There is, of course, some truth to the well-known fact that is drilled into us; reading does make you intelligent, reading enhances literacy, reading makes you a critical thinker, and so forth. But, with the rise of anti-intellectualism online, can we still make such firm judgements about the benefits of reading?
Humans at their core are hopeless lovers of literature and stories. Even Alexander the Great kept a copy of The Iliad under his pillow (a habit I have picked up). I am an amalgamation of the books I have consumed and the authors I venerate. How could I not be? And, of course, reading makes you intelligent. How could it not?
In walks BookTok, the rise of a new set of criteria drawn up mercilessly by teenagers, heralding a whirlwind of new literature, new genres, and discarding the old. Personalities are based off of characters, looking to the famous bookworms that litter our culture – Hermione Granger, Rory Gilmore, Elizabeth Bennet, Matilda. Reading is cool, reading is fun, reading is sexy.
But I’m all for reading becoming popular. Year Eight me would look at this time as a haven – maybe I wouldn’t get told off by my music teacher for reading too much fiction and not doing enough keyboard practice.
But it is less the popularity, and more the twisting of criteria, that irks me. Suddenly, all genres have taken on a new meaning – most notably Romance. No longer is it the demure flash of an ankle, the bashful skin-to-skin hand holding, lingering glances, and forbidden meetings (Mr Darcy, the main perpetrator). There has risen a new need and craving for graphic romance, so strong in fact, that TikTok deems a book unworthy of your time, unless it includes what is christened ‘smut’. These graphic, well-described, often borderline abusive, and definitely not U-rated scenes are all the rage.
Of course, book pornography – or what was deemed book pornography – did not only arise within the last few years. Even Nabokov’s Lolita, controversial as it may be, was deemed “book porn” and this was part of the reason why it was banned in so many countries. Where I find they differ is in their treatment of these scenes.
I’m not here to criticise certain authors but I do want to draw your attention to what it is we prioritise in literature, what we gain from reading books, and the everlasting impact this has on our societies. It is quite obvious that to compare certain contemporary authors with the classics is a dangerous path to tread, albeit one that is done very recklessly within comments sections.
No, Colleen Hoover is not like Dostoevsky. Why? They prioritise different things in their literature. Dostoevsky and his books were notably solemn, cynical, and psychological, having characters grasp at inner conflicts. And from what I’ve read of Colleen Hoover’s books – which, I admit, is next to nothing – I can tell that she does not possess the same solemnity towards her literature as Dostoevsky does.
Regardless, it is almost impossible to make a living from being an author today unless you appeal to the masses, on social media and on BookTok; and it is no secret that BookTok has a very tight grip on what it likes and what it doesn’t. But once you begin to appeal to the masses, all acts become acts of self-commodification. How much of your personality and your values are you willing to sell in order to really ‘make it’? Our meaning of what literature is has become warped in order to allow for its commodification, and capitalism has ruined our perception of it as a sort of fast-fashion product rather than something to be absorbed.
Obviously, reading makes you intelligent. It exercises your brain and enhances your vocabulary, as well as your concentration. It is also supposed to significantly improve your IQ if you do it every day, by up to 50 points. But if we are prioritising certain tumultuous and controversial criteria, does the same still apply? Does a Sartre reader increase their IQ by more points than a Hoover reader?
Anti-intellectualism breeds on platforms like BookTok. The rise of anti-intellectualism – that is, its growing normalisation – can be attributed to the rise of TikTok, and, in turn, BookTok, and the growing uncertainty of what it stands for.
If books famously promoted intellectualism, dealt with issues of intellectualism, and strove to depict intellectual struggles within their pages, then this begs the question: does the absence of such elements mean that books today (though not all) strive for anti-intellectualism? If a novel’s only appeal is that it contains smut, is that its only purpose? What do we gain from that, that isn’t a brief bout of lust and dopamine? Is that any different from a quick scroll on TikTok?
It may also be noted that an ‘intellectual’ book can still be an entertaining book, and the two are not so dissimilar. However, we have come to the point in our society where we hold the generalised assumption that ‘intellectual’ automatically means ‘boring’ – a child grumbling through a museum. This is exactly where the problem arises. And in defence of pretension – to be ‘clued up’ so to speak; to know things, to critically think about the media we are bombarded with, to use rare words and to chase information out of pure curiosity… This is becoming more and more rare, chased out of us by fast-fashion consumerism and the pace of our world.
My personal stance is that you are entitled to your own literary preferences, but a book that only entertains is not the same as one that also enriches. And which is the greater purpose of literature?
Possibly the most concerning dilemma of this entire discussion is that certain authors are being drowned out by novels that promote anti-intellectualism, authors whose literature is eye-opening and does promote deeper thinking. Do you think if Sylvia Plath attempted to market her book on TikTok, she would receive nearly the same amount of attention as Hoover? A lot of us would wonder who this (to put it plainly) white, depressed woman was and why she was so philosophical about such an average life (i.e The Bell Jar). I firmly believe she would be drowned out and read by a minority.
So, in retrospect, how do we go about giving authors the attention they deserve while avoiding the wrong sorts of literature? Can we please everyone? And does reading any and every book make you intelligent?
