The hypocrisy of BookTok

BookTok is everywhere. Not only does #BookTok have over 370 million views on TikTok, many bookstores, such as Barnes & Noble, feature entire sections dedicated to books trending online.

While reviving youth interest in reading is inarguably a positive, this new mode of discourse has interesting implications on both what and how we read.

It’s no secret that social media revolves around aesthetics. So, when social media becomes the primary forum for discussing and sharing books, reading becomes defined by its aesthetics as well.

Books have become a form of cultural capital. Just look at the emergence of staged photo ops featuring celebrities like Jacob Elordi and Emily Ratajkowski reading, or fashion shows by ERDEM and JW Anderson, where models strut down the runway with books in hand.

To be seen reading “serious” literature communicates intellect and cultural awareness. The flip side of this mindset, however, is the backlash directed at readers and writers of less critically-acclaimed genres focusing on lighter themes

That’s not to say some books aren’t more “serious” than others. Sure, Jane Austen probably has more literary merit than Colleen Hoover. But it is interesting that a community supposedly intended to promote excitement among book lovers reinforces exclusive binaries.

This summer, I encountered online discourse over the cover of Elena Ferrante’s “My Brilliant Friend.” The book is widely acclaimed for its thematic depth, yet many likened the faded, low-resolution cover to that of a “kitschy chick flick.” The controversy was so intense that the publisher eventually redesigned the covers.

There’s nothing wrong with appreciating an aesthetically pleasing book. However, most of the criticism didn’t accuse the cover of being unattractive, but of depicting aesthetics popular in less acclaimed genres.

I don’t know about you, but once I pick up a book, I spend about 0.0000001% of my time looking at the cover. Its physical appearance only really matters to those watching someone else read.

As books are absorbed by the world of internet trends, the rules of fashion are increasingly being applied to literature. BookTok reflects this by categorizing books based on different aesthetics: dark academia, coquette and more. These characterizations are often given based on covers and superficial features of the story, like setting or time period. When literature, which should be multidimensional, is reduced to aesthetic labels, its meaning is flattened.

Take, for instance, Donna Tartt’s “The Secret History.” For years I saw this book on dozens of “dark academia” recommendation lists. When I finally picked it up last year, I was shocked at the contrast between how this book is marketed and its central message. Don’t worry, I won’t spoil the ending. All you need to know is that the book warns against the dangers of the elitism that underlies the dark academia aesthetic. The book was being marketed, at least by content creators, as the very thing it warned against.

BookTok has rebranded reading as fashionable. But with this new identity comes a new set of rules. Books aren’t simply meant to be read — they’re meant to be seen. Reading has always been a conduit for new ideas and broadening one’s perspective. When books are reduced to accessories, their purpose and complexity are diluted.

Becca Koenig is a senior at Menlo-Atherton High School in Atherton. Student News appears in the weekend edition. You can email Student News at news@smdailyjournal.com.