Goodreads or Badreads?

Online reading, in one form or another, is inevitable in this modern, digitized age.  There are still many questions dealing with online reading that remain unanswered because such practices are stil relatively new.  Our English 251 class (who is updating this blog, by the way) is setting out to uncover some of the unanswered questions.  We are particularly focusing on platforms such as Amazon, Kindle, and Goodreads.

An article written by Lisa Nakamura entitled, "'Words with Friends': Socially Networked Reading on Goodreads," discusses the pros, cons, and social implications of "social reading."  I believe that two things she stated in her article are especially applicable to our project.  Firstly, she states that Goodreads  has all the markings of a successful social networking site.  I believe that this will be important for our project because it shows that Goodreads is around for the long-run, and its existence reaches and will continue to reach a wider range of people.  Rather than be some obscure social reading website, Goodreads picked up on important aspects of other social sites that contribute to its longevity.  Secondly, on the cons side, Nakamura points out that Goodreads is a for-profit site, hinting that the site might detract for the genuine reading experience because we become commodities.  This will be helpful for a project as we analyze how to best utilize online tools and resources to create the best academic and leisure reading experiences.  

I enjoy using Goodreads periodically, but I hadn't been made aware of all the social aspects that make Goodreads so attractive to readers.  Nakamura commented in her article that Goodreads combines the status and newsfeed feature of Facebook, and the "follow" feature of Twitter.  She also commented that Goodreads "provides the psychic payoff of shopping without the cost," which is reminiscent of its sister company, Amazon.  Personally, I feel as if the above quote from the article also brings to mind Pinterest, which allows users to pin desired items to a "board."  All of these trappings, along with the ability to add friends, make for a perfect atmosphere for avid readers.  Goodreads allows for book-lovers across the world to connect with one another, making reading less of a solitary act and more of a social act.  As I have used Goodreads more and more, I have genuinely seen my interest in certain novels and subject matters increase because I have a readily-available platform in which to bounce my thoughts off of.  I might be extrapolating a bit, but I feel as if other Goodreads users must feel the same.  As we have transitioned into the digital age, reading and connecting with readers is so much more accessible.

As already discussed, Nakamura commented that Goodreads, while an excellent tool, is just another way for companies to collect user-generated content.  Goodreads is a company, and their goal is to make money.  Personally, I see this becoming (if it isn't already) an issue in the digital age.  If everything, including personal reactions to literary works from the common person has a price, where is the genuine experience?  If we can't turn to digital reading, is it too late to turn back to print?  Nakamura made the comment that the bookshelves we add on Goodreads aren't actually ours, and I would have to agree.  I find much more pleasure in looking at my personal bookshelf in my apartment because I feel a sense of ownership.  But, when I use my Kindle for example, I don't feel as if I actually own the text.  I bought it, but I physically, don't have tangible pages to turn. 

As discussed, there are many pros and cons to digital reading and the Goodreads platform.  As our class moves forward, I hope that we look at the social benefits of Goodreads and other social readings sites, but I also hope we look at the personal implications of accessing literature online.