Reading societies have been around for quite a while. Traditionally they brought people with a love of reading together where they could discuss the material they have all read. Studies on such societies in 18th century Germany have been researched extensively and findings conclude that in one particular reading society in the town of Ludwigsburg, membership depended on a relationship of civil or military nature to court, thus there was a line separating these upper and middle classes who were connected from the poor who were not (Milstein 19). The creator of this reading society was an intellectual scholar who was a member of several learned societies and held many honors (Milstein 23). The main focus of the readings were of a moral, philosophical, and religious nature because of the founder’s interest in those fields (Milstein 23).
A newer reading society is the Book of the Month Club. The manner in which it works is different than that of the former 18th century reading society. In this contemporary one, members do not need to know anyone else connected to the club. They can simply sign up and every month they will receive books that have been chosen by a group of highly qualified panelists (Radway 262). Members also do not meet to discuss the books. If they wish to do so they can, but it is not a necessity of the club. The Book of the Month Club more closely resembles Twitter, an online social networking tool which allows users to write up to 140 characters in one message, or “tweet” as a reading society.
Reading societies are invaluable because their aim is to deepen intimacies of friendship while giving members opportunity to have fun and explore new works together (Robertson 52). While traditional book clubs, such as the ones that meet in libraries or ones which users sign up for and receive books to their doors, have this outcome, Twitter does as well. Users of the social networking tool can learn new things and message friends right from their own homes. Twitter can be used to “share personal reflections, and discuss events, contests, and announcements” (Hunt 137). A function of book clubs is that they make books widely available to people in rural areas and they provide expert information on reading to their users. Twitter is able to do the same things as anyone with an internet connection can access the site (Kappel 224). These are all aspects seen in older reading societies as well, proving Twitter is a modern day version of the older clubs.
Groups that congregate in book clubs meet according to demographics (Robertson 53). Similarly, Twitter has groups that people who would be interested in the topic involved would follow. For example, there are reading groups for everyone from mothers with toddlers (@TampaBayMomsGrp) to teenaged fashion lovers (@TeenVogue). Scientists have also come together to share their findings by not merely answering the question Twitter poses, “What are you doing” but by “mindcasting” (the process of broadcasting ideas). (Ben-Ari 632).
More serious issues are also discussed on Twitter, which may not be able to be talked about in a book club because the nature of immediacy that is required. For example, a blogger who was put in jail because of the nature of his site tweeted about the experience in real time. His friends coordinated to surround a car in which the police were holding their friend and prevent it from being towed away so he too would not go to prison. (Shirky 185-187). Due to the lack of editors on the internet it allows coverage of issues and events that are not frequently covered by traditional news outlets (Cross 69).
Traditional reading societies tend to focus on one book at a time, chosen by a leader (Frank, Dixon, Brandts 448). Twitter works differently, as the user is the “leader” of their own account and they can choose whom to follow. Yet at times, certain key figures will have an influence on users of who to follow. In traditional reading societies known names such as Oprah or The New York Times can steer reading choices (Griswold, McDonnell, Wright 134). As reading is a social practice people follow these recommendations because they are the most popular, which means they can speak to many others who may have read the same books. While in Twitter the choice of who to follow is more independent, many users still choose to follow well known figures thus “supplementing and intensifying real life” (Cowen 57). The simplicity of Twitter makes it stand apart from other reading societies, as finding a post a user is interested is very fast. As the tool is web based, posts are indexed by Google, meaning they can by read within minutes and immediately discussed (Wilcox, Glen 346).
Bibliography
Wilcox, Dennis L., and Glen T. Cameron. Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics. 10th Ed. Pearson, 2011.
Hunt, Tara. The Power of Social Networking. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2009.
Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody. London: Penguin, 2008.
Ben-Ari, Elia. “Twitter: What’s All The Chirping About?” University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. 59.7 (2009): 632.
Cowen, Tyler. “Three Tweets for the Web.” Wilson Quarterly. 33.4 (2012): 54-58.
Radway, Janice A.. “The Book-of-the-Month Club and the General Reader.” Reading in America. Ed. Cathy N. Davidson. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1989. 259-284.
Milstein, Barney M. Eight Eighteenth Century Reading Societies. Bern, Switzerland: Herbert Lang & Co. Ltd., 1972.
Cross, Mary. Bloggerati, Twitterati: How Blogs and Twitter are Transforming Popular Culture. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2011.
Robertson, Deb. “Oprah and Out:Libraries Keep Book Clubs Flourishing.” American Libraries. 33.8 (2002): 52-53.
Kappel, Joseph W. “Book Clubs and the Evaluation of Books.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 12.2 (1948): 243-252.
Griswold, Wendy, Terry McDonnell, and Nathan Wright. “Reading and the Reading Class in the 21st Century.” Annual Review of Sociology. 31. (2005): 127-132.
Frank, Carolyn R., Carol N. Dixon, and Lois R. Brandts. “Bears, Trolls, and Pagemasters: Learning about Learners in Book Clubs.” Reading Teacher. 54.5 (2001): 448-462.