Via Marginal Revolution, I read a very interesting post on Online Monoculture and the End of the Niche. The post is based on a paper by Daniel M. Fleder and Kartik Hosanagar that demonstrates, in part, that “some…recommender systems increase the experience of diversity for every individual in the sample and yet decrease the overall diversity of the culture.”
That might sound counterintuitive, but it does make sense. The graphical demonstration at the linked post (and the post itself) is very comprehensible, I think. And interesting! There are a couple sticking points for me, but they aren’t super relevant here.
All that is a preface to my saying: this idea of online monoculture really interests me in terms of books, book recommendations, and book blogging. Note that simple word-of-mouth functions just like recommendation algorithms in that it can produce a similarly lowered Gini coefficient (but less counterintuitively, I suppose). And of course word-of-mouth is huge on the internets—that’s all “viral” really means. And, again of course, this is all a huge part of blogging.
Print reviews are often accused of fostering a literary monoculture, and blogs are supposed, in a way, to counter that. But blogs fall prey to it as well—I am not the first person to note that the same books are discussed here, there, and everywhere (and that those same books show up at the top of my Amazon recommendations). Is it possible to avoid the monoculture and yet remain a part of a community?
That is not to say there is anything wrong with multiple reviews of the same book; on the contrary, I think it is highly desirable. But sometimes it can feel really hard to find the unusual. I mean, I can find just about anything on Amazon—if I know about it. But how do we come to know about it? The very algorithms and discussions that should be leading me on my path could be hurting me. As Whimsley put it:
To use a geographical analogy, in Internet World the customers see further, but they are all looking out from the same tall hilltop. In Offline World individual customers are standing on different, lower, hilltops. They may not see as far individually, but more of the ground is visible to someone. In Internet World, a lot of the ground cannot be seen by anyone because they are all standing on the same big hilltop.
Sometimes it’s still the most mundane of Offline World things—like the bibliography, or the eccentric bookstore browse—that seem the best ways of mapping that ground.
No, the niche is not ended. There is not one type of book blog, and the many mini-monocultures our niches create are probably quite like the small hilltops of the Offline World. But it can be so easy to become complacent and stop doing our own individual exploration, which is still hard work (relatively speaking). Another good reason for me to get back to some themed reading soon.
Very thought-provoking. It is kind of difficult to steer away from the more popular books, as the pull to reading them is great. And as book blogging is mostly a community thing. I try to be conscious about my picks sometimes, but then a lot of times it’s easier to go along with what I really want to read. I’m trying to refrain from the usual strict book review, as I’m not even a good critique and just love most of what I read. Looking forward to your next theme..
(edit: not a good critic)
I like the small hilltop large hilltop analogies. You mentioned themed reading, bibliographies and eccentric bookstores as small hilltop activities. I have also found some interesting books and surprising connections by using the “reverse” bibliographies in GoogleBooks. If you are looking at a book on GoogleBooks generates references to said book from websites, references from books, and from scholarly works.
This is a very interesting subject, which I’ve actually read more about in rock and film criticism than in literature. The big problem is always, how to say it, correctly defining the denominator. Was the monoculture really that mono in the past? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The idea that “everyone” used to be reading Updike and Vidal or whatever seems pretty arguable. And maybe we have as many Harry Potter and Twilight-type crazes as we used to.
Unlike claire, I find it very easy to stay away from the more popular books! Maybe a little too easy.
First of all, your point about everyone reviewing the same books is well-put. I would say it’s probably that most people have access to the same books and then are obviously more likely to write about them. Does that even make sense? Regardless, the online world has rarely mixed with my tangible world. I may find books on Amazon and review them and buy them, but I’ll still go to stores and just randomly pick up books with interesting looking covers (and back-covers, obviously). When I’m in the library or a bookstore, I’ll try to avoid picking up books I’ve heard a lot about. If I’ve seen the name somewhere I might look at it, but I prefer the random finds. It is part of the charm.
I also really like that analogy. It really describes the situation nicely.
nateG: I love your Google Books tip. I’m going to have to try that out next time it seems appropriate.
On staying away from popular books: sometimes I find it easy, sometimes difficult. Often I’m drawn to a popular book just because I want to understand the experience so many others are having. That’s how I end up reading things like The Da Vinci Code. It can be an enlightening experience. Other times I end up shying away from books I will probably like because they have the taint of overhype. Sometimes popular books really are good. In fact, I think the biggest effect of the monoculture on me personally is that I miss out on the best biggest books because I’m overcompensating for my tall hilltop.