work against them being able to unpack their complicated ideas in a coherent, concrete manner suitable for average folks. Translation: Experts find it really hard to be simple and straightforward when writing about their expertise.

I believed for a long time that academics wrote that way because elitism - writing for their peers and seniors instead of the public in a tone one can use to dry laundry. I'm not the only one who feels like this. In The Conversation, an article on "redetermining paradigmatic norms" in academic writing states that:

The complex work of academics and their unwillingness to write for a more lay audience is unsurprising to some commentators. Journalist Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times writes that the academic industry "glorifies arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience", while philosophy professor Terrance Macmullan argues that "most intellectuals simply don’t bother trying to engage the public."

The same article, by Siobhan Lyons, a tutor in Media and Cultural Studies at Macquarie University, also claims that a 2013 writing guide issued by the University of Technology in Sydney advised, among other things, that academic essays be "written using more complex grammar, vocabulary, and structures."

I also believe that this obtuseness is why people no longer trust the experts in matters such as climate change, finance and vaccines.

But textbook publishers might have also been taking advantage of this "brain training" to price their books sky-high, implying that certain types of knowledge must commensurate with the amount of time and effort taken to compile it. Which makes sense.

However, with online storage capacities growing, textbook prices (and tuition fees) rocketing, and attention spans shrinking, is it still viable to be so opaque when recording and conveying knowledge? The widespread TL;DR syndrome among us might also be a sign that it's time to change the way we record, teach and learn.

An expert's value in his field depends not only in his ability to absorb and retain information, but to apply it to his field and further develop it - and get others to take up his work as well, picking up where he left off.

Distilling opaquely written knowledge to more plebeian levels will go a long way towards that, but other things must also be considered - passion, interest and the ability to use that knowledge - before one argues that such a move would cheapen the value of these compiled texts.

I doubt it would. As Ms Lyons stated:

...complexity shouldn’t be confused for intellect. Writing in a more straight-forward way does not necessarily mean compromising on quality; as George Orwell outlined in his essay Politics and the English Language: "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."

Regardless of how it is recorded, knowledge is valuable. Someone has to go out there to get it, make sense of it all, and put it down in letters, numbers and symbols. All that work is what people are paying for.

Like how some nutrients from our food need to be reduced to simpler forms for better absorption, making the language more layman-like doesn't lower its value, but makes it more easily understood. How is that bad?

Taking the stuffy prof out of the pages might be tough, as not every text may survive the process. Ms Lyons noted in her piece that...

...not all academic work is designed to be written for a general audience, which is why academia is distinguished from other kinds of writing, such as journalism. Each industry has its own specific lingo, from medicine to law, complete with its own buzz words and terminology.

Considering the amount of material already out there, it's probably too late to have it all reworded for the masses. But maybe we can start with what is being written right now. Which brings us back to the issue of accessibility and money.

With academic texts so inaccessible, even for those willing to pay, a black market in academic papers seems to be thriving. Also looming large is the threat of book piracy.

Compensating academics and the publishing ecosystem fairly would also go a long way in encouraging their work and enhancing its quality, which also wards off tendencies to rely on essay mills and those who peddle dodgy material. You can't talk about ethics and integrity if you're worried about income.

A pay-walled, well-maintained online alternative to shelves of bulky books heavy enough for weight training can be attractive to those who require regular access. Digitisation has its own issues, and some publishers are understandably reluctant to do business in countries where fraud is rife.

But with places such as Southeast Asia, India and the Far East hosting many voracious consumers of digital content (and students desperate for reference material to help them get top grades), an ethically administered digital textbook library or store makes more sense.

All the better if that material was written plainly (or in a stylishly academic manner), so that we can spend time using that knowledge instead of figuring out "what did this writer mean by that?"