Abstract
BookTok, a TikTok community where creators discuss and review books, influences the publishing industry as books that gain popularity on TikTok have seen mainstream success. BookTok is believed to be a diverse space where stories about marginalized identities are celebrated. This is in opposition to the traditional publishing world that is dominated by White, heterosexual, cis-gendered men. However, despite misconceptions, online spaces are notably homogeneous, and TikTok does not appear to diverge from these patterns. By analyzing 55 TikTok videos collected from the BookTok community, this study analyzes the race, gender, and sexual orientation of TikTok creators, authors, and main characters of BookTok books. This article aims to understand the effects social media applications such as TikTok have on the publishing world and to understand BookTok’s relation to diversity. While there is more gender equity among the authors of BookTok than in the traditional publishing world, there continues to be a deficiency in the prevalence of marginalized authors on the platform. Although women creators and women authors are popular on the app, most of these women are White. In addition, the authors who are most discussed on BookTok do not typically include persons of color or members of the LGBTQ+ community. The tendency for authors to write about their own experiences results in there being few characters of color and few books about members of the LGBTQ+ community. Publishing houses should prioritize increased collaboration with authors of color and LGBTQ+ authors, while also using BookTok to promote and advertise their work.
Introduction
BookTok is a niche community within the popular social media application TikTok. Creators on BookTok post book recommendations, information regarding upcoming book releases, and other book-related content. On TikTok, creators can post videos from 15 seconds up to 10 minutes in length resulting in the opportunity for short and detailed reviews to circulate on the app. The BookTok community has attracted attention outside of social media as Barnes and Noble, the largest book retailer in the United States of America, and Indigo, the largest book retailer in Canada, both have dedicated spaces within their stores and on their websites advertising books that are popular on BookTok (Barnes & Noble, n.d.; Indigo Books & Music, Inc, n.d.-b). Indigo and TikTok also recognized the influence of BookTok as these companies worked together on a virtual book club during the Spring and Summer of 2022 (Indigo Books & Music, Inc, n.d.-a). The book club had exclusive events, discussions with notable authors, and allowed readers to interact with one another and discuss the books (Indigo Books & Music, Inc, n.d.-b). The use of TikTok as an advertising tool does not end with bookstores as Penguin Random House, one of the largest publishing houses in the world, has also collaborated with TikTok (Penguin Random House, 2022). TikTok implemented a new feature that allows for books published by Penguin Random House to be tagged and provides a link to a page that has more details about the book (Penguin Random House, 2022). This feature allows consumers to readily access information about the books in the hopes that the users will be encouraged to purchase them (Penguin Random House, 2022). BookTok is a growing community that has attracted the attention of large book retailers and publishing houses who are using the digital space to increase their profits.
However, BookTok is not the only book-related social media space as BookTube and Bookstagram exist on the social media applications YouTube and Instagram, respectively. Despite all these being social media book communities, each space offers its users a distinct experience. BookTube videos are differentiated from other platforms’ book content through their diary-vlog style videos in which the creators’ personality is essential to the success of their channel (Reddan et al., 2024). Reddan et al. (2024) argue that BookTube videos are entertaining, use informal language, and focus on the creator’s personal taste rather than a critical review. As Instagram is primarily a photo-focused application, Bookstagram content is characterized by its aesthetic look (Reddan et al., 2024). Posts with carefully placed book covers that use a color-corresponding background are the norm on Bookstagram (Reddan et al., 2024). BookTok differs from the other platforms due to its shorter style of videos, with book content creators describing it as a more accessible platform due to content requiring less effort to produce (Reddan et al., 2024). Reddan et al. (2024) describe BookTok content as videos that aim to elicit an emotional response from the consumer and urge them to read the book. However, while this may be popular content, I would argue it is more important to discuss BookTok’s other features that have allowed it to see success unparalleled by any other book-related social media. As discussed earlier and as highlighted by Reddan et al. (2024), Penguin Random House collaborated with TikTok to allow linking between videos and their sites. Reddan et al. (2024) also discussed booksellers crediting BookTok for a rise in reading and BookTok’s success in selling books. Despite existing for less time, BookTok has caused a rise in book sales and reading patterns that other online reading communities have not been able to accomplish. The success of BookTok does not appear to be due to different content, but instead the nature of the TikTok application. Most users of TikTok engage with the For You Page (FYP), a constant swipeable feed of videos that users can watch, like, comment, and/or follow the creator of the video. The FYP is controlled by the TikTok algorithm, which is one defining feature of the app as its algorithm is vastly different from other platforms. Unlike other social media algorithms, TikTok’s algorithm collects data about each user based on watch time and engagement with videos (likes and comments; Pitre, 2023; Reddan et al., 2024). The algorithm uses this information to understand each user’s unique interests and continues to show users other videos with similar genres (Pitre, 2023; Reddan et al., 2024). As a result, while BookTok’s content may be marked by attempting to elicit emotional responses in the user, to understand BookTok’s distinctiveness from other social media book communities, BookTok being on the highly personable algorithm TikTok cannot be ignored.
BookTok has been proposed as being a diverse space where readers who may have not felt represented in the publishing space can come together and discuss more diverse books (Boffone & Jerasa, 2021; McCall, 2022). Diversity can take many forms including stories written by and with main characters that are women, people of color, transgender people, and/or other members of the LGBTQ+ community. Like many other cultural industries, the publishing world has traditionally been a space for White people where people of color are devalued (Erigha, 2021; Saha & Van Lente, 2022; Thakore, 2020). The whiteness of the publishing industry continues to be an issue as demonstrated by the 2020 #PublishingPaidMe tag which showed the industry’s disregard for non-White authors. Using the social media app Twitter, authors began to disclose the advance they received for their books along with the #PublishingPaidMe. As more authors participated in this movement, it became clear White authors’ advancements were frequently higher than their Black counterparts’ (Grady, 2020; McCall, 2022). Social media platforms such as TikTok are often viewed as democratic spaces as anyone with a smartphone can create and upload content. However, this is a misconception as the online sphere is not as inclusive as everyday individuals perceive it to be. Matthew Hindman (2009) was one of the first scholars to discuss this phenomenon in his book The Myth of Digital Democracy. Drawing on political blogs, Hindman (2009) found that while anyone could start a political blog, popular bloggers were predominantly White, male, and highly educated. There was little demographic diversity among popular political bloggers (Hindman, 2009). In contrast, Hindman (2009) highlights there is more gender equality among reporters (the traditional medium of politics) as the gender ratio for all reporters is 63% men, and for reporters under 30, there is a 50:50 ratio. Therefore, while the online space appears to be more diverse than traditional publishing spaces as anyone can post, previous online content spaces align with current systems of gender and racial oppression.
BookTok does not appear to break away from this mold as creators of color have reported anecdotal evidence that their videos are more likely to go viral when they stitch (combine a part of another creator’s video to your own) a White creator’s content than posting a regular video (McCall, 2022). Boffone and Jerasa (2021) did find that queer youth, especially teens who do not feel represented by the literature within their classrooms, viewed BookTok as a safe space. BookTok provided a community and resources to engage in queer media that was lacking in traditional education systems (Boffone & Jerasa, 2021). However, these findings do not negate TikTok’s status as an online space in which diversity is not supported. Bohler et al. (2023) warn of TikTok’s algorithm pushing rural American children toward racist and hateful content. Another aspect of the TikTok algorithm is recommending videos based on geographic location (Bohler et al., 2023). As rural areas in the United States are less diverse than urban areas, there will be limited non-White creators, and as rural children are not as accustomed to those of different races compared to children in urban dwellings, the authors fear that these adolescents are at a higher risk of absorbing racist ideologies through TikTok (Bohler et al., 2023). This is furthered by TikTok’s unique algorithm in which content will continue to funnel individuals deeper into their specific genre and can create echo chambers (Bohler et al., 2023). BookTok’s lack of diversity is already notable as a recent article by the Cut highlights that authors who have experienced life-changing success because of TikTok have all been White (McCall, 2022). Therefore, while BookTok has been portrayed as a diverse space, its actual relationship with diversity is unlikely to differ from other online spaces.
Diversity within books is important as it allows readers who have traditionally not been represented within books to read stories that more accurately represent themselves. In addition, diversity allows marginalized authors to tell their unique stories and readers to learn about the experiences of others with different identities and perspectives. Using a content analysis of videos within the BookTok community, this article aims to understand TikTok’s relationship with diversity and answer the question: How has TikTok changed literary criticism? The research objectives of this project are:
Assess trends regarding the race, gender identity, and sexuality of the TikTokers, authors, and book main characters.
Contribute to cultural sociological research on new forms of media such as TikTok with a focus on cultural matching theory.
Understand TikTok and how it can shape a long-standing industry like the publishing industry.
While there have been studies on BookTok, few studies have analyzed TikTok’s influence on the publishing industry. Research papers on BookTok have provided an overview of the BookTok community (Roberts, 2021; Wiederhold, 2022), case studies on specific books that have gained popularity (Boffone & Jerasa, 2021), and others on specific creators that have risen within the community (Dezuanni et al., 2022). Reddan et al. (2024) provide an in-depth analysis of the reading cultures on the social media applications YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. This book highlights BookTube’s, Bookstagram’s, and BookTok’s respective influence on reading and its shaping of social reading culture through these platforms. Reddan et al. (2024) discuss the interconnection of bookish social medias and the publishing industry through a marketing lens. The authors draw on interviews, focus groups, and content analysis to inform their book but do not comprehensively discuss book trends along racial, gender, and sexuality lines of the TikTokers, authors, and book main characters. To my knowledge, there has been no peer-reviewed study on BookTok books and the effects of TikTok on the publishing industry. To account for this, the literature review will focus on three areas that have been theorized within studies on the publishing industry: gatekeepers, women in the publishing industry, and the difficulties of marginalized voices breaking through in the arts. The diversity of creators, authors, and main characters within BookTok is a focus of this study, with specific care on disparities in race, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
Literary Agents and Reviewers’ Role as Gatekeepers in the Publishing Industry
Gatekeepers play a significant role in many fields, and the publishing industry is no exception as gatekeepers influence the books that become published. Within the publishing industry, gatekeepers have traditionally taken the form of literary agents and publishing houses (Childress & Nault, 2019; Johnson, 2020). Authors must submit their manuscripts to these gatekeepers and hope their work is selected to become a published piece (Childress & Nault, 2019; O’Brien & Ianni, 2023; Rivera, 2012; Squires, 2020). These literary critics provide summaries, praise, and critiques of the books (Squires, 2020). Cultural matching has been proposed as a theory to understand literary agents’ and publishing houses’ decisions on selecting manuscripts (Childress & Nault, 2019). Rivera (2012) first discussed cultural matching in hiring processes in which employers hired candidates with similarities in leisure activities and life experiences, among other cultural phenomena. Cultural matching suggests that gatekeepers will use social cues to relate to and prefer those who share a similar culture to them (Childress & Nault, 2019; O’Brien & Ianni, 2023; Rivera, 2012). Rivera (2012) argued that cultural similarity is a form of capital as it can be converted to monetary gains. Book reviewers have also been described as gatekeepers as their opinions can sway readers’ decisions in engaging with a specific book (Squires, 2020). Culture can refer to a similar interest or can include sharing a similar or the same racial background (Childress & Nault, 2019; O’Brien & Ianni, 2023; Rivera, 2012). Childress and Nault (2019) found that literary agents engaged in cultural matching theory when selecting manuscripts and in meetings with authors. As literary agents are predominantly White, White authors’ manuscripts are more likely to be selected for publication (Anderson, 2016; Childress & Nault, 2019). Using cultural matching theory, the overrepresentation of White authors within the publishing industry could then be explained by the overrepresentation of White literary agents. Yet, there has been an increase in women literary agents, but there has not been same increase in women authors as would be suggested by cultural matching theory (Anderson, 2016). Therefore, cultural matching cannot be the only explanation for disparities in the publishing industry, and there is a need to consider other theories.
The Devaluing of Women’s Stories by Critics and Society
A feminist perspective of the publishing industry suggests that it is not individual gatekeepers who are preventing diversity but society’s patriarchal views. Women authors have been published less not because of gatekeepers but because stories about women and feminine topics are considered to lack substance and thought to not be real literature (Bautz, 2018; Langlois, 1992; Laschinger & Salenius, 2019). Despite many women authors shaping different genres, the literary field and critics have disregarded women’s stories (Laschinger & Salenius, 2019). This is prevalent throughout the history of the publishing industry as female authors who were viewed as geniuses were restricted in the content they could produce (Bautz, 2018; Langlois, 1992). Jane Austen was a great English writer whose work continues to be influential today and demonstrates the restrictive nature of a woman in a man’s field. In the late 19th century, introductions were written to Austen’s work by male writers who highlighted Austen’s genius as similar to that of a man yet still mention her feminine qualities (Bautz, 2018). The genius qualities of Austen’s work such as her satire were described as masculine, but the authors highlighted the feminine qualities of Austen such as the focus on women’s stories. While the men praised Austen, the praise was for the masculine qualities, as Austen was still a woman and could not completely disrupt the gender binary (Bautz, 2018). In contrast, Mary Austin’s work in the early 20th century was written from a more feminist perspective, and many of the male critics did not review her pieces favorably (Langlois, 1992). Mary Austin believed the criticism was due to male critics and wanted more women to review and read her work as she felt that men could not understand her stories (Langlois, 1992). Jane Austen and Mary Austin demonstrate the limited nature of the publishing industry to allow women to tell their stories without restrictions. Women’s stories are not valued, and therefore, it is difficult for women to get published, resulting in fewer women authors. The women authors whose stories are told are still constrained and must contain masculine qualities to see success. As a result, a lack of diversity within the publishing industry is due not to individual gatekeepers but rather a larger societal devaluing of women.
Kim and Chong (2023) demonstrated that this pattern continued into the 21st century through their analysis of book reviews published in the critically acclaimed book review outlets The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. The authors chose reviews from 2007 because the adoption of online book content through blogs and social media sites began after 2007 (Kim & Chong, 2023). While these outlets maintain a high status to this day, in 2007, there were limited spaces for readers to learn about new books and The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times were critical spaces for authors to gain exposure (Kim & Chong, 2023). The authors found that book subgenres viewed as feminine such as romance are less likely to be reviewed than androcentric and gender-neutral subgenres (Kim & Chong, 2023). Further books written by women in androcentric and gender-neutral subgenres were less likely to be reviewed than books written by men in the same categories (Kim & Chong, 2023). Therefore, from the publishing industry’s inception until at the minimum 2007, books by women have been devalued and under-reviewed, limiting the number of readers consuming these novels.
However, this view still has many weaknesses. In a study on taste-based discrimination, participants were presented with books of different genders and races, and there were no significant differences in gender or age preference (Weinberg & Kapelner, 2022). However, participants were willing to pay slightly more for books by Black authors (Weinberg & Kapelner, 2022). This does not reflect actual buying habits, only preferences as stated by the participants, yet consumers do not appear to have a gender preference, suggesting that there is not still a large devaluation of women’s stories (Weinberg & Kapelner, 2022). In addition, this perspective is limited as it can only guide disparities on gender lines. Furthermore, not all women will have the same experience, and a White woman’s ease in navigating the publishing industry is likely to be vastly different from the experience of women of color. It is possible to expand this thinking beyond solely gender as books from authors of color (or women of color in particular) are also restricted and can only exist within the White publishing industries if they adhere to society’s ideas about people of color. However, there are still gaps, and the literature on the difficulties of marginalized voices within the arts can aid in providing a critical racial lens that a solely feminist perspective lacks.
Difficulties of Marginalized Voices in Breaking Through in the Arts and Racial Capitalism
Marginalized voices find it difficult to break through in the arts because there is a belief that marginalized voices are seen as more of a risk, yet publishing houses also want certain marginalized voices to appear diverse. As publishing industries need to give the author an advance as well as fund the creation of physical books, they attempt to pick books that will return profits (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). In selecting the authors, authors of color are seen as having a greater risk of failure than White writers (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). This is not unique to the publishing industry as other forms of entertainment such as the film industry also see similar perceptions of failure for Black creators and stories (Erigha, 2021; Saha & Van Lente, 2022; Thakore, 2020). Yet, while authors of color are devalued, publishing houses claim to want more diversity (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). Publishing houses believe that consumers want more diverse books and that being “woke” is necessary (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). Being woke involves being aware of racial prejudice and can range from being racially sensitive to recognizing larger systemic racism. Wokeness within the publishing industry typically takes the form of publishing books written by authors of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community who also have characters who share their race and sexual orientation (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). When inquired, employees within publishing houses often discuss the economic benefits of selling diverse books (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). Even when these employees began discussing the need for more diverse books for moral reasoning, that is, wanting to sell more diverse books because representation matters, the economic benefit was also always brought up (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). The simultaneous devaluing and profiting of authors of color can be explained through racial capitalism (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). Racism and capitalism work in tandem with one another to continue to produce both racism and capitalism (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). Work on racial capitalism has discussed the need for companies and other profit-producing industries to prioritize diversity, progressiveness, and being “woke” (Bhattacharyya, 2018; Pitcher, 2012; Saha & Van Lente, 2022; Sobande, 2019). Publishing houses can exploit the works of authors of color to meet the current consumer demand for diverse books (Saha & Van Lente, 2022). Popular companies like Gatorade, Nike, Pepsi, and so on engage in this woke-washing where they use feminist and anti-racist messages in their marketing campaigns (Sobande, 2019). Yet, these companies often misuse these social justice messages and promote neoliberalism by focusing on individual issues rather than advocating for structural change (Sobande, 2019). These companies use these messages to sell their products, thus benefiting but do nothing to invoke change and aid in the issue they claim to be supporting. This also occurs through the use of stereotyping these groups by focusing on their negative experiences and ignoring the positive and nuanced lives that people of color and other marginalized identities experience. Research within the field of racial capitalism in the publishing industry is limited but provides a perspective that should be considered as publishing houses claim to want to engage in diversity and yet devalue authors of color and attempt to profit off these stories.
Cultural matching theory, a feminist perspective of the publishing industry, and racial capitalism/diverse discourse are used to answer the research question. These theories have been used in previous research on the publishing industry and aid in analyzing trends found on TikTok. Cultural matching theory applies by analyzing the link between the race, gender, and sexual orientation of the creator and the books/authors they recommend. Many of the TikTok creators within this study are White, and they primarily recommend books that are about White people written by White authors. Comparably, cultural matching theory can also explain diverse books being recommended when these books are primarily recommended by creators who share similar diverse identities as them. Cultural matching theory suggests that more diversity in the publishing industry could be created by employing more authors, literary agents, and reviewers of marginalized backgrounds. The overlooking of women’s stories can also aid in this analysis as there appears to be a shift with the gender of authors and book main characters on TikTok. An increase in women authors suggests that women’s stories are valued by TikTok creators, yet there is still a question of the kind of women who is now valued. Previous feminist theories in the publishing industries focused on White women, and there is a need to understand the lack of stories from and by women of color. Finally, racial capitalism can also aid in understanding the diversity of TikTok books. Like many of the publishing houses, it may be that White creators recommend books by authors of color as they want to be rewarded for being diverse. Rather than recommending books because of the quality, if there are few books centered around people of color and most of these focus on common stereotypes of traumatic or painful aspects of being from these marginalized groups, racial capitalism can act as an explanation. Publishing houses and BookTok creators can use non-White authors to attract followers, but also these creators may misrepresent social justice messages through attempting to co-opt these movements for their gain (Bhattacharyya, 2018; Sobande, 2019). Many of these creators may be profiting off these authors of color by recommending books to gain moral points with their audiences rather than recommending books to provide their audiences with diverse stories. These different theories will aid in understanding how TikTok’s relation to diversity and how TikTok has or has not altered literary criticism and the wider publishing industry.
Methodology
This study uses content analysis of TikTok videos from the BookTok community. The videos are collected using the TikTok feature that allows a user to look at videos posted under a specific hashtag. Using a brand new TikTok account, the top 15 videos under the BookTok hashtag and the Book Recommendations hashtag were selected for analysis. The BookTok hashtag was chosen as it encapsulates the community, and many creators use this hashtag within the caption of the videos. However, some videos discuss books more generally or use humor to make comedic comments about certain books rather than recommendations. As a focus of this study was literary criticism through the form of recommendations and reviews, the top 15 videos under the #BookRecommendations were also selected. These hashtags were also chosen as a new user to BookTok may scroll through the videos under these hashtags to view videos and receive recommendations from the community. The top five most recent videos from five popular English-speaking BookTok influencers are also analyzed. This is done to better understand the BookTok community and collect data about creators who have consistent engagement and are celebrated within the BookTok community. At the time of the study, no database exists that contains an up-to-date list of the most popular BookTokers. The researcher reached out to TikTok to inquire about such a list, but TikTok did not reply. A list of five of the top BookTok creators was created through comparing outdated lists of popular BookTokers and online articles that suggest BookTokers to follow. The list of creators was first based on ProWritingAid’s study on BookTokers where a list of the top 10 most-followed BookTokers was created. I then compared this list with other creators that were found under the #BookTok and #BookRecomendations and found the four top BookTokers remained the same, but the fifth had changed. The following is the list in order of the BookTokers who were included in the study, and to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, the most followed BookTokers at the time of study: @aymansbooks, @thebookiveloved, @abbysbooks, @ezeekat, and @bumblebeezus. The last five videos each of the creators posted in 2022 that discussed their opinions of a book or books were selected for analysis. Videos that were created for humorous intent and in which the creator did not discuss their opinion of the book were not included. A total of 55 videos have been analyzed, and 202 books were mentioned. As some books and authors were mentioned more than once, 160 different books and 134 different authors were mentioned across all videos. There is also a total of 28 different creators included within this project between the videos found under the hashtag and the top five creators.
These videos will be analyzed using a codebook (see Appendix) created uniquely for this study. For each video, the race, gender, and sexual orientation of the creator, author, and book main characters were recorded. Other factors that are included within the codebook are if the creators, authors, and book main characters are transgender or cisgender, and if the creator makes specific notes that the book is diverse (whether that be the author or the main characters). To avoid mislabeling a character’s sexual orientation, sexual orientation was recorded as if the relationship was same gender or different gender. This was to avoid issues with books that may have a romance between a man and a woman but one of the characters is bisexual and ensuring that bisexual characters such as these are not mislabeled as heterosexual. The race of the author and main character is not always evident within the TikTok video, and to access this information, the researcher used Google images and other book-related websites such as GoodReads. GoodReads is a website in which users document and rate books they are readings/have read, and each book has a GoodReads-provided summary. The categories for race are based on a document that collected racial identity within Ontario, Canada (Public Health Ontario, 2021). This list was chosen as it encompasses a wide range of racial identities, and as there can be no self-identification of race within this project, having more options reduces the risk of forcing individuals into different racial identities and into categories that do not fit them.
Short Reviews on BookTok
There was a stark difference between reviews found on BookTok and traditional reviews. Twenty-seven of the videos only featured one book, two featured two books, and the remaining 26 all had three or more books mentioned within the video. One video even had 15 different books discussed within it. In comparison, traditional book reviews focus on one book, and the critic would describe their thoughts and summary of the book in detail. As a result of the number of books in each video, the level of detail provided in the BookTokers review was not in-depth. The BookTokers may just briefly mention their approval or disapproval of a book without providing much detail. One exception to this was the creator @ezeekat who was one of the top creators who’s last five videos were analyzed. Four of his videos focused only on one book in each video, and the creator provided a detailed recount of the book as well as their perceptions and recommendations as to if the viewer should also read the book. In the video in which @ezeekat mentioned more than one book, they still discussed each book in more depth than many of the other BookTokers’ videos. @ezeekat provided reviews that were more akin to traditional reviews in the booking industry through the focus on only one book and the level of detail. @ezeekat is a White man; therefore, it is interesting to note that he alone provided a more traditional review. There were only five videos out of the 30 collected from the #BookTok or #bookrecommendation that discussed one book. This suggests that the TikTok algorithm and users tend to prefer videos that discuss multiple books in one video. The books were also mostly fiction, as less than 10 books were classified as non-fiction. This suggests that there is a place for non-fiction books on TikTok, but it is not as popular as fiction books. However, the difference in the number of books per review is one of the only major differences between traditional literary criticism and BookTok as there were similarities seen with race and sexual orientation.
Understanding Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation on BookTok
Understanding the racial, gender, and sexual orientations of the TikTok creators was a focus of this study; however, this information was difficult to locate. In most of the videos that were selected from under the #BookTok and #BookRecommendations, the creator did not show their face or much of their bodies. In these videos, the book covers could be seen within the video with the occasional hand or arm. Either audio or words edited within the video would express the creators’ thoughts and review of the book. As a result, deciphering the race of many of the creators was difficult. However, this was not the case with the top five BookTok creators as only 1 video out of 20 did not include the creators’ face. Videos do gain popularity on BookTok without the face of the creator being seen, but the top creators all show their faces within their videos. This suggests that to gain popularity on BookTok, there needs to be a personal connection to the audience as users prefer creators they can see. Within all the videos, there was one Black creator, one Middle Eastern Creator, one South East Asian creator, and 10 White creators. Race could not be identified for the remaining 15 creators as only their hands or no body parts were shown. While many of the creators’ race was unknown, White creators still appeared more often than any other race. In addition, while race could not be identified for many of the creators, the arms and hands that were visible within videos appeared to be lighter and paler in complexion. These creators cannot and were not definitively classified as White, but they may be White given the already overwhelming number of White creators. Despite this, the most followed creator is @aymansbooks who is Middle Eastern. Therefore, while there are significantly more White creators, creators of color can rise to the top of BookTok. This suggests an optimistic view as perhaps TikTok is a more diverse place for creators and readers. Yet, much of the data collected on the race of the authors lean away from this perspective.
There did not appear to be an association between the race of the creators and the race of the author/book main characters. Creators of color recommended White authors, and White creators also recommended authors of color. However, there were still a disproportionate number of White authors. Out of the 134 authors, there were 94 White authors, 8 Black authors, 13 East Asian authors, 8 Latino authors, 3 Middle Eastern authors, 3 South East Asian authors, 3 South Asian authors, and for 4 authors, race was unknown (see Table 1). Cultural matching would suggest that the White creators would be more likely to review and recommend White authors, but as mentioned, this was not the case. However, there were only three creators of color out of the total 27 creators. Therefore, it is difficult to draw comparisons to the types of books these creators recommended as there was such a limited number.
Racial Diversity Count of Authors.
In contrast, while there was still a disproportionate number of White authors, there were more authors, and more comparisons can be made between authors and book main characters. Only four of the main characters of the 158 books were confirmed to be White. Two of these books were memoirs; thus, the main characters’ race is reflective of the author, and two other books had White characters depicting the main characters on the book cover. It appears when books have White characters, the TikTok creator and book descriptions often do not discuss the race of the main character. This is most likely because White is often seen as the default, and therefore, when characters are of another race, the race is mentioned. Therefore, the race of the remaining 136 main characters who could not be identified may still be White as most of these characters were from books with White authors, and it is likely that many of the characters were written as White even if it were not explicitly stated.
The correlation between the race of the authors and the book’s main character was much more evident in racialized authors. Every single Black author wrote about a Black main character. Like with White authors, there was little mention of the race of the main character within the BookTok videos. However, many times, the book cover was shown, and a Black person was evident on the cover within the video. Where this was not the case, the race of the main character was found in descriptions on Goodreads. As a result, Black authors tend to write about their own culture and experiences they are familiar with. This was also found with many of the other non-White races. Eight of the 13 East Asian authors had East Asian main characters. In addition, six of the eight Latino authors’ books featured Latino main characters. As a result, non-White authors predominantly wrote about stories featuring main characters who had the same race as them. This suggests that increasing diversity in the booking industry should focus on having more authors of color. Having more authors of color increases the main characters’ likelihood of being of color. This diversifies popular books and ensures that different experiences and perspectives are being told and not just a predominantly White-focused narrative. The race of creators and authors on BookTok does not appear to show a substantial change from traditional literary criticisms and the publishing industry.
When looking at gender, there appears to be a shift toward more women among the creators and authors; however, as most of the women were White, this does not suggest as much change as one may think. Six creators appeared to identify as men, 20 appeared as women, and for two creators, their gender was not verifiable. As a result, most of the creators were women, and this does appear to reflect the number of women authors. One hundred of the authors were women, 32 were men, one was non-binary, and for one author, the gender could not be identified. As a result, there has been a shift toward TikTok being more gender-inclusive since women authors are highlighted on the app and have received high praise. This suggests that women’s stories on BookTok are not devalued as feminist theory suggests. However, this is a narrow lens as when looking into race and gender, White women make up the majority of women authors. The largest race and gender demographic are White women (72). The next largest category is White men at 18, and no other group has more than 10 authors (see Table 2). There have been changes to gender within the publishing world but only regarding White women. White men authors are still represented more than any other group of women of color. Therefore, while BookTok may have made changes to gender diversity among the creators and authors, women of color have not benefited. Drawing back to the feminist perspective belief that women’s stories are not valued, as though only White women’s stories are valued. In addition, authors who are men of color are also underrepresented compared to White women and White men. It is unknown if this is due to society also devaluing stories about men of color or connected to gatekeepers and the lack of creators who were men and of color. Nonetheless, authors that were men and of color also did not appear as frequently on BookTok. Gender alone cannot aid in understanding TikTok’s changes to literary criticism as a look at gender suggests more change has been made; thus, race also must be included in study design and analyses.
Racial and Gender Diversity Count of Authors.
Unlike the race of the authors and main characters, the sexual orientation of the individuals was more difficult to find. Rarely would the creator mention the sexual orientation of the author or main characters. There were only four instances where the BookTok creator discussed that the main character was a part of the LGBTQ+ community. This occurred by describing them as queer, sapphic, or a girl liking a girl. It was often mentioned within the review to entice the audience in reading the book rather than just describing the book. The creators were trying to get the viewer of the video to want to read the book because it had LGBTQ+ representation. Through this, diversity did appear to be a selling point for the creators to attract their viewers to read the books.
No creators mentioned their sexual orientation within the videos. Seventy books featured a romance between two different genders, and 13 books in total featured a romance that was same-gendered. The remaining did not feature a romance, or it was not prevalent within the descriptions. As a result, the majority of the books featured a romance between different genders and may have been heterosexual, although it is possible that some of these books featured characters that were bisexual, pansexual, and/or another member of the LGBTQ+ community. Six authors were confirmed to be part of the LGBTQ+ community. Like with race, there was a connection between the authors’ identity and the book’s main character. No author who identified as a part of the LGBTQ+ community authored a novel that did not portray an LGBTQ+ relationship. Some authors had their characters have the same traits as themselves such as Aiden Thomas who is a trans, queer, Latino author and wrote Cemetery Boys which had a trans, queer, Latino main character. Other authors differed slightly from their own identity but still wrote about LGBTQ+ characters such as Casey McQuiston who is non-binary and authored One Last Stop in which there was a sapphic romance but did not have a non-binary main character. Therefore, even if the author did not write for the main character to have the same sexuality as themselves, all the LGBTQ+ authors wrote stories with an LGBTQ+ focus. The little number of books with an LGBTQ+ focus suggests that BookTok has not significantly shifted the publishing industry. To further increase diversity in the publishing industry, there needs to be a focus on having diverse authors such as members of the LGBTQ+ community and people of color. There must be a focus on including diverse stories to not repeat what happened with gender in which only a certain group, that is, White women, can share their stories.
Thus far, there has been an overview of my findings that suggest that BookTok may have made some changes but has not significantly changed literary criticism. The remainder of the discussion will focus on the three topmost mentioned and recommended book authors: Collen Hoover, Taylor Jenkins Reid, and Tracey Deon. Each author contributes to a better understanding of race, gender, and/or sexual orientation within the publishing industry and literary criticism, as well as the challenges that may arise in promoting diversity moving forward. Each of these authors has a vastly different book and main characters. Colleen Hoover is a White woman and is believed to only write about White straight main characters; Taylor Jenkins Reid is a White woman who has written about non-White main characters; and Tracey Deon is a Black woman who has written about Black main characters.
Black Authors and Stereotyping
Tracy Deon’s presence on TikTok represents the possible success of Black authors within this space. However, having so few Black authors lead Deon to represent all Black authors and force Black stories into a monolith. Tracy Deon’s books were mentioned seven times and were all recommended positively. Deon only had two books recommended, Legendborn and Blookmarked, which are the first and second books in one series. @ezeekat, who reviewed both books, mentioned that there was a Black main character and that this character dealt with generational trauma and racism. @ezeekat was also one of the only creators who provided in-depth reviews of each book they recommended. @ezeekat did not appear to be discussing Deon’s books for the sake of diversity but appeared to genuinely enjoy the books and want to encourage their viewers to read the books. However, as the most recommended Black author and one of only eight Black authors, racial capitalism may be at play. Deon’s work is uplifted by the creators for her storytelling, plot, and great characters, but because there are so few popular Black authors, her work may come to represent all Black authors. Having so few other Black authors force the popular authors to represent all Black authors. Therefore, Deon’s work may unintentionally promote the idea that Black authors must write about tragedies relating to the Black experience. While White main characters can have books focused on joy and romance, Black main characters must have trauma for the books to become popular. In isolation, Deon’s books discussing generational trauma and racism can be beneficial as they can make Black readers feel seen and allow non-Black readers to better understand an unfamiliar phenomenon, yet issues arise when there are so few popular Black authors being discussed on TikTok. Through this, TikTok could negatively impact the publishing industry as publishing houses may try to repeat Deon’s success and, through doing so, restrict the types of stories that are told. It cannot be enough to just increase the number of diverse authors, there also must be care to the types of stories that are being told. There cannot be a restriction on Black and other marginalized identities and stories that do not fit into the mold of the White publishing industry’s ideals of people of color’s stories. Black joy, success, and other nuanced experiences must be supported. While much can be learned from Deon’s work, Collen Hoover and Taylor Jenkins Reid provide a comparison of White authors and marginalized main characters.
The Complexities of White Authors and Marginalized Main Characters
Colleen Hoover and Taylor Jenkins have both received criticism regarding their books and their lack of emphasis on marginalized main characters. Colleen Hoover was the most recommended author, and her books were discussed 12 times, with all but one of the reviews praising and recommending her work. Colleen Hoover’s book It Ends with Us was tied for the most-mentioned book along with Taylor Jenkins Reid’s book The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo. None of the creators and no descriptions of Hoover’s books mentioned the race of the main characters; however, it does focus on heterosexual romances between men and women. While the races of the characters are not mentioned, Hoover has been criticized for only writing characters that are coded as White and heterosexual (Herman, 2022). There is no explicit mention of race but using context cues such as pale skin and no mention of the characters being another race tends to lead readers to believe Hoover’s characters are White (Herman, 2022). The race of Hoover’s main characters was recorded as unknown within this study as the race could not be gathered from the TikTok video or on GoodReads. Nevertheless, Hoover’s lack of characters of color demonstrates a disregard for any non-White individuals especially when stories such as It Ends with Us are based in large, urban, and diverse settings like Chicago. People of color being absent from the stories feels as though it is a purposeful decision by Hoover, since there are not only White people in Chicago. Hoover appears to write about her experience as a straight White woman, and as most of the BookTokers were White women, cultural matching theory aids in explaining the reason behind her books gaining popularity. Yet, White authors cannot merely just include characters of color within their stories as Taylor Jenkins Reid has faced criticisms for doing so.
Reid’s books were discussed and reviewed less than Hoover, but all 10 times when one of her novels was mentioned, it was in a positive light. The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo was mentioned four times, and each time the novel was mentioned, the review was positive. Therefore, this was the most reviewed and recommended book. The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo centers on a Latina protagonist who is a bisexual woman and a secondary main character who is a biracial woman. Reid herself does not identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community and is White. Reid contrasts Hoover as Reid writes about people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community, yet like Hoover, Reid has received criticism for her work. One of the main criticisms of Reid’s work is while she includes members of marginalized identities within her work, the characters have often exhibited stereotypical traits (kibby, 2022). These stereotypes are often not overtly racist but subtly draw upon racist tropes (kibby, 2022). For example, readers pointed out Evelyn Hugo falls into the “spicy Latina” stereotypes in which Latinas are viewed as highly sexual and feisty (kibby, 2022). Many of the critics do not believe Reid is actively trying to be racist, but as a White woman, she is unconsciously drawing upon a racial bias. The stereotypes are not only problematic as they negatively portray people of color, but there is also backlash as Reid has achieved financial success through writing non-White characters when non-White authors already have difficulty in receiving equal pay for their work as seen in #PublishingPaidMe (Grady, 2020; kibby, 2022; McCall, 2022). Reid is telling stories about marginalized identities that individuals from these groups have critiqued for relying upon stereotypes but is still receiving a large amount of success and financial gain. The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo is being adapted into a film by Netflix, and another one of Reid’s books, Daisy Jones and the Six, has already been adapted and seen wide commercial success as an Amazon Prime television show (Beck, 2023). Therefore, although having one of the most recommended books on BookTok be about a Latina, bisexual woman suggests the book industry is changing, if the authors are still mostly White and receiving negative feedback on their portrayal of women of color, is this change truly for the better?
Racial capitalism aids in this analysis as Reid can use the race of her characters to declare her stories are diverse to sell her books even if the stories she writes about do not reflect the communities’ experiences. TikTok’s diversity does not appear to go far because while non-White characters exist and racialized authors may become popular, the most popular books remain written by White authors. This causes issues because the representation of marginalized groups is coming from individuals who are not part of that group, and these authors are gaining fame, money, and accolades from experiences that they may not have a right to tell and may not tell accurately. Having White authors not include any non-White characters is not a viable solution as demonstrated by the critiques of Colleen Hoover, yet Reid’s approach to non-White characters also does bring about meaningful diversity.
Conclusion
BookTok can influence readers and popularize books as evidenced by large bookstores advertising popular BookTok books as a form of marketing within their stores. Literacy criticism through reviews has changed as a majority of these reviews were brief and only discussed if they approved the book or did not enjoy it. Therefore, the types of books that are being recommended are even more important. Rather than a reader receiving a nuanced perspective about a book that can inform their choice in reading it or not, they only know whether the creator likes the book or not. Therefore, readers may not be interested in a book merely because their favorite creator did not enjoy it. TikTok has shifted literary criticisms with respect to the style of reviews as well as the increase in both women reviewers and authors. However, a majority of these women are still White, and there is still a lack of racial and sexual-orientation diversity. There is also an issue of White and non-queer authors writing about non-White and queer characters. When authors such as Collen Hoover do not include any non-White and/or queer characters within their novels, they receive critiques. Yet, when White authors do include characters with these identities such as Reid, there is still criticism for the poor treatment of characters of color and queer characters. In addition, as White authors achieve higher advancements than Black authors, White authors achieving fame from writing about people of color is a major issue. Thus, White authors are profiting from people of color’s stories and making more money than authors of color.
Understanding the cultural matching of the race of creators and the race of authors and main characters is limited within this study as there are so few creators of color. It is unknown if creators are more likely to recommend books with authors and characters who align with their race and/or gender. As most of the BookTok creators were White, it is unclear if a diverse representation of BookTok creators would transform publishing trends and the literary canon. Further research with creators of different races is needed to confirm or deny cultural matching between creators and authors/main characters. However, it is clear that authors of color tend to write about characters of color and are more likely to accurately represent these individuals. The clearest evidence of cultural matching is observed between authors and book main characters. Most authors of color wrote books with main characters of color, and all authors who were identified as members of the LGBTQ+ community had a main character with an LGBTQ+ identity. However, this does not align with Rivera’s (2012) use of cultural matching theory, as traditionally there is often a gatekeeper such as an employer, the literary agent, and so on, and the cultural similarities can convert to monetary value. However, one could conceptualize the reader as the gatekeeper in deciding if the representation accurately matches their perceived notions of the culture. When Reid writes about a character who has a different culture than herself and incorrectly portrays the culture, consumers can refuse to engage in future work, and Reid would lose future sales and money. In contrast, when an author writes about their own identity and the reader accepts the author’s portrayal of the main character, there is an economic benefit as they may recommend the book to others and continue to purchase books. This is a nuanced understanding of the cultural matching theory as there is now a third party, the reader, who decides if the cultural matching is acceptable and aligns with the individual’s understanding of that culture. As a result, merely increasingly the diversity of main characters is unlikely to lead to true change and increased representation within the publishing industry. Non-marginalized identities can write about main characters who are people of color, or members of LGBTQ+ communities; however, there must be care in the portrayals of these characters. Taking an economic lens, a negative stereotypical portrayal can make a customer not engage with future work, and under a moral lens, a stereotypical portrayal continues to perpetrate harmful ideals of non-White races and members of the queer community.
BookTok is a community that has changed literary criticism through the types of reviews, but there still appears to be a lack of diversity. As TikTok influences the success of a book through bookstores promoting BookTok books, there should be efforts by publishing houses to work with authors of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community to market their books on TikTok. This could occur through sending these books to popular BookTokers or through marketing campaigns as was seen with the TikTok and Indigo Book Club. However, there are structural and individual biases that members of the publishing houses would need to address to ensure that marginalized peoples are treated fairly and not merely seen as a profitable endeavor. Marginalized authors must be allowed to represent characters in nuanced ways. Furthermore, while non-marginalized authors can write about those with a different background, publishing houses should be critical of these works and ensure stereotypical portrayals are not being utilized. If publishing houses want to become more diverse, working with marginalized authors and BookTokers would aid in changing both the publishing industry and literary critiques. However, an increase in marginalized authors cannot be solely profit-oriented, and there must be a moral regard to ensure that racialized authors are not mistreated.
Footnotes
Appendix
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
