-
Twenty-First Century Book Studies
二十一世纪书籍研究The State of the Discipline
学科现状
During the 25th annual Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing (SHARP) conference in 2017, held at the University of Victoria, Canada, Stevie Marsden and Rachel Noorda moderated a workshop on the topic of "The Twenty-First Century Book." Six scholars (Beth Driscoll, Per Henningsgaard, Simone Murray, DeNel Rehberg-Sedo, Simon Rowberry and Claire Squires), whose research is predominantly positioned within the twenty-first century, were invited to discuss the challenges and opportunities for studying the twenty-first century book. The 2017 SHARP conference, "Technologies of the Book", seemed the perfect setting to hold this workshop. Not only did the conference theme complement many of the twenty-first century book subjects discussed during the workshop, but as it was SHARP's 25th annual conference, it was imbued with reflection on the society's past twenty-five years and the community of scholars it has developed. The following year, in 2018, there was another panel focused on twenty-first century book research, entitled "Constructing the Purpose of Research about Twenty-First-Century Publishing."1 Indeed, SHARP membership data indicates that many of its members are interested in twenty-first century research and scholarship: thirty-four percent of SHARP members who indicated a historical period in their membership data listed the twenty-first century as a period of interest, either as an exclusive historical period of study or alongside other periods, particularly the twentieth century. Thus twenty-first century book research is a significant area of SHARP research and a period of study that interests a growing group of SHARP members. However, the discussion of twenty-first century book research held during the workshop indicated that there was a need for a fuller examination of the state of the discipline of the twenty-first century book. Accordingly, this article will explore and examine current trends, themes and critical discourse [End Page 370] related to the twenty-first century book in order to explicate the current state of twenty-first century book studies.
2017 年，在加拿大维多利亚大学举行的第 25 届作者、阅读和出版史协会 (SHARP) 年度会议上，史蒂维·马斯登 (Stevie Marsden) 和雷切尔·诺达 (Rachel Noorda) 主持了主题为“二十一世纪的书籍”的研讨会。 ”六位研究主要定位于二十一世纪的学者（Beth Driscoll、Per Henningsgaard、Simone Murray、DeNel Rehberg-Sedo、Simon Rowberry 和 Claire Squires）应邀讨论了研究二十一世纪的挑战和机遇。世纪书。 2017 年夏普会议“书中的技术”似乎是举办本次研讨会的完美场所。会议主题不仅补充了研讨会上讨论的许多二十一世纪书籍主题，而且由于这是夏普的第 25 届年度会议，因此它充满了对协会过去 25 年及其学者群体的反思。发达。次年，也就是2018年，还有一个专注于二十一世纪图书研究的小组，题为“构建二十一世纪出版研究的目的”。 1 事实上，SHARP 会员数据表明，其许多会员对二十一世纪的研究和学术感兴趣：在其会员数据中指出某个历史时期的 SHARP 会员中，有 34% 列出了二十一世纪的历史时期世纪作为一个令人感兴趣的时期，要么作为一个独特的历史研究时期，要么与其他时期，特别是二十世纪并列。因此，二十一世纪的书籍研究是夏普研究的一个重要领域，也是越来越多的夏普成员感兴趣的一个研究时期。 然而，研讨会上对二十一世纪图书研究的讨论表明，有必要对二十一世纪图书学科的现状进行更全面的审视。据此，本文将探讨和审视与二十一世纪书籍相关的当前趋势、主题和批评话语[完第370页]，以阐明二十一世纪书籍研究的现状。
However, before considering the status of twenty-first century book studies and its place in the book history field and timeline, definitions are needed for three terms: publishing studies, book history, and twenty-first century book studies. We have singled out these terms for explicit definition for two reasons. Firstly, they are commonly used, or referred to, in much of the academic literature we will be discussing but their definitions can at times be contested. Therefore, it is important for us to clarify how we are using them throughout this article. Secondly, as these terms are commonly used together, and sometimes analogously, definitions are important in delineating their relationships with each other.
然而，在考虑二十一世纪图书研究的地位及其在图书史领域和时间线中的地位之前，需要对三个术语进行定义：出版研究、图书史和二十一世纪图书研究。我们挑选这些术语进行明确定义有两个原因。首先，它们在我们将讨论的许多学术文献中被广泛使用或提及，但它们的定义有时可能会受到争议。因此，我们有必要在本文中阐明如何使用它们。其次，由于这些术语通常一起使用，有时甚至类似使用，因此定义对于描述它们之间的关系非常重要。
Publishing studies has been used to describe academic research of the contemporary book industry (primarily post-1960s conglomeration);2 descriptive industry reports that largely fail to incorporate theoretical frameworks and historical context;3 or as a catch-all term for the study of forms, mediation, content, markets, and the connection between past and present in the life of books.4 Even scholars who use the term publishing studies have described it as an "ill-defined premise"5 that is unclear and underdeveloped, "far from neutral" and which carries "untoward implications."6 The term publishing studies is particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom and Australia,7 which makes publishing studies a foreign (or at least little-known) concept and discipline in almost all other parts of the world. For example, Noël has argued that '[i]n France, like in most countries, there is no such thing as a unified sub-field addressing book publishing or "publishing studies."'8 Because of the geographically limiting and "indeterminate"9 nature of publishing studies, its usefulness and purpose as a term is highly restricted. Therefore, despite the prevalent use of the term in seminal works such as Simone Murray's mapping of the work of twenty-first century book studies (which will be discussed in more detail presently), the problematic and variable nature of the term prompts this article to relinquish publishing studies in search of more descriptive and precise vocabulary.
出版研究被用来描述当代图书行业（主要是 20 世纪 60 年代后的集团）的学术研究； 2 描述性行业报告很大程度上未能纳入理论框架和历史背景； 3 或作为研究形式、中介、内容、市场以及书籍生命中过去与现在之间的联系的总称。 4 即使是使用出版研究一词的学者也将其描述为“定义不明确的前提” 5 它不明确且不发达，“远非中立”并且带有“不良含义” ”。 6 “出版研究”一词在英国和澳大利亚特别流行， 7 这使得出版研究在几乎所有其他地区成为一个外国（或至少鲜为人知）的概念和学科世界的。例如，诺埃尔认为“在法国，就像在大多数国家一样，不存在解决图书出版或“出版研究”的统一子领域。” 8 出版研究的地理限制和“不确定” 9 性质，其作为术语的用途和目的受到高度限制。因此，尽管该术语在开创性著作中得到普遍使用，例如西蒙·默里（Simone Murray）对二十一世纪书籍研究工作的映射（目前将对此进行更详细的讨论），但该术语的问题和可变性质促使本文放弃出版研究，转而寻找更具描述性和更精确的词汇。
The second key term we want to elucidate for this article is book history. In at least some of the definitions and understandings of the term publishing studies, there is a relationship with the field of book history. Darnton called book history "the social and cultural history of communication by print" and, in terms of timeline, asserted that book history "concerns books since the time of Gutenberg."10 Developing this, Henningsgaard describes book history studies as:
[End Page 371]
我们要在本文中阐明的第二个关键术语是书籍历史。至少在出版研究这个术语的一些定义和理解中，与图书史领域有联系。达恩顿将书籍史称为“通过印刷品传播的社会和文化史”，并在时间轴上断言书籍史“关注自古腾堡时代以来的书籍”。 10 对此进行了发展，Henningsgaard 将书籍历史研究描述为：[End Page 371]
[A]ll those aspects of the book that have historically been seen as incidental to the main purpose of the book, which is to transmit ideas, but in fact crucially inform this process. Furthermore, the "book" portion of "book history" has been broadly interpreted to include "the entire history of written communication," rather than merely those objects we (presently) commonly identify as comprising this category of "the book".11
本书的所有这些方面在历史上都被视为与本书的主要目的（即传播思想）无关的，但实际上对这一过程至关重要。此外，“书籍历史”的“书籍”部分被广泛地解释为包括“书面交流的整个历史”，而不仅仅是我们（目前）通常认为构成“书籍”这一类别的那些对象。 11
In other words, book history is an exploration of the role of the book and its processes. Indeed, this very journal defines book history as "the history of the creation, dissemination, and reception of script and print,"12 which covers a wide range of topics, even more so with the technological and cultural developments of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries which have seen radical changes to the production, dissemination and transmission of ideas.
换句话说，书籍史是对书籍的作用及其过程的探索。事实上，这本杂志将图书史定义为“文字和印刷品的创作、传播和接受的历史”， 12 涵盖了广泛的主题，随着技术和文化的发展更是如此二十世纪和二十一世纪，思想的生产、传播和传播发生了根本性的变化。
However, the "history" portion of "book history" has, at times, dominated understandings of this term, making the development of contemporary research of the book appear anomalous to the field. By its very nature, history, and our conception of it, is inherently related to incidents and happenings of the past, but there is a debate, particularly in studies of the book, as to how long ago these past events need to have occurred before they warrant examination and study. If we are to accept Darnton's claim that book history pertains to study of the book "since the time of Gutenberg," we must also accept that this includes recent history up to, and including, the present day. Twenty-first century book studies correspond with a growing gravitation in historical research toward recent history. This approach has been variously defined but is typically considered to be "histories of events that have taken place no more than forty years ago."13 Many methods used by twenty-first century book historians are aligned with recent history methods, including oral testimony and new media sources, such as social media platforms. When discussing the validity of Twitter as a recent history source, for example, Gary Osmond notes: "For those of us who can imagine the value and potential of any account of any past, however temporally measured, tweeted observations, musing and comments are a valid research source."14 For this reason Twitter and other social media have been described as "a first draft of the present" since these platforms offer data that presents "history-as-it-happens."15 The utilization of such recent history methods is central to twenty-first century book studies.16
然而，“书籍史”的“历史”部分有时主导了对该术语的理解，使得当代书籍研究的发展在该领域显得异常。就其本质而言，历史以及我们对它的概念本质上与过去的事件和发生的事情有关，但是存在争议，特别是在这本书的研究中，关于这些过去的事件需要在多久之前发生他们值得考试和学习。如果我们要接受达恩顿的主张，即书籍史涉及“自古腾堡时代以来”的书籍研究，我们还必须接受这包括直到今天的近代历史。二十一世纪的书籍研究与历史研究对近代史日益增长的吸引力相对应。这种方法有不同的定义，但通常被认为是“不超过四十年前发生的事件的历史”。 13 二十一世纪的书籍历史学家使用的许多方法与最近的历史方法一致，包括口头证词和新媒体来源，例如社交媒体平台。例如，在讨论 Twitter 作为近代历史来源的有效性时，加里·奥斯蒙德 (Gary Osmond) 指出：“对于我们这些能够想象任何过去的任何记录的价值和潜力的人来说，无论时间如何衡量，推文中的观察、沉思和评论都是一种有效的研究来源。” 14 因此，Twitter 和其他社交媒体被描述为“当前的初稿”，因为这些平台提供的数据呈现“正在发生的历史”。 15 这种近代历史方法的利用是二十一世纪书籍研究的核心。 16
This article argues, therefore, that far from being an outlier, twenty-first century book research has much in common with other centuries of study within book history, particularly if we consider the critical and methodological [End Page 372] framework of recent history. Scholars of the twenty-first century book have readily built upon book history models, including Darnton's communications circuit as evidenced by Claire Squires' and Padmini Ray Murray's "Digital Communications Circuit" of 2013.17 Additionally, as Chartier argued, our understanding of texts, processes and reading historically can inform research of texts, processes, and reading contemporarily: "understanding and mastering the electronic revolution of tomorrow (or today) very much depends on properly situating it within history over the longue durée."18 Similarly, Eva Mroczek argues that twenty-first century book research can inform understanding of past forms and processes.19 Such a longitudinal approach to understanding the twenty-first century book is advantageous because knowing where the book has been can illuminate and reposition where the book presently is, and the twenty-first century book requires us to re-examine the very nature and definition of the book in light of its digital forms.
因此，本文认为，二十一世纪的书籍研究远非异常，它与其他世纪的书籍史研究有很多共同点，特别是如果我们考虑近代历史的批判性和方法论框架[结束第372页]。研究二十一世纪书籍的学者很容易建立在书籍历史模型的基础上，包括克莱尔·斯奎尔斯和帕德米尼·雷·默里 2013 年的“数字通信电路”所证明的达恩顿的通信电路。 17 此外，正如 Chartier 所说，我们对历史上的文本、过程和阅读的理解可以为当代文本、过程和阅读的研究提供信息：“理解和掌握明天（或今天）的电子革命很大程度上取决于在漫长的时间里将其正确地置于历史之中。” 18 同样，伊娃·莫罗泽克 (Eva Mroczek) 认为，二十一世纪的书籍研究可以帮助理解过去的形式和过程。 19 这种纵向的方法来理解二十一世纪的书是有利的，因为知道这本书曾经在哪里可以阐明并重新定位该书目前的位置，而二十一世纪的书需要我们重新定位。根据书籍的数字形式来检查书籍的本质和定义。
To encapsulate the study of recent book history within book history more broadly, this article presents, and favors, the term twenty-first century book studies. Moreover, since many of the events that have most clearly impacted the development of the book in the twenty-first century occurred in the late twentieth century, this article suggests that calling this area the "long twenty-first century" is most appropriate since, although twenty-first century book studies focus primarily on the production and consumption of texts since 2000, this year 2000 line is a blurry one that bleeds into the late twentieth century. For example, the largest online book retailer, Amazon.com, began operating in 1995.20 With significant implications for and disruption of previous book production and consumption processes, Amazon has had a near-constant presence in discussions of publishing and book culture ever since. Additionally, Amazon's dominance in online bookselling has only been possible because of the creation of the World Wide Web in the late 1980s; beyond Amazon, the internet has changed the book publishing environment in manifold ways, including the opportunity for authors and publishers to connect with communities of readers online.21 The 1990s also saw the fall of the Net Book Agreement in the United Kingdom, a policy that had governed bookselling for nearly a century.22 Furthermore, the twenty-first century book exists in the post-conglomeration period that began in the 1960s and drastically changed the book industry by further polarizing company size, resources, and market share, with the multinational media conglomerates at one end of the spectrum and small independents at the other.23 Finally, the long twenty-first century encompasses the reimaging [End Page 373] and redefining of the book in light of its digital manifestations, particularly with the introduction of the ebook in the 1970s and its growth with dedicated e-readers in the mid to late 2000s.24 It should also be noted that the twenty-first and late-twentieth centuries share many characteristics and events, making it nearly impossible to disentangle the two. Thus, the "long twenty-first century" serves as a term to encompass the study of the book in its contemporary manifestations and environments.
为了更广泛地将近代图书史的研究概括在图书史中，本文提出并赞成“二十一世纪图书研究”这一术语。此外，由于对二十一世纪这本书的发展影响最明显的许多事件发生在二十世纪末，因此本文建议称这一地区为“漫长的二十一世纪”是最合适的，因为，尽管2000年以来二十一世纪的书籍研究主要集中在文本的生产和消费上，但今年2000年的界限是一条模糊的界限，一直延伸到二十世纪末。例如，最大的在线图书零售商 Amazon.com 于 1995 年开始运营。 20 由于对以前的图书生产和消费流程产生了重大影响和破坏，亚马逊几乎一直存在于以下讨论中：从那时起，出版和图书文化就一直存在。此外，亚马逊在在线图书销售领域的主导地位得益于 20 世纪 80 年代末万维网的创建。除了亚马逊之外，互联网还以多种方式改变了图书出版环境，包括为作者和出版商提供了与在线读者社区建立联系的机会。 21 20 世纪 90 年代，英国的《上网书协议》也宣告失败，这项政策统治了图书销售近一个世纪。 22 此外，二十一世纪的图书存在于自 20 世纪 60 年代开始的后集团化时期，随着跨国媒体集团的出现，公司规模、资源和市场份额进一步两极分化，从而彻底改变了图书业。一方面是小型独立人士，另一方面是小型独立人士。 23 最后，漫长的二十一世纪包含了根据其数字表现形式对书籍进行重新成像[第 373 页]和重新定义，特别是随着 20 世纪 70 年代电子书的推出及其在专门人士的推动下的发展。 2000 年代中后期的电子阅读器。 24 还应该指出的是，二十一世纪和二十世纪末有许多共同的特征和事件，因此几乎不可能将两者分开。因此，“漫长的二十一世纪”这个术语涵盖了对这本书在当代表现形式和环境中的研究。
Since we are positing that long twenty-first century book studies should be considered a period of book history, this article assesses the current state of the long twenty-first century book and how this particular area of book history has developed since the turn of the millennium. The purpose of this article is three-fold. Firstly, it is written in response to, and to update and complement, Simone Murray's 2006 article, "Publishing Studies: Critically Mapping Research in Search of a Discipline", which surveyed the beginnings of academic discourses considering twenty-first century book publishing and its role as an academic discipline within universities. In her article, Murray argues for a more concerted differentiation of publishing studies as a discipline and, while acknowledging its obvious synergies with book history, identifies five research categories, or "nodal points" (these are "industry research and vocational information; […] memoirs, autobiographies, biographies and house histories; the history of the book; communication, media, cultural studies and sociology; and nationalist and post-colonial studies"), under which most contemporary twenty-first century book studies research would fall.25 Secondly, this article assesses the academic literature that has emerged since Murray's article was published and considers how contemporary long- twenty-first century book studies scholarship has developed over the past ten years, particularly with regard to the twenty-first century book. Since Murray's article comments on studies of the book in the late-twentieth century and first seven years of the twenty-first century, this article will consider how the field has developed over the past decade, positioning more recent scholarship in relation to that highlighted by Murray whilst also looking forward to what the future of the discipline may be. Finally, this article posits new themes, or nodes, by which developments in academic research of the twenty-first century book can be traced and proposes new ways by which this particular area of book history may be addressed. Indeed, this article should be considered a contribution to the ongoing conversation on how we position studies of the book and publishing in the past, present and future. [End Page 374]
由于我们假设漫长的二十一世纪书籍研究应该被视为一段书籍史，因此本文评估了漫长的二十一世纪书籍的现状以及自世纪之交以来书籍史这一特定领域的发展情况。千年。本文的目的有三个。首先，它是为了回应、更新和补充西蒙·默里 (Simone Murray) 2006 年的文章“出版研究：寻找学科的批判性映射研究”，该文章调查了学术话语的开端，考虑了二十一世纪的图书出版及其作为大学内一门学科的角色。默里在她的文章中主张将出版研究作为一门学科进行更加协调一致的区分，同时承认其与图书史明显的协同作用，并确定了五个研究类别或“节点”（这些是“行业研究和职业信息；…… ] 回忆录、自传、传记和历史；书籍的历史；传播、媒体、文化研究和社会学；以及民族主义和后殖民研究”），大多数当代二十一世纪的书籍研究都属于这些研究。 25 其次，本文评估了自默里的文章发表以来出现的学术文献，并考虑了当代二十一世纪图书研究学术在过去十年中是如何发展的，特别是关于二十一世纪的图书研究学术。 -第一世纪的书。 由于默里的文章评论了二十世纪末和二十一世纪前七年对这本书的研究，因此本文将考虑该领域在过去十年中的发展情况，并根据以下内容重点介绍最近的学术成果：穆雷同时也期待着该学科的未来。最后，本文提出了新的主题或节点，通过这些主题或节点可以追踪二十一世纪书籍学术研究的发展，并提出解决书籍史这一特定领域的新方法。事实上，这篇文章应该被视为对我们如何定位过去、现在和未来的书籍和出版研究的持续对话的贡献。 [完第374页]
The Origins of (Long) Twenty-First Century Book Studies
（长）二十一世纪书籍研究的起源
As previously noted, while this article argues that the study of the twenty-first century book begins with the turn of the century in 2000, the beginnings of this area of research can be found in the late-twentieth century, specifically post-1960s. As several scholars have identified, vocational book courses and programs began to emerge in the mid-twentieth century and flourished in the 1970s and 1980s in the UK and United States.26 In addition, higher education publishing programs also emerged in Canada,27 Australia,28 Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya,29 South Africa,30 and China31 during the late twentieth century. These vocational programs sought to impress on students an essential set of practical skills which would enable them to pursue a career within the publishing industry, seeking to replace the historically "accidental" introduction into the industry with "sound academic preparation."32 The emergence of these programs in part gave eventual rise to the academic area of twenty-first century book studies; thus, the fact that twenty-first century book research arose from the musings of industry professionals and descriptive, rather than critical, reports of the dynamics of the industry,33 has meant that this area of research (and of book history) has taken longer to gain recognition as critical scholarship. However, as this article demonstrates, over the past twenty years examinations of the twenty-first century book, and the cultural, economic, social and political contexts in which it exists, have grown. This demonstrates that not only is this a particularly fruitful area of academic research, but that the two decades of research that exist have firmly established long twenty-first century studies of the book within the wider context of book history.
如前所述，虽然本文认为对二十一世纪书籍的研究始于 2000 年世纪之交，但这一领域的研究始于 20 世纪末，特别是 20 世纪 60 年代后。正如一些学者所指出的，职业书籍课程和项目于 20 世纪中叶开始出现，并于 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代在英国和美国蓬勃发展。 26 此外，加拿大、 27 澳大利亚、 28 加纳、尼日利亚、肯尼亚、 29 南非也出现了高等教育出版计划、 30 和二十世纪末的中国 31 。这些职业课程旨在让学生掌握一套基本的实践技能，使他们能够在出版业谋求职业生涯，力求以“良好的学术准备”取代历史上“偶然”进入该行业的情况。 32 这些项目的出现在一定程度上最终导致了二十一世纪书籍研究的学术领域。因此，二十一世纪的书籍研究源于行业专业人士的思考和行业动态的描述性而非批判性报告，这一事实 33 意味着这一领域的研究（以及书史）花了更长的时间才获得批判性学术的认可。然而，正如本文所表明的，在过去的二十年里，对二十一世纪的书及其存在的文化、经济、社会和政治背景的审查不断增长。 这表明，这不仅是一个特别富有成效的学术研究领域，而且现有的二十年研究已经在更广泛的图书史背景下牢固地建立了二十一世纪对图书的长期研究。
Mapping the Discipline so Far
绘制迄今为止的学科图
As previously noted, part of the purpose of this article is to assess the critical literature related to the twenty-first century book that has emerged since Murray's 2006 article "Publishing Studies: Critically Mapping Research in Search of a Discipline," which identified key nodes by which long twenty-first century book studies scholarship could be categorized. For the purposes of this study, we are interested in reassessing the five nodes established by Murray, identifying the literature that has appeared since the publication of her article, and expanding the nodes to include areas of research which we believe are key to long twenty-first century studies of the book. [End Page 375]
如前所述，本文的部分目的是评估自 Murray 2006 年文章“出版研究：寻找学科的批判性映射研究”以来出现的与二十一世纪书籍相关的批判文献，该文章确定了关键节点二十一世纪漫长的书籍研究学术成果可以据此进行分类。出于本研究的目的，我们有兴趣重新评估 Murray 建立的五个节点，识别自她的文章发表以来出现的文献，并将节点扩展为包括我们认为对二十世纪二十多年至关重要的研究领域。该书的第一世纪研究。 [完第375页]
However, before moving to a literature review of twenty-first century book research since 2006, it is worth briefly discussing the prominent peer-reviewed journals which explicitly publish long twenty-first century book research: Publishing Research Quarterly, Logos, Book 2.0, and The International Journal of the Book. Publishing Research Quarterly is an American journal founded in 1985 while the British journals Logos and Book 2.0 were founded in 1990 and 2011 respectively. The International Journal of the Book (founded in 2002) aims for an international focus and was founded by Australian Common Ground Publishing. In his 2007 analysis of these journals, Miha Kovač identified key research areas evident in Publishing Research Quarterly and Logos within the time period of articles published between 2003 and 2006.34 Kovač found that Publishing Research Quarterly articles were mainly focused on national book industries, American book publishing controversies, and technological and organizational changes that were influencing the landscape of bookselling in the USA.35 In Logos, Kovač noted that articles were focused on what leading people in the publishing industry had learned from their experience, literature reviews and book lists around various aspects of publishing, and the future of the book in the digital environment.36 In addition to these four journals, there are others that are more trade-focused (and less academic) and those with a scope that remains related to, but expands beyond, the twenty-first century book. Learned Publishing and the recently launched UCL-based postgraduate journal Interscript fall into the first category, while media studies journal Convergence and book history journals Book History and Memoires du Livre belong to the second.
然而，在对 2006 年以来的二十一世纪图书研究进行文献综述之前，值得简要讨论一下明确发表长篇二十一世纪图书研究的著名同行评审期刊：Publishing Research Quarterly、Logos、Book 2.0 和国际图书杂志。 Publishing Research Quarterly 是一份美国期刊，成立于 1985 年，英国期刊 Logos 和 Book 2.0 分别成立于 1990 年和 2011 年。 《国际图书期刊》（International Journal of the Book）（成立于2002年）以国际为焦点，由澳大利亚Common Ground Publishing创办。在 2007 年对这些期刊的分析中，Miha Kovač 确定了 Publishing Research Quarterly 和 Logos 中 2003 年至 2006 年间发表的文章中明显的关键研究领域。 34 Kovač 发现 Publishing Research Quarterly 的文章主要集中在关于国家图书行业、美国图书出版争议以及影响美国图书销售格局的技术和组织变革。 35 在《Logos》中，Kovač 指出，文章的重点是出版业领先人士从他们的经验中学到的东西、围绕出版各个方面的文献评论和书单，以及数字图书的未来。环境。 36 除了这四种期刊之外，还有其他一些更注重贸易（学术性较少）的期刊，以及那些范围仍然与二十一世纪的书籍相关但范围更广的期刊。 Learned Publishing 和最近推出的伦敦大学学院研究生期刊 Interscript 属于第一类，而媒体研究期刊 Convergence 和图书史期刊 Book History 和 Memoires du Livre 属于第二类。
Now that the publishing avenues through which long twenty-first century book research streams have been briefly introduced, how might this research be categorized? Some scholars have attempted to offer over-arching long twenty-first century book overviews and theories, either by creating their own models or adapting existing models for long twenty-first century book research. As mentioned, Squires' and Ray Murray's "Digital Communications Circuit"37 revises Darnton's Communication Circuit38 for twentieth and twenty-first century book publishing practices. In this new model, new players are added (literary agents, pre-press companies, wholesalers and distributors), the changing definitions of existing players noted (such as the shift from "bookseller" to "retailer"), and the growing importance of particular players highlighted (freelancers and outsource agencies, for example). Other scholars have adapted sociology models, particularly concepts proposed by Pierre Bourdieu, for the twenty-first century book. A key [End Page 376] example is John Thompson's Merchants of Culture in which Thompson's overview of the twenty-first century book industry in the UK and US is based on Bourdieu's concepts of 'fields' and five different categories of value or capital. Possibly the most robust attempt to offer a new model and over-arching theory for the study of the twenty-first century book is Michael Bhaskar's The Content Machine which proposed conceptualizing the twenty-first century book as consisting of content that is framed according to a model and then filtered and amplified.39 These models and overviews offer interesting perspectives on the twenty-first century book and there is a need for more critical discourse in search of over-arching twenty-first century book models and theories that can unify this complex landscape.
既然已经简要介绍了二十一世纪漫长的图书研究流的出版途径，那么这项研究可以如何分类呢？一些学者试图通过创建自己的模型或调整现有模型来进行二十一世纪的长期图书研究，从而提供全面的二十一世纪的长期图书概述和理论。如前所述，Squires 和 Ray Murray 的“数字通信电路” 37 针对 20 世纪和 21 世纪的图书出版实践修订了 Darnton 的通信电路 38 。在这个新模式中，增加了新的参与者（文学代理商、印前公司、批发商和分销商），注意到现有参与者定义的变化（例如从“书商”到“零售商”的转变），以及日益增长的重要性强调了特定的参与者（例如自由职业者和外包机构）。其他学者也为这本二十一世纪的书改编了社会学模型，特别是皮埃尔·布迪厄提出的概念。一个关键的[结束第376页]例子是约翰·汤普森的《文化商人》，其中汤普森对英国和美国二十一世纪图书业的概述是基于布迪厄的“领域”概念和五种不同的价值或资本类别。为二十一世纪书籍的研究提供新模型和总体理论的最有力的尝试可能是迈克尔·巴斯卡（Michael Bhaskar）的《内容机器》，该书提出将二十一世纪的书籍概念化为由根据以下框架构建的内容组成：模型，然后进行过滤和放大。 39 这些模型和概述为二十一世纪的书籍提供了有趣的视角，并且需要更多的批判性论述来寻找能够统一这一复杂景观的总体二十一世纪书籍模型和理论。
Murray's 2006 article is perhaps one of the most oft-cited critical accounts of long twenty-first century book research. Murray proposed five key areas of research for the twenty-first century book: "industry research and vocational information; personalized accounts such as memoirs, autobiographies, biographies and house histories; history of the book; communication, media, cultural studies and sociology; and nationalist and post-colonial studies."40 The first two nodes, industry research and vocational information and personalized accounts, Murray describes as being more anecdotal and descriptive, less critical, and typically written by members of the industry rather than academics. As this article focuses on more critically-engaged twenty-first century book research, industry research and vocational information and personalized accounts are not useful research nodes for discussing twenty-first century book studies. While these two nodes exist within the publishing industry landscape, they do not offer the rigor necessary to the constitution of academic research. This does not mean that twenty-first century book research cannot be tied to the contemporary business environment—indeed, it often is—but that a grounding in a theoretical basis and rigorous methodology is what differentiates twenty-first century book studies from these two nodes.
默里 2006 年的文章也许是二十一世纪漫长的图书研究中最常被引用的评论之一。默里提出了二十一世纪书籍的五个关键研究领域：“行业研究和职业信息；个性化叙述，如回忆录、自传、传记和家史；书籍的历史；传播、媒体、文化研究和社会学；以及民族主义和后殖民研究。” 40 前两个节点，即行业研究和职业信息以及个性化帐户，穆雷将其描述为更具轶事性和描述性，较少批判性，通常由行业成员而不是学者撰写。由于本文关注的是更具批判性的二十一世纪图书研究，行业研究、职业信息和个性化账户并不是讨论二十一世纪图书研究的有用研究节点。虽然这两个节点存在于出版业领域，但它们并没有提供学术研究构成所必需的严谨性。这并不意味着二十一世纪的书籍研究不能与当代商业环境联系起来——事实上，它经常如此——而是说二十一世纪的书籍研究与这两个节点的区别在于理论基础和严格的方法论的基础。
Additionally, Murray lists book history as a node of twenty-first century book research, rather than twenty-first century book research being an integral piece of the book history timeline. This article disagrees with Murray, arguing that instead of book history being an area of twenty-first century book studies, twenty-first century book studies is a particular period of book history. Established book history examples of research regarding the long twenty-first century include McCleery, Finkelstein and Renton's An Honest Trade41 and Iain Stevenson's Bookmakers42 which give histories of bookselling and publishing in the UK in the twentieth century. Likewise, Jason [End Page 377] Ensor's Angus & Robertson and the British Trade in Australian Books, 1930–197043 and Beth le Roux's A Social History of the University Presses in Apartheid South Africa: Between Complicity and Resistance44 focus on the twentieth century in Australia and South Africa respectively.
此外，默里将图书史列为二十一世纪图书研究的一个节点，而不是将二十一世纪图书研究列为图书史时间线的一个组成部分。本文不同意默里的观点，他认为二十一世纪的书籍研究不是二十一世纪书籍研究的一个领域，而是书籍史的一个特定时期。关于漫长的二十一世纪的既定书籍史研究例子包括麦克利里、芬克尔斯坦和伦顿的《诚实的贸易》 41 和伊恩·史蒂文森的《Bookmakers》 42 ，它们提供了英国图书销售和出版的历史在二十世纪。同样，Jason [完第 377 页] Ensor 的《安格斯和罗伯逊与英国澳大利亚图书贸易，1930–1970》 43 和 Beth le Roux 的《南非种族隔离时期大学出版社的社会史：共谋与抵抗之间》 44 分别关注二十世纪的澳大利亚和南非。
Beyond book publications, there are several articles that address the twenty-first century book. David S. Miall's article on empirical studies of literary readers discusses the literary reading habits and reactions of twenty-first century university students.45 Trysh Travis's article on women in the print movement gives an account of late twentieth and early twenty-first century "bookwomen"46 and Susan Pickford's article on book prizes utilizes a corpus of book prize novels from 1969 to 2009 in order to compare how two different literary prizes traveled across national and linguistic borders.47 Finally, Alan Galey's article "The Enkindling Reciter" uses a case study of the 2010 Canadian novel The Sentimentalists to illustrate how bibliography and textual scholarship are well-equipped to address the material nature of e-books.48
除了书籍出版物之外，还有几篇文章讨论了二十一世纪的书籍。大卫·S·米尔（David S. Miall）关于文学读者实证研究的文章讨论了二十一世纪大学生的文学阅读习惯和反应。 45 Trysh Travis 关于印刷运动中的女性的文章介绍了二十世纪末和二十一世纪初的“书女” 46 和 Susan Pickford 关于图书奖的文章利用了图书语料库研究人员对 1969 年至 2009 年期间的获奖小说进行了比较，以比较两个不同的文学奖项如何跨越国家和语言的边界。 47 最后，艾伦·盖利 (Alan Galey) 的文章《点燃朗诵者》(The Enkindling Reciter) 以 2010 年加拿大小说《感伤主义者》(The Sentimentalists) 为例进行案例研究，说明参考书目和文本学术如何能够很好地解决电子书的物质本质问题。 48
Communication, media, cultural studies and sociology is another key research node proposed by Murray. This was an area for twenty-first century book research that Murray called "a lost opportunity" because of the typical exclusion of books from these disciplines, despite it being the oldest form of media. As Marsden has noted, such exclusion can go as far as complete disregard of existing scholarship on the contemporary publishing industry.49 In "Positioning Publishing Studies in the Cultural Economy" Marsden recalls how the 2011 edited volume A Handbook of Cultural Economies (which surveys the various economies of media forms such as radio, television, and film) asserted that there was a dismal dearth of research about the twenty-first century book publishing industry:
传播学、媒体、文化研究和社会学是默里提出的另一个重点研究节点。这是二十一世纪书籍研究的一个领域，默里称之为“失去的机会”，因为书籍通常被排除在这些学科之外，尽管它是最古老的媒体形式。正如马斯登所指出的，这种排斥甚至可能完全无视当代出版业的现有学术成果。 49 在“文化经济中的出版研究定位”中，马斯登回忆了 2011 年编辑的《文化经济手册》（该书调查了广播、电视和电影等媒体形式的各种经济）如何断言，关于二十一世纪图书出版业的研究严重缺乏：
The knowledge about publishing is very scattered and comes almost entirely from outside the academic world […] The material relating to publishing is enormous, including official reports from various countries, memoirs, biographies and a large amount of anecdotal evidence, but solid knowledge based on research published in academic journals is scarce.50
关于出版的知识非常分散，几乎全部来自学术界之外[……]与出版有关的材料非常庞大，包括各国的官方报告、回忆录、传记和大量的轶事证据，但扎实的知识基于在学术期刊上发表的研究很少。 50
Hjorth-Andersen's claim, however, is inaccurate because there are scholars conducting rigorous twenty-first century book studies research, but this claim does suggest that the "lost opportunity" of twenty-first century book research being situated within communication, media, and cultural studies is no more developed than when Murray was writing in 2006. One notable [End Page 378] exception in the last decade has been Ted Striphas's The Late Age of Print. Striphas's book offers a history of books as social artifacts from a mass communications lens, emphasizing the integral role of books in making the "modern, connected consumer." In essence, Striphas analyses the book as an artifact "through which social actors articulate and struggle over specific interests, values, practices, and worldviews."51 Additionally, Simone Murray's The Adaptation Industry: The Cultural Economy of Contemporary Literary Adaptation52 positions book publishing within other media industries and Millicent Weber's Literary Festivals and Contemporary Book Culture53 uses media and communications concepts and theory related to consumers and the mass audience to better examine the literary festival audience/readership.
然而，霍思-安徒生的主张是不准确的，因为有学者进行严格的二十一世纪图书研究，但这一主张确实表明，二十一世纪图书研究的“失去的机会”位于传播、媒体和文化领域。默里在 2006 年写作时的研究并不比默里写作时更发达。过去十年中一个值得注意的[结束第 378 页]例外是特德·斯特里法斯 (Ted Striphas) 的《印刷时代晚期》(The Late Age of Print)。斯特里弗斯的书从大众传播的角度讲述了书籍作为社会产物的历史，强调了书籍在塑造“现代、互联的消费者”方面的不可或缺的作用。从本质上讲，斯特里弗斯将这本书分析为一种人工制品，“社会参与者通过它表达特定的利益、价值观、实践和世界观并进行斗争”。 51 此外，西蒙娜·默里（Simone Murray）的《改编产业：当代文学改编的文化经济》 52 将图书出版置于其他媒体行业和米利森特·韦伯（Millicent Weber）的文学节和当代图书文化 53
Nationalist and post-colonial studies is Murray's final research node. She notes that books are "key tools in decolonizing nations' struggles to achieve literary, educational and professional standards requisite for competitive, post-industrial economies."54 Recent contributions to this particular area of book history and publishing research include Sarah Brouillette's Postcolonial Writers and the Global Literary Marketplace which adds to the discussion of postcolonial studies and book history by scrutinizing the way that authors position themselves as postcolonial, in part as a marketing tool.55 Robert Fraser's Book History Through Postcolonial Eyes: Rewriting the Script takes a more book historical approach to postcolonial literature, aiming to even the imbalance of book history's focus on Western histories of the book. Finally, in The Postcolonial Cultural Industry: Icons, Markets, Mythologies Sandra Ponzanesi notes how "the postcolonial agenda, as a field of resistance, rewriting and contestation of dominant and hegemonic forms of cultural appropriation and imposition, is still present."56 Ponzanesi considers postcolonial culture through a number of perspectives, including advertising and film adaptation, but spends much of the book analyzing postcolonial literature, particularly in relation to literary prizes, canon formation and the visibility of postcolonial authors in contemporary literary and publishing culture. Indeed, diversity and representation in literature, and the publishing industry more widely, are key areas currently being interrogated in twenty-first century book scholarship. Notable contributions to debates surrounding representations of BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) writers and publishers include Claire Chambers' article "Multi-Culti Nancy Mitfords and Halal Novelists: The Politics of Marketing Muslim Writers in the UK,"57 Corinne Fowler's piece "Publishing Manchester's black and Asian writers" from Postcolonial Manchester: Diaspora Space [End Page 379] and the Devolution of Literary Culture,58 Melanie Ramdarshan-Bold's "The Eight Percent Problem: Authors of Colour in the British Young Adult Market (2006–2016)"59 and Squires' essay "Publishing's Diversity Deficit".60
民族主义和后殖民研究是默里的最后一个研究节点。她指出，书籍是“各国努力实现非殖民化、实现竞争性后工业经济所需的文学、教育和专业标准的关键工具”。 54 最近对图书史和出版研究这一特定领域的贡献包括莎拉·布鲁耶特 (Sarah Brouillette) 的《后殖民作家和全球文学市场》，该书通过审视作者将自己定位为后殖民的方式，增加了对后殖民研究和图书史的讨论，部分作为一种营销工具。 55 罗伯特·弗雷泽（Robert Fraser）的《后殖民视角下的图书史：重写剧本》对后殖民文学采取了更多图书史的方法，旨在平衡图书史对西方图书史的关注不平衡。最后，桑德拉·庞萨内西 (Sandra Ponzanesi) 在《后殖民文化产业：图标、市场、神话》中指出，“后殖民议程作为对文化挪用和强加的主导和霸权形式的抵抗、改写和争论的领域，仍然存在。” 56 庞萨内西通过多种视角来思考后殖民文化，包括广告和电影改编，但书中花了很多篇幅分析后殖民文学，特别是与文学奖项、经典形成以及后殖民作家在当代的知名度有关的内容。文学和出版文化。事实上，文学以及更广泛的出版业的多样性和代表性是二十一世纪图书学术界目前正在探讨的关键领域。 对围绕 BAME（黑人、亚洲人和少数族裔）作家和出版商代表的辩论做出的著名贡献包括克莱尔·钱伯斯 (Claire Chambers) 的文章“多元文化南希·米特福德和清真小说家：英国营销穆斯林作家的政治” 57 梅兰妮·拉姆达尚-博尔德 (Melanie Ramdarshan-Bold) 的《百分之八的问题：作家》英国年轻人市场的色彩（2006-2016）” 59 以及 Squires 的文章“出版业的多样性赤字”。 60
In addition to a post-colonial perspective, several twenty-first century book studies scholars also interrogate the role of the nation in book industries and processes by focusing research on the cultural and economic forces at play for national and regional literature and publishing industries. For example, Scottish national identity and the Scottish publishing industry in the long twenty-first century have been investigated by Alastair McCleery and Melanie Ramdarshan-Bold,61 who discuss the transnational threats to linguistic and cultural diversity in the Scottish publishing industry; Claire Squires and Miha Kovač,62 who compare and contrast the Scottish and Slovenian book industries; Daniel Boswell,63 who compares the book industries in Catalan and Scotland; Rachel Noorda,64 who investigates reading as a way for members of the Scottish diaspora to reinvent and reinterpret national symbols and myths; and Stevie Marsden,65 who examines national identity and literature as intertwined in the history of a Scottish book award. Per Henningsgaard discusses regional literature in Western Australia66 and the contributors to Publishing Means Business: Australian Perspectives also offer insight into the publishing environment in Australia.67 Finally, scholars contributing to Hype: Bestsellers and Literary Culture68 discuss the particulars of the Swedish publishing industry. Other studies, like Gillian Roberts' Prizing Literature: The Celebration and Circulation of National Culture69 and Edward Mack's Manufacturing Modern Japanese Literature: Publishing, Prizes and the Ascription of Literary Value,70 consider the propagation of ideals of national literatures and the literary values attributed to them via prize culture and canonization, in Canada and Japan respectively. More recently still, Marie Orton has written about national identity in Italian writing, with a particular consideration of migrant writers and how they "interrogate the intertwined and mutually reinforcing assumptions that have traditionally shaped the idea of national literature."71 This is not a comprehensive list of nationally-focused twenty-first century book studies research as this is a common way in which to investigate the book environment; however, we highlight a few key studies to illustrate.
除了后殖民视角之外，一些二十一世纪的图书研究学者还通过重点研究文化和经济力量对国家和地区文学和出版业的影响来质疑国家在图书产业和过程中的作用。例如，阿拉斯泰尔·麦克利里 (Alastair McCleery) 和梅兰妮·拉姆达尚-博尔德 (Melanie Ramdarshan-Bold) 61 对长达二十一世纪的苏格兰民族认同和苏格兰出版业进行了调查，他们讨论了苏格兰语言和文化多样性面临的跨国威胁。出版业； Claire Squires 和 Miha Kovač， 62 对苏格兰和斯洛文尼亚的图书业进行了比较和对比； Daniel Boswell， 63 ，他比较了加泰罗尼亚和苏格兰的图书业； Rachel Noorda， 64 ，她研究阅读是苏格兰侨民重新发明和重新解释国家象征和神话的一种方式；和史蒂维·马斯登（Stevie Marsden）， 65 ，他研究了苏格兰图书奖历史上交织在一起的民族认同和文学。 Per Henningsgaard 讨论了西澳大利亚的地区文学 66 ，《出版手段商业：澳大利亚视角》的撰稿人还提供了对澳大利亚出版环境的见解。 67 最后，《炒作：畅销书与文学文化》的学者 68 讨论了瑞典出版业的具体情况。 其他研究，如吉莉安·罗伯茨的《奖励文学：民族文化的庆典和流通》 69 和爱德华·麦克的《制造现代日本文学：出版、奖项和文学价值的归属》， 70 考虑分别在加拿大和日本通过奖项文化和经典化传播民族文学理想和文学价值观。最近，玛丽·奥顿（Marie Orton）撰写了有关意大利写作中的民族身份的文章，特别考虑了移民作家以及他们如何“质疑传统上塑造民族文学理念的相互交织且相互强化的假设”。 71 这不是一个以全国为中心的二十一世纪图书研究的完整列表，因为这是调查图书环境的常见方法；然而，我们重点介绍一些关键研究来说明。
However, despite this plethora of nationally-focused recent histories of the book, much like book history as a whole, transnational and global historical concerns are coming to the fore in twenty-first century book studies. Sydney Shep has argued for a new type of book history that moves beyond a nationally-bound history of the book.72 On the one hand, "the attempt to [End Page 380] annex books to territories is—and always has been—an aspect of a wider programme of affiliation, identification and flag-waving";73 on the other hand, books continue to become increasingly international in readership, impact, and history, particularly as we turn to recent history that includes the decades following the rise of the internet.
然而，尽管近来有大量以全国为中心的图书史，就像整个图书史一样，跨国和全球历史关注在二十一世纪的图书研究中日益凸显。西德尼·谢普（Sydney Shep）主张建立一种新型的图书史，超越全国范围内的图书史。 72 一方面，“[结束第 380 页]将书籍并入领土的尝试一直以来都是更广泛的归属、认同和挥舞旗帜计划的一个方面”； 73 另一方面，书籍在读者群、影响力和历史方面继续变得越来越国际化，特别是当我们转向近代历史（包括互联网兴起后的几十年）时。
It is worth noting that in addition to Murray's five nodes of research of the book in the long twenty-first century, Weber and Mannion in their chapter "Discipline and Publish" in Publishing Means Business assess the areas of research of the book in the long twenty-first century and offer their own nodes for describing this research.74 The nodes they discuss are field mapping; sociological, technological, commercially and practically aware; politically and ethically aware; and interdisciplinary affordances. Murray's article is a good example of field mapping; indeed, Weber and Mannion assert that twenty-first century book research is exploratory in nature, and these authors cite Darnton's communications circuit as a first exploratory attempt to investigate what publishing is. Boswell's "What We Write When We Write About Publishing"75 and Marsden's "Positioning Publishing Studies within the Cultural Economy"76 are other examples of this mapping of the twenty-first century book history field. Weber and Mannion also argue that much twenty-first century book research is sociological in that "it is attuned to the ways in which print culture, and the creation, dissemination and reception of books, are socially constructed."77 This aligns with Murray's node of communication, media, cultural studies and sociology. Additionally, Weber and Mannion identify "technological" as a node of twenty-first century book history, which "understands digital media as an object of study, and also uses new technology as a tool to help explore the ways in which publishing operates". This article addresses this "technological" node in the next section.
值得注意的是，除了默里对该书在漫长的二十一世纪的五个研究节点之外，韦伯和曼尼恩在其《出版手段商业》的“学科与出版”一章中评估了该书在漫长的二十一世纪的研究领域。二十一世纪并提供了他们自己的节点来描述这项研究。 74 他们讨论的节点是字段映射；社会学、技术、商业和实践意识；具有政治和道德意识；和跨学科的可供性。 Murray 的文章是场映射的一个很好的例子；事实上，韦伯和曼尼恩断言，二十一世纪的书籍研究本质上是探索性的，这些作者引用达恩顿的通信线路作为调查出版是什么的第一次探索性尝试。博斯韦尔的“当我们写关于出版时我们写什么” 75 和马斯登的“在文化经济中定位出版研究” 76 是二十一世纪图书史映射的其他例子场地。韦伯和曼尼恩还认为，二十一世纪的大部分书籍研究都是社会学的，因为“它与印刷文化以及书籍的创作、传播和接受的社会构建方式相协调”。 77 这与默里的传播、媒体、文化研究和社会学节点相一致。此外，韦伯和曼尼恩将“技术”视为二十一世纪图书史的一个节点，“将数字媒体理解为研究对象，并使用新技术作为工具来帮助探索出版的运作方式”。本文将在下一节中讨论这个“技术”节点。
In surveying the field in the ten years since Murray's article was published, we propose three new nodes of long twenty-first century book studies research: digital (con)texts, the economics of the book trade, and the cultural industry and economy.
通过对默里文章发表十年来的研究领域的考察，我们提出了二十一世纪漫长的图书研究的三个新节点：数字（上下文）文本、图书贸易经济学以及文化产业和经济。
The Digital (Con)Text 数字（Con）文本
Digital texts, digital contexts, digital methods, and digital data can be found in most twenty-first century book research, making it impossible to address this area of study without discussing "the digital." In 2015, Murray noted [End Page 381] how, despite the fact that the relationship between digital technologies and literary culture has been analyzed and critiqued since the early 1990s, critical engagement with this relationship often failed to fully understand the complexities of the impact digital technologies and literary culture had on each other.78 According to Murray, much of the earliest discourse was repetitive, focusing on the supposed "death of the book" at the hand of technological advances and, by 2015, there remained a "weary sense that, as a discipline, we have been around this block before."79 Bringing the existing information and data considering the digital and literary together, Murray proposes the term "the digital literary sphere" which "encompasses the broad array of book-themed websites and other digital content whose focus is contemporary literature and its production."80 The inclusion of the word "literary" in this label is potentially problematic, since it has different connotations relating to other disciplines and methodological approaches and can also imply conceptions or judgments of value.81 Accordingly, while Murray's term is a useful one that should remain part of the rhetoric of digital technologies and literary culture in the long twenty-first century, we favor a simplified and pared down terminology.
数字文本、数字环境、数字方法和数字数据可以在大多数二十一世纪的书籍研究中找到，因此如果不讨论“数字”就不可能解决这一研究领域。 2015 年，Murray 指出[完第 381 页]，尽管自 20 世纪 90 年代初以来数字技术与文学文化之间的关系就已被分析和批评，但对这种关系的批判性参与往往无法充分理解数字技术影响的复杂性。技术和文学文化是相辅相成的。 78 根据默里的说法，最早的大部分论述都是重复的，重点是所谓的“书籍因技术进步而消亡”，到 2015 年，仍然存在一种“疲倦的感觉，即作为一个纪律，我们以前来过这个街区。” 79 将现有的数字和文学信息和数据结合在一起，穆雷提出了“数字文学领域”这一术语，它“涵盖了广泛的以书籍为主题的网站和其他以当代文学为重点的数字内容”及其生产。” 80 在这个标签中包含“文学”一词可能存在问题，因为它与其他学科和方法论途径具有不同的含义，也可能暗示价值的概念或判断。 81 因此，虽然默里的术语是一个有用的术语，应该保留在漫长的二十一世纪数字技术和文学文化修辞的一部分，但我们赞成简化和精简的术语。
This node has purposefully been called "digital (con)texts" to differentiate it as an area of study focused on digital content, forms, and contexts as opposed to the use of digital methodologies. While twenty-first century book scholars commonly use digital methodologies—such as data scraping or mining, online surveys and computational analysis—these methodologies are not unique to research in the long twenty-first century. Many book historians (twenty-first century or otherwise) utilize digital tools and digital data in their research, an example being the Reader Experience Database, an online open access database which collects historic data related to reader experiences between 1450–1945.82 While entirely digital in its configuration, this database is not dealing with texts which are digital in their original form. Likewise, Matthew L. Jockers' Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History explores how "massive digital-text collections" are "changing how literary studies gets done".83 While Jockers' focus in Macro-analysis is the use of digital methodologies in textual analyses of literature, and particularly historic materials, his survey of digital methods in the humanities is related to parallel developments within book history.
该节点有目的地被称为“数字（上下文）文本”，以将其区分为专注于数字内容、形式和上下文而不是数字方法论的使用的研究领域。虽然二十一世纪的图书学者普遍使用数字方法——例如数据抓取或挖掘、在线调查和计算分析——但这些方法并不是漫长的二十一世纪研究所独有的。许多图书历史学家（二十一世纪或其他）在他们的研究中利用数字工具和数字数据，一个例子是读者体验数据库，这是一个在线开放访问数据库，收集 1450 年至 1945 年间与读者体验相关的历史数据。 82 虽然其配置完全数字化，但该数据库不处理原始形式的数字文本。同样，马修·L·乔克斯（Matthew L. Jockers）的《宏观分析：数字方法和文学史》探讨了“海量数字文本收藏”如何“改变文学研究的完成方式”。 83 虽然乔克斯在宏观分析方面的重点是在文学，特别是历史材料的文本分析中使用数字方法，但他对人文学科中数字方法的调查与书籍历史中的并行发展有关。
We propose that long twenty-first century research is in a unique position to use digital texts and contexts, such as websites, ebooks, apps, social media, and audiobooks, to name but a few, in its analysis of contemporary book and publishing culture. But identifying "digital (con)texts" as an individual node for long twenty-first century book research is not to suggest that [End Page 382] the digital does not intermingle with the other nodes discussed in this article. In other words, other areas of long twenty-first century book research put forth by Murray and by the authors of this article are rarely, if ever, entirely "digital-free."
我们认为，二十一世纪的长期研究处于独特的地位，可以在分析当代图书和出版文化时使用数字文本和环境，例如网站、电子书、应用程序、社交媒体和有声读物等。 。但是，将“数字（上下文）文本”确定为二十一世纪漫长的图书研究的一个单独节点，并不意味着[结束第 382 页]数字不会与本文讨论的其他节点混合在一起。换句话说，默里和本文作者提出的长达二十一世纪的图书研究的其他领域很少（如果有的话）完全“数字化”。
It is assumed that in the long twenty-first century almost every traditionally published book will also, and often simultaneously, have a digitally published counterpart (commonly an ebook, but in some circumstances apps, games and online-only content have been released in conjunction with publications) and sometimes a publisher or self-published author will decide to forego the print book altogether and publish digitally only. Yet, in the aftermath of the predicted demise of the print book, there has been a swing back to defending the traditional codex against the digital, often leading to an overemphasis on the virtues of the print book and a minimizing of the history and value of digital forms. Miha Kovač's Never Mind the Web: Here Comes the Book and Naomi Baron's Words Onscreen (2015) both present research and arguments that position print and digital as rivals rather than necessarily interconnected. While book historians would agree that the printed codex is alive and well, research and arguments that juxtapose print and digital in this way risk misrepresenting digital (con)texts. This is similar to the outcries about the "death of the book" (meaning the death of the print codex) which have been reductive and uninformed at best. Sarah Werner and Matt Kirschenbaum, in their thorough overview of the state of the discipline of digital scholarship, acknowledge that in many ways, a book history perspective is the best method for bringing "much-needed nuance to tired, reductive binaries around the paragone between print and digital."84 In an effort to intentionally distance this discussion from the print vs. digital dichotomy, it is useful to bring to the fore the theme of materiality that has emerged in long twenty-first century book literature in the area of digital (con)texts.
据推测，在漫长的二十一世纪中，几乎每一本传统出版的书籍也会（通常是同时）有一本数字出版的对应书籍（通常是电子书，但在某些情况下，应用程序、游戏和仅限在线的内容会同时发布）与出版物），有时出版商或自行出版的作者会决定完全放弃印刷书并仅以数字方式出版。然而，在纸质书预计消亡之后，人们开始转向捍卫传统法典，反对数字化，这往往导致过分强调纸质书的优点，而淡化纸质书的历史和价值。数字形式。米哈·科瓦奇 (Miha Kovač) 的《别介意网络：这本书来了》(Never Mind the Web: Here Comes the Book) 和内奥米·巴伦 (Naomi Baron) 的《屏幕上的字》(Words Onscreen) (2015) 都提出了将印刷和数字视为竞争对手而非必然相互关联的研究和论点。虽然书籍历史学家会同意印刷版手抄本仍然存在并且运行良好，但以这种方式将印刷版和数字版并置的研究和争论可能会歪曲数字（上下文）文本。这类似于对“书籍之死”（即印刷抄本之死）的强烈抗议，这种抗议充其量只是简单化和无知的。莎拉·维尔纳 (Sarah Werner) 和马特·科申鲍姆 (Matt Kirschenbaum) 在对数字学术学科现状的全面概述中承认，从很多方面来说，书籍历史的视角是最好的方法，可以为“围绕着典范之间的疲惫、简化的二元关系带来急需的细微差别”。印刷版和数字版。” 84 为了故意将这个讨论与印刷版和印刷版区分开来。 数字二分法，突出二十一世纪数字（上下文）文本领域图书文献中出现的物质性主题是有用的。
The materiality of digital texts might at first seem paradoxical. However, Kirschenbaum and Werner note that the decade-long "material" turn in studies of the digital mirrors a similar turn to materiality in book history more widely. Matt Kirschenbaum's Mechanisms argues that electronic writing must be understood as a "real", or material, form of writing, thus emphasizing the materiality of both the process and the product of electronic writing. His use of concepts and theory from forensic science offer a new way to think about electronic writing as a series of material events that never go away.85 In Mechanisms Kirschenbaum demonstrates that focusing on the materiality of digital texts can fruitfully move the discussion beyond a print vs digital dichotomy. Kirschenbaum and Werner also argue [End Page 383] that understandings of the materiality of the digital benefit from a specific branch of media studies known as "platform studies" which is, according to Kirschenbaum and Werner, "like the history of the book" in that it is,
数字文本的重要性乍一看似乎是自相矛盾的。然而，科申鲍姆和维尔纳指出，数字镜子研究中长达十年的“材料”转变与更广泛的书籍史中的物质性转变类似。马特·基申鲍姆（Matt Kirschenbaum）的《机制》认为，电子写作必须被理解为一种“真实的”或物质的写作形式，从而强调了电子写作过程和产品的物质性。他对法医学概念和理论的运用提供了一种新的方式来思考电子写作作为一系列永不消失的物质事件。 85 在《机制》中，Kirschenbaum 证明，关注数字文本的实质性可以有效地推动讨论超越印刷与数字二分法。 Kirschenbaum 和 Werner 还认为 [End Page 383]，对数字重要性的理解受益于媒体研究的一个特定分支，即“平台研究”，根据 Kirschenbaum 和 Werner 的说法，“就像这本书的历史一样”这是，
[C]haracterized by close […] attention to detail out of the fundamental conviction that such material particulars are ineluctably part of the history of communicative objects […] and our human interaction with them.86
[C]其特点是对细节的密切[...]关注，因为我们坚信这些物质细节不可避免地是交流对象历史的一部分[...]以及我们人类与它们的互动。 86
This interdisciplinary approach is also favored by Simon Rowberry in his analysis of ebook design over time.87 Other areas in the study of digital texts include the history of digital texts88 and media archaeology;89 however, these areas of digital scholarship are less focused on the long twenty-first century and therefore less relevant to our discussion of twenty-first century book studies scholarship.
Simon Rowberry 在对电子书设计随时间变化的分析中也青睐这种跨学科方法。 87 数字文本研究的其他领域包括数字文本的历史 88 和媒体考古学； 89 然而，数字学术的这些领域不太关注漫长的二十一世纪，因此与我们对二十一世纪书籍研究学术的讨论不太相关。
One of the differentiating features of book history (particularly in contrast to literary/textual studies) is its focus not on the text itself, but the context in which those texts are produced and consumed. This is equally apparent in the study of digital texts in the long twenty-first century, where digital composition and reception are integral to the current body of research. For example, Kirschenbaum's Track Changes maps the relationship between authorship and computer processing in its social, cultural, and economic contexts.90 Other scholars have studied the contexts of electronic literature, such as Kathi Berens's research on the reception of work by hypertext pioneer Judy Malloy.91 Thus, the materiality, composition, and reception of digital (con)texts is central to a discussion of the "digital" when it comes to the long twenty-first century.
书籍史的区别特征之一（特别是与文学/文本研究相比）是它关注的不是文本本身，而是这些文本产生和消费的背景。这在漫长的二十一世纪的数字文本研究中同样明显，数字写作和接收是当前研究机构不可或缺的一部分。例如，Kirschenbaum 的 Track Changes 描绘了作者身份与计算机处理在其社会、文化和经济背景下的关系。 90 其他学者也研究了电子文学的背景，例如 Kathi Berens 对超文本先驱 Judy Malloy 的作品接受情况的研究。 91 因此，在漫长的二十一世纪中，数字（上下文）文本的物质性、构成和接受是“数字”讨论的核心。
In summation, this article's definition of digital (con)texts envelops the digital content and context, including the materiality of the digital, with an understanding that a majority of this research is focused on the long twenty-first century. Murray has noted that what is currently missing from academic interrogations of twenty-first century book culture are "digital literary studies that [are] both contemporary and contextual,"92 but this research is emerging and will continue to grow in the coming years.93 Digital (con)texts have not only inspired new avenues of research, but they also facilitate research that is decidedly twenty-first century whilst remaining part of the wider history of the book. As Werner and Kirschenbaum argue, "If book history is the study of how platforms shape and deliver texts, then today's platforms of pixels and plastic are as much a part of those studies as paper and papyrus."94 [End Page 384]
总而言之，本文对数字（上下文）文本的定义涵盖了数字内容和上下文，包括数字的物质性，并理解这项研究的大部分集中在漫长的二十一世纪。默里指出，目前对二十一世纪图书文化的学术质疑中缺少的是“既是当代的又是语境的数字文学研究”， 92 但这项研究正在兴起并将继续增长未来几年。 93 数字（上下文）文本不仅激发了新的研究途径，而且还促进了二十一世纪的研究，同时仍然是书籍更广泛历史的一部分。正如沃纳和科申鲍姆所说，“如果图书史是对平台如何塑造和传递文本的研究，那么今天的像素和塑料平台就像纸张和莎草纸一样是这些研究的一部分。” 94 [结束页 384]
Economics of the Book Trade
图书贸易经济学
One of Murray's nodes, "industry research and vocational information", is described as the "earliest genre of publishing commentary."95 This is where late twentieth and twenty-first century research had its beginnings: in musings on the dynamics of the book trade from successful leaders in the industry that eventually led to career guides and introductory textbooks for publishing courses.96 In the last decade, this type of research has continued in texts like Kelvin Smith's The Publishing Business,97 Adrian Bullock's Book Production98 and the latest editions of Giles and Clark's Inside Book Publishing,99 Alison Baverstock's How to Market Books,100 Lynette Owen's Selling Rights,101 and others. Rightly so, Murray criticizes this type of research because of its "reliance on descriptive rather than critical modes of analysis."102 However, not all business-related twenty-first century book research would fall into this descriptive "industry research and vocational information" category.
穆雷的节点之一“行业研究和职业信息”被描述为“最早的出版评论类型”。 95 这就是二十世纪末和二十一世纪研究的起点：业内成功领导者对图书贸易动态的思考，最终催生了职业指南和出版课程的入门教科书。 96 在过去的十年中，这种类型的研究在 Kelvin Smith 的《出版业》、 97 Adrian Bullock 的 Book Production 98 以及最新版本的Giles 和 Clark 的 Inside Book Publishing、 99 Alison Baverstock 的《How to Market Books》、 100 Lynette Owen 的销售权、 101 等。默里批评这类研究是正确的，因为它“依赖描述性而非批判性的分析模式”。 102 然而，并非所有与商业相关的二十一世纪书籍研究都属于这种描述性的“行业研究和职业信息”类别。
Research on the economics of the book trade addresses several sub-areas: consumer behavior of readers,103 marketing,104 branding,105 and management models,106 to name some of the most prominent. Typically the approach to the economics of the book trade is qualitative or mixed method rather than relying on the quantitative methods that dominate business research more generally, which is unsurprising considering that the publishing industry itself is an intersection between business, literature and culture. Additionally, many long twenty-first century book researchers, even those researching within the economics of the book trade, are often positioned within departments in the humanities and come from humanities backgrounds, and their methodological approaches often reflect this background and positioning. The dominance of a qualitative humanities-centric background and approach from long twenty-first century book scholars illustrates a gap and need for increased collaboration with researchers from the sciences. While there are hurdles in working with quantitative data, such as that offered by BookScan, (although this data provider captures and presents book sales data, it does not offer a complete picture of sales and is expensive to access), a richer understanding of the economics of the twenty-first century book trade necessitates more variety in terms of methods and interdisciplinary collaboration.
图书贸易经济学研究涉及几个子领域：读者的消费者行为、 103 营销、 104 品牌、 105 和管理模式、 106 列举一些最著名的例子。通常，书籍贸易经济学的方法是定性或混合方法，而不是依赖于更广泛地主导商业研究的定量方法，考虑到出版业本身是商业、文学和文化的交叉点，这并不奇怪。此外，许多二十一世纪的图书研究者，甚至是那些在图书贸易经济学领域进行研究的研究者，往往位于人文学科的院系内，并且来自人文学科背景，他们的方法论往往反映了这种背景和定位。二十世纪图书学者以定性人文为中心的背景和方法占据主导地位，这说明了与科学研究人员加强合作的差距和必要性。虽然使用定量数据（例如 BookScan 提供的数据）存在障碍（尽管该数据提供商捕获并呈现图书销售数据，但它不能提供完整的销售情况，并且访问成本昂贵），但对图书销售的更丰富的了解二十一世纪的图书贸易经济学需要更加多样化的方法和跨学科合作。
However, there are researchers who come from the social sciences, in this case from business schools, and conduct research on the more humanities-focused (or at least humanities-sympathetic) twenty-first century book. [End Page 385] Stephen Brown, who is a marketing and consumer behaviour researcher positioned in a business and management research institute, is one such researcher. Brown is the editor of Consuming Books: The Marketing and Consumption of Literature, which is a compilation of research that, rather than addressing the particulars of marketing, focuses on a broader consumer research/consumer behavior macro-analysis of the book trade, focusing primarily on the long twenty-first century. The volume explores trends in consumption behavior, such as meet-the-author culture, readers as consumer-producers, and the sociality of reading as evidenced in book clubs. While the sociality of reading has been explored by other scholars (most notably by Danielle Fuller and DeNel Rehberg-Sedo107 and Beth Driscoll108), Consuming Books's consumer behavior perspective not only engages with the relevant scholarship of business schools but also offers long twenty-first century book studies valuable theoretical insights, such as the concept of "subcultures of consumption,"109 a useful framework for considering the sociality of reading. Pamela Schultz Nybacka's PhD thesis "Bookonomy"110 weaves a connection between Chartier's sociology of literature and the consumer culture perspective of "consumer tribes" and similar concepts from consumer behavior theory. Indeed, this integration of concepts and theory from business sub-disciplines (such as consumer behavior and marketing) is one of the great strengths and contributions of this area of long twenty-first century book history research as a whole.
然而，有些研究人员来自社会科学领域，在这种情况下来自商学院，他们对更注重人文学科（或至少同情人文学科）的二十一世纪书籍进行研究。 [完第385页]斯蒂芬·布朗（Stephen Brown）就是这样的一位研究员，他是一家商业和管理研究所的营销和消费者行为研究员。布朗是《消费书籍：文学的营销与消费》一书的编辑，该书是一份研究汇编，它不是解决营销的细节，而是侧重于对图书贸易进行更广泛的消费者研究/消费者行为宏观分析，主要关注在漫长的二十一世纪。该书探讨了消费行为的趋势，例如与作者见面的文化、作为消费者生产者的读者，以及读书俱乐部中所体现的阅读的社交性。虽然其他学者（最著名的是 Danielle Fuller、DeNel Rehberg-Sedo 107 和 Beth Driscoll 108 ）也探讨了阅读的社会性，但消费图书的消费者行为观点不仅涉及到商学院的相关学术研究还提供了二十一世纪的长期书籍研究宝贵的理论见解，例如“消费亚文化”的概念， 109 是考虑阅读社会性的有用框架。帕梅拉·舒尔茨·尼巴卡 (Pamela Schultz Nybacka) 的博士论文《Bookonomy》 110 将沙蒂尔的文学社会学与“消费者部落”的消费文化视角以及消费者行为理论中的类似概念联系起来。 事实上，这种来自商业子学科（例如消费者行为和营销）的概念和理论的整合是整个二十一世纪图书史研究这一领域的巨大优势和贡献之一。
In the sub-area of marketing, Claire Squires' Marketing Literature similarly offers a critical, business-oriented perspective to late twentieth and early twenty-first century book history. Squires investigates the representation and interpretation of texts in the marketplace through case studies of a series of high-profile books and interviews with members of the publishing industry in Britain. Through this investigation Squires studies the complex, manifold ways in which the appeal for a book is constructed. Likewise, Matthews and Moody's edited volume Judging a Book by Its Cover ad-dresses the positioning of books in the marketplace. Royle and Laing apply branding theory to the book industry in the long twenty-first century in their analysis of branding efforts for UK bookshops. Marianne Martens's Publishers, Readers, and Digital Engagement explores the consumer behavior of online reading communities on RandomBuzzers, TwilightSaga.com, and The Amanda Project. Simon Frost addresses how the business model and management of British book retailer John Smith's in the long twenty-first century involves the power dynamics between various "actors" in the communications circuit in a reading that is "commercially mediated" and [End Page 386] based on a "conception of gains".111 Business management scholar Susanne Bartscher-Finzer uses quantitative statistical analysis of survey data to assess the effect of motivations of book publishers on their entrepreneurial orientations.112 Additionally, well-known cultural economist David Throsby has examined book publishing from an economics perspective, in his research concerning the balance between culture and commerce in the Australian book industry.113 Finally, Ann Steiner analyzes the marketing and consumption of bestsellers in Europe and North America from 2004–2013.114
在营销子领域，克莱尔·斯奎尔斯的《营销文学》同样为二十世纪末和二十一世纪初的书籍史提供了批判性的、以商业为导向的视角。斯奎尔斯通过一系列备受瞩目的书籍的案例研究以及对英国出版业成员的采访，调查了市场上文本的表现和解释。通过这项调查，斯夸尔斯研究了一本书的吸引力的复杂、多样的构建方式。同样，马修斯和穆迪编辑的《通过封面判断一本书》阐述了书籍在市场中的定位。罗伊尔和莱恩在分析英国书店的品牌建设工作时，将品牌理论应用于漫长的二十一世纪的图书行业。 Marianne Martens 的《出版商、读者和数字参与》探讨了 RandomBuzzers、TwilightSaga.com 和 The Amanda Project 上在线阅读社区的消费者行为。西蒙·弗罗斯特（Simon Frost）阐述了英国图书零售商约翰·史密斯（John Smith's）在漫长的二十一世纪中的商业模式和管理如何涉及通信回路中各个“参与者”之间的权力动态，以及“商业中介”的阅读和[结束第386页]基于“收益概念”。 111 商业管理学者 Susanne Bartscher-Finzer 使用调查数据的定量统计分析来评估图书出版商的动机对其创业方向的影响。 112 此外，著名文化经济学家David Throsby在其关于澳大利亚图书业文化与商业平衡的研究中，从经济学角度审视了图书出版。 113 最后，Ann Steiner 分析了 2004 年至 2013 年欧洲和北美畅销书的营销和消费情况。 114
It is worth noting that because the economics of the book trade are so interconnected with more literary and cultural aspects of the industry, many long twenty-first century book scholars incorporate elements of the economics of the book trade into their research, even if this area is not the exclusive or primary focus of the research. One recent example is in Jeremy Rosen's Minor Characters Have Their Day: Genre and the Contemporary Literary Marketplace.115 Although his research is focused principally on genre study and mapping the history of minor-character elaboration as a genre, Rosen also analyzes the marketing of texts within this genre in order to study the commercial economy in which the genre operates.
值得注意的是，由于图书贸易经济学与该行业更多的文学和文化方面密切相关，许多二十一世纪的图书学者将图书贸易经济学的要素融入到他们的研究中，即使这个领域不是研究的唯一或主要焦点。最近的一个例子是杰里米·罗森（Jeremy Rosen）的《小人物的日子：流派与当代文学市场》。 115 虽然罗森的研究主要集中在体裁研究和描绘小人物阐述作为一种体裁的历史，但罗森也分析了该体裁内的文本营销，以研究该体裁所处的商业经济。运行。
The Cultural Industry and Economy
文化产业与经济
This node considers, and reframes, twenty-first century book study in relation to the cultural economy and related industries. The authors of this article posit that publishing and related facets of book culture (such as festivals, prizes, multi-media adaptations) should be considered as key elements of the cultural industry and economy.116 In The Cultural Industries, David Hesmondhalgh writes that the 'cultural industries are concerned, fundamentally, with the management and selling of a particular kind of work'.117 Hesmondhalgh continues, explaining how:
该节点思考并重构了二十一世纪与文化经济和相关产业相关的书籍研究。本文作者认为，出版和图书文化的相关方面（例如节日、奖项、多媒体改编）应被视为文化产业和经济的关键要素。 116 在《文化产业》中，大卫·赫斯蒙哈尔 (David Hesmondhalgh) 写道，“文化产业从根本上来说涉及特定类型作品的管理和销售”。 117 Hesmondhalgh 继续解释如何：
[T]he cultural industries have usually been thought of as those institutions that are most directly involved in the production of social meaning. Nearly all definitions of the cultural industries would include television […] radio, the cinema, newspaper, magazine and book publishing, the music recording and publishing industries, advertising and the performing arts.118 [End Page 387]
文化产业通常被认为是最直接参与社会意义生产的机构。文化产业的几乎所有定义都包括电视广播、电影、报纸、杂志和图书出版、音乐录制和出版业、广告和表演艺术。 118 [结束第387页]
Such definitions are useful to consider in relation to twenty-first century book research because they encourage multilateral examinations of the book and how it functions in contemporary culture in relation to other cultural products.
这些定义对于二十一世纪的书籍研究很有用，因为它们鼓励对书籍进行多边审查，以及它在当代文化中与其他文化产品的关系如何发挥作用。
In recent years there has been a surge in critical discourse surrounding the cultural value and economies of publishing and literature and such works have become central to the development of twenty-first century book studies. James F. English's The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards and the Circulation of Cultural Value119 has become a leading text in the development of understandings of some of the key agents working within contemporary book marketing. Through an exploration of the development of cultural prizes over time, and how Pierre Bourdieu's forms of capital are negotiated and "intraconverted" through the various processes of prize giving, in The Economy of Prestige, English proffers insights and approaches to looking at how these particular agents function within the book market and the wider implications these have on the literary economy. Similar works concerned with contemporary publishing and literary culture, and how agents within the publishing industry function as tastemakers and curators of cultural value, include Jim Collins' Bring on the Books for Everybody: How Literary Culture Became Popular Culture120, Edward Mack's Manufacturing Modern Japanese Literature: Publishing, Prizes and the Ascription of Literary Value121, Beth Driscoll's The New Literary Middlebrow: Tastemakers and Reading in the Twenty-First Century122, Millicent Weber's Literary Festivals and Contemporary Book Culture123 and Archer and Jockers' The Bestseller Code: Anatomy of the Blockbuster Novel124. While elements of these works are specific in subject matter, and could potentially be viewed as sub-disciplines of twenty-first century book research, they nonetheless contribute to broadening the field of the discipline through their analyses of contemporary literary culture, economy and marketplace.
近年来，围绕出版和文学的文化价值和经济的批评性话语激增，此类作品已成为二十一世纪图书研究发展的核心。詹姆斯·F·英格利希 (James F. English) 的《声望经济：奖品、奖项和文化价值的流通》 119 已成为当代图书营销中一些关键代理人发展理解的主要著作。通过探索文化奖项随着时间的推移的发展，以及皮埃尔·布迪厄的资本形式如何通过各种颁奖过程进行谈判和“内部转换”，在《声望经济》中，英格利希提供了见解和方法来审视这些特定的代理人在图书市场中发挥作用，并对文学经济产生更广泛的影响。类似的作品涉及当代出版和文学文化，以及出版业中的代理人如何充当文化价值的时尚引领者和策展人，包括吉姆·柯林斯的《为每个人带来书籍：文学文化如何成为流行文化》 120 ，爱德华·麦克的《制造现代日本文学：出版、奖项和文学价值的归属 121 ，贝丝·德里斯科尔的《新文学中庸：二十一世纪的品味制造者和阅读》 122 ，Millicent韦伯的《文学节与当代图书文化》 123 以及阿切尔和乔克斯的《畅销书代码：畅销小说剖析》 124 。 虽然这些作品的要素在主题上是特定的，并且可能被视为二十一世纪书籍研究的子学科，但它们仍然通过对当代文学文化、经济和市场的分析，为拓宽该学科的领域做出了贡献。
Other works, such as Fuller and Rehberg-Sedo's Reading Beyond the Book: The Social Practices of Contemporary Literary Culture125 explore such themes in terms of socialities and behaviours of reading. But the key difference in Fuller and Rehberg-Sedo's work, as well as that of Murray's The Adaptation Industry126, is that in these texts the publishing industry is not only considered in relation to cultural values, but also in relation to the wider cultural economy and related industries. Both Fuller and RehbergSedo, and Murray consider the production, marketing and reading of books in relation to other media such as radio, television and film. This is an important development within long twenty-first century studies of the book [End Page 388] because it not only allows for comparative analyses of the production and circulation of different types of media and text, but it also opens the door for considering the contemporary publishing industry in terms of academic discourses and critical frameworks used by scholars studying different cultural industries.
其他作品，例如富勒和雷伯格-塞多的《超越书本的阅读：当代文学文化的社会实践》 125 从阅读的社会性和行为方面探讨了这些主题。但是，富勒和雷伯格-塞多的著作以及默里的《改编产业》 126 的主要区别在于，在这些文本中，出版业不仅被考虑与文化价值观相关，而且还被考虑到与文化价值观的关系。与更广泛的文化经济和相关产业的关系。富勒、雷伯格塞多和默里都考虑了与广播、电视和电影等其他媒体相关的书籍的制作、营销和阅读。这是该书长达二十一世纪的研究中的一个重要发展[完第388页]，因为它不仅允许对不同类型的媒体和文本的生产和流通进行比较分析，而且还为考虑当代出版业的学术话语和学者研究不同文化产业所使用的批判框架。
Sarah Brouillette eloquently testifies to the long-running connections between publishing and literature, and the cultural economy more widely, in Literature and the Creative Economy. Brouillette notes how one of the key foci of the book is 'how literature has reflexively exemplified, internalized, and critiqued vocabularies and phenomena that are integral to our unfolding creative-economy era'.127 Contextualizing her analysis within the UK New Labour government's political cultural policies of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which purported to make culture "central to negotiating the symbioses between economic and social goals,"128 Brouillette considers the role and status of the writer as creative worker, both in literature (through analyses of Aravind Adiga's The White Tiger, Monica Ali's In The Kitchen, Daljit Nagra's Look We Have Coming to Dover! and Gautum Malkani's Londonstani, and in real life (through analyses of cultural policies and the actions of cultural policymakers). Brouillette's work is significant in relation to thinking about the future of long twenty-first century studies of the book because it broadens the scope of how we think about the politicization of the book in contemporary society.
莎拉·布鲁耶特（Sarah Brouillette）在《文学与创意经济》中雄辩地证明了出版与文学以及更广泛的文化经济之间的长期联系。布鲁耶特指出，这本书的重点之一是“文学如何反射性地例证、内化和批评词汇和现象，这些词汇和现象是我们正在展开的创意经济时代不可或缺的一部分”。 127 将她的分析置于 1990 年代末和 2000 年代初英国新工党政府的政治文化政策中，该政策旨在使文化“成为经济与社会目标之间共生关系谈判的核心”， 128
Indeed, when considering future directions for twenty-first century book studies in 2006, Murray argued that this area "must engage with mainstream humanities debates by entering into critical dialogue with contemporary cultural theory,"129 but warned that "unless researchers of contemporary book publishing consciously work to dismantle [inherited] disciplinary divides, important theoretical innovations in one field will fail productively to inform the other."130 Over the past ten years there have been developments in cultural studies scholarship which may prove invaluable to studies of contemporary book publishing and its role within the cultural economy. Specifically, in the last decade there has been an upsurge in critical discourses surrounding the dynamics and politics of creative labor. These include Mark Banks' The Politics of Cultural Work131, which takes a sociological approach to examining theories of cultural work and the position of the cultural worker today; and David Hesmondhalgh and Sarah Baker's Creative Labour132, which uses empirical data collected from the study of three cultural industries—television, music recording and magazine publishing—to examine understandings of creative work. Likewise, Theorizing Cultural [End Page 389] Work133 edited by Banks, Gill and Taylor, includes essays considering creative work and identity, copyright, representation and participation. We highlight this particular area of cultural studies because it so clearly aligns with some of the research foci of long twenty-first century book studies, particularly in terms of the disciplines' vocational background and interest in industry experience. Furthermore, this cultural studies framework of considering the nuances of creative or cultural work and workers presents long twenty-first century book scholars with a framework within which to consider the socio-political contexts of book production (from writer, to agent, to editor) today.
事实上，在 2006 年考虑二十一世纪图书研究的未来方向时，默里认为该领域“必须通过与当代文化理论进行批判性对话来参与主流人文学科辩论”， 129 ，但警告说“除非当代图书出版的研究人员有意识地努力消除[继承的]学科鸿沟，否则一个领域的重要理论创新将无法有效地为另一个领域提供信息。” 130 在过去的十年里，文化研究学术取得了发展，这对于研究当代图书出版及其在文化经济中的作用可能具有无价的价值。具体而言，在过去十年中，围绕创造性劳动的动态和政治的批评性话语激增。其中包括马克·班克斯（Mark Banks）的《文化工作政治学》 131 ，该书采用社会学方法来审视文化工作理论和当今文化工作者的地位； David Hesmondhalgh 和 Sarah Baker 的《创意劳动》 132 ，它使用从电视、音乐录制和杂志出版这三种文化产业的研究中收集的实证数据来检验对创意工作的理解。同样，Banks、Gill 和 Taylor 编辑的理论化文化[结束页 389] 作品 133 包括考虑创意作品和身份、版权、代表和参与的文章。我们强调文化研究的这一特定领域，因为它与二十一世纪漫长的书籍研究的一些研究焦点非常明显地一致，特别是在学科的职业背景和对行业经验的兴趣方面。 此外，这种考虑创意或文化工作和工人的细微差别的文化研究框架为二十一世纪的图书学者提供了一个框架，在该框架内考虑图书生产的社会政治背景（从作家，到代理人，到编辑）今天。
The Future of Long Twenty-First Century Book Research
漫长的二十一世纪图书研究的未来
These three research areas within long twenty-first century book studies—digital (con)texts, economics of the book, and the cultural industry and economy—are branches where we anticipate research of the long twenty-first century book will continue to grow in the coming years. Moving beyond the digital vs print dichotomy will enable long twenty-first century book historians to examine more fully the processes, forms, and content of digital (con)texts, particularly if this examination can inform, and be informed by, a longitudinal perspective of the book and its history. Scholarship continues to emerge at the intersections between economics, literature and culture, but there is a need for even more coalescing between economics and long twenty-first century book history, particularly given that the book publishing industry is subject to economic conditions and concerned with economic value. Additionally, positioning the twenty-first century book within the creative and cultural economy can create fruitful cross-pollination between twenty-first century book history and research regarding other media industries, while also engaging with industry.
二十一世纪漫长的图书研究中的这三个研究领域——数字（语境）文本、图书经济学以及文化产业和经济——是我们预计二十一世纪漫长的图书研究将继续发展的分支。未来几年。超越数字与印刷的二分法将使二十一世纪的图书历史学家能够更全面地研究数字（上下文）文本的过程、形式和内容，特别是如果这种检查能够提供信息，并通过纵向视角了解信息的话。这本书及其历史。学术研究继续在经济学、文学和文化的交叉点上涌现，但经济学和漫长的二十一世纪图书史之间需要更多的结合，特别是考虑到图书出版业受经济条件的影响并与经济相关。价值。此外，将二十一世纪的书籍定位在创意和文化经济中可以在二十一世纪的书籍历史和其他媒体行业的研究之间创造富有成效的异花授粉，同时也与行业互动。
As a period of book history research, long twenty-first century book studies benefits from the interdisciplinary nature of book history, although this article calls for a deeper interdisciplinarity rather than the haphazard interdisciplinarity that book history research runs the risk of employing. Unlike the nebulous term "publishing studies", long twenty-first century book studies is not, and need not be, uncritical or lacking in theoretical base. One of the great advantages of book history research is that studying the book intersects with the theoretical frameworks from many other disciplines, [End Page 390] including media/cultural studies, sociology, and economics. Methods aligned with other recent history approaches, such as oral testimony and new media-related methods, afford researchers of the twenty-first century book the ability to study the history of the book as it is unfolding.
作为图书史研究的一个时期，漫长的二十一世纪的图书研究受益于图书史的跨学科性质，尽管本文呼吁更深层次的跨学科性，而不是图书史研究冒着采用的随意的跨学科性。与“出版研究”这个含糊不清的术语不同，二十一世纪的长期书籍研究并不是、也不一定是不加批判的或缺乏理论基础的。书籍史研究的一大优势是，书籍研究与许多其他学科的理论框架相交叉，[完第390页]包括媒体/文化研究、社会学和经济学。与其他近代历史方法相一致的方法，例如口头证词和新媒体相关方法，使二十一世纪书籍的研究人员能够研究正在展开的书籍历史。
The purpose of this article has been three-fold: to respond to and update Simone Murray's 2006 article in light of the research in this area that has been published in the proceeding decade, to map the development of twenty-first century book research over the last ten years by providing a literature review, and to offer additional research "nodes" to complement and expand the nodes provided by Murray. While this overview of the current state of the discipline of twenty-first century book studies aims to consider the subject in the widest possible terms, and collate the relevant existing literature, it is not, and we believe cannot ever truly be, an exhaustive list. Rather the aim of this article is to pinpoint key research that has shaped this area of book history thus far, and to contribute to the ongoing conversation of the status and discipline of the twenty-first century book. It is likely other scholars working within this field identify further nodes which contribute to our understanding of this contemporary research, and we invite complementary contributions to this conversation.
Rachel Noorda is a Senior Instructor in the graduate program in Book Publishing at Portland State University. She earned her PhD in Publishing Studies from the University of Stirling, Scotland, where she studied the international marketing of Scottish books to the Scottish diaspora. While working toward her PhD, she co-founded an educational children's publishing house, ThunderStone Books. Rachel has taught courses at the University of Stirling, Brigham Young University-Idaho, and the College of Southern Nevada.
Stevie L. Marsden is a Research Associate at the CAMEo Research Institute for Cultural and Media Economies, University of Leicester. She has a PhD in Publishing Studies from the University of Stirling, Scotland, focusing on "The Saltire Society Literary Awards, A Cultural History: 1936–2015", and worked at the Saltire Society while conducting her research. She has taught at the Stirling Centre for International Publishing and Communication. Her research interests include the literary economy and contemporary publishing culture.
Notes
1. Per Henningsgaard, Claire Squires, Beth Driscoll, Padmini Ray Murray, Corinna Norrick-Ruhl, Rachel Noorda, "Twenty-First-Century Publishing: Constructing the Purpose of Research About Twenty-First Century Publishing", 11 Jul. 2018, conference panel at the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing Conference, Western Sydney University.
2. Simone Murray, "Publishing Studies: Critically Mapping Research in Search of a Discipline," Publishing Research Quarterly, 22, no. 4 (2006): 3–25.
3. Sophie Noel, "Publishing Studies: The Search for an Elusive Academic Object" Libellarium, VIII, 1 (2015): 139–145.
4. Michael Bhaskar, The Content Machine: Towards a theory of publishing from the printing press to the digital network, (London: Anthem Press, 2013), 4.
5. Daniel Boswell, "What We Write About When We Write About Publishing," Inter-script, March 13, 2017. http://ifhbff435ef5d72324367sk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/online-magazine/what-we-write-about-when-we-write-about-publishing.
6. Noël, "Publishing studies," 140.
7. As evidenced by PhD programs and research in publishing studies in the UK (University of Stirling, Edinburgh Napier University, Oxford Brookes University, University College London, King's College London, Kingston University, Anglia Ruskin, University of the Arts London, and University of Plymouth). In the US, for example, there are no designated PhD programs in publishing studies. Additionally, the principal works defining and utilizing the term publishing studies (including Murray, "Publishing Studies," 2006) often come from researchers in these two countries.
8. Noël, "Publishing Studies," 140.
9. Millicent Weber and Aaron Mannion, "Discipline and Publish: Disciplinary Boundaries in Publishing Studies," in Publishing Means Business: Australian Perspectives (Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2017).
10. Robert Darnton, "What Is the History of Books?," Daedalus, 1982, 65.
11. Per Henningsgaard, "Emerging from the Rubble of Postcolonial Studies: Book History and Australian Literary Studies," Ilha Do Desterro 69, no. 2 (2016), 121.
12. "Overview," Book History, accessed May 21, 2018, http://ifhbfe9c6f8cf1b444705sk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/journals/book-history.
13. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter, "Just over Our Shoulder: The Pleasures and Perils of Writing the Recent Past," in Doing Recent History : On Privacy, Copyright, Video Games, Institutional Review Boards, Activist Scholarship, and History That Talks Back, ed. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2012), 3.
14. Gary Osmond, "Tweet out? Twitter, Archived Data, and the Social Memory of out LGBT Athletes," Journal of Sport History 44, no. 2 (2017), 326.
15. Axel Bruns and Katrin Weller, "Twitter as a First Draft of the Present: And the Challenges of Preserving It for the Future," in Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science (8th ACM Conference on Web Science, Hannover, Germany, 2016), 183.
16. For the use of oral testimonies, see: John B. Thompson, Merchants of Culture: The Publishing Business in the Twenty-First Century (John Wiley & Sons, 2013); Miha Kovač and Claire Squires, "Scotland and Slovenia," Logos 25, no. 4 (2014): 7–19, http://ifhbf391f4815d8064db7sk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/10.1163/1878–4712–11112054; Rachel Noorda, "The Power of the Small Press: Entrepreneurial Publishing and Disruption of the Industry," TXT, no. 1 (2016): 87–93. For the use of new media sources see: Lisa Nakamura, "'Words with Friends': Socially Networked Reading on Goodreads," PMLA 128, no. 1 (2013): 238–243, http://ifhbf391f4815d8064db7sk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/10.1632/pmla.2013.128.1.238
; Melanie Ramdarshan Bold, "The Return of the Social Author Negotiating Authority and Influence on Wattpad," Convergence 24, no. 2 (2016): 117–36, http://ifhbf391f4815d8064db7sk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/10.1177/1354856516654459; Miriam J. Johnson, "The Rise of the Citizen Author: Writing Within Social Media," Publishing Research Quarterly 33, no. 2 (2017): 131–46; Nick Canty and Jamie Criswell, "Deconstructing Social Media: An Analysis of Twitter and Face-book Use in the Publishing Industry," Publishing Research Quarterly 30, no. 4 (2014): 352–76, http://ifhbf391f4815d8064db7sk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/10.1007/s12109–014–9376–1.
17. Padmini Ray Murray and Claire Squires, "The digital publishing communications circuit," Book 2.0 3, no. 1 (2013): 3–23.
18. Roger Chartier, Forms and meanings: Texts, performances, and audiences from codex to computer (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), 20.
19. Eva Mroczek, "Thinking Digitally About the Dead Sea Scrolls: Book History Before and Beyond the Book," Book History 14, no. 1 (2011): 241–269.
20. Thompson, Merchants of culture, 41.
21. Marianne Martens, Publishers, Readers, and Digital Engagement (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
22. Alistair McCleery, David Finkelstein and Jennie Renton, An Honest Trade: Booksellers and Bookselling in Scotland (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd, 2009), 53.
23. Stephen Brown, ed., Consuming Books: The Marketing and Consumption of Literature (Oxford: Routledge, 2006).
24. Simon Rowberry, "Ebookness", Convergence 23, no. 3 (2017): 289–305.
25. Murray, "Publishing Studies."
26. John Tebbel, "Education for Publishing," Library Trends, Fall 1984, 223–33; Alexander J. Burke, Jr., "College of the Book: Teaching Publishing Studies to Undergraduates," Logos 17, no. 2 (2006); Miha Kovač, "The Issue of Publishing Education," Logos, 19, no. 3 (2008); Fytton Rowland, "Degree Courses in Publishing at British Universities," Serials 13, no. 3 (2003): 167–73, http://ifhbf391f4815d8064db7sk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/10.1629/13167.
27. John Maxwell has written about the creation, purpose and vision of the program at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, established in the 1990s, see: John W. Maxwell, "Publishing Education in the 21st Century and the Role of the University," Journal of Electronic Publishing 17, no. 2 (2014).
28. In Publishing Means Business: Australian Perspectives, Millie Weber and Aaron Mannion assert that the first graduate diploma in publishing in Australia was offered by RMIT in 1988. Weber & Mannion, "Discipline and Publish".
29. In a paper presented at the By the Book Conference in May 2015, Lucy A. Ry-Kottoh (instructor on the publishing program at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology with a PhD in publishing studies from the University of Stirling) noted the development of the KNUT publishing program in the 1980s, followed by programs in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa. Lucy Ry-Kottoh, "Publishing Studies as an Academic Discipline or Professional Programme: An African Perspective" (By the Book Conference, Florence, Italy, 2015).
30. The publishing program at the University of Pretoria was established in 1997. "History," University of Pretoria, 2017, http://ifhbf33b0d90dcce846f7hk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/en/information-science/article/47918/history.
31. Nanjing University has a Department of Publishing Science and Zhejiang Gongshang University has a Department of Editing and Publishing. Scholars from these universities presented at the International Symposium on Chinese Digital Publishing and Reading: Evolving Models and Emergent Cultural Practices on 9 July 2018 at Western Sydney Unviersity.
32. Burke, "College of the Book".
33. Murray, "Publishing Studies," 3.
34. Miha Kovač, "Reading the Texts on Book Publishing: a new body of knowledge about an old body of knowledge," Publishing Research Quarterly, 23, no. 4 (2007): 241–253.
35. Kovač, "Reading the Texts," 248.
36. Kovač, "Reading the Texts," 249.
37. Squires and Ray Murray, "The Digital Publishing Communications Circuit."
38. Darnton, "What is the History of Books?"
39. For more on the selection and curation concepts introduced in the "filtering" portion of the model in The Content Machine, see Michael Bhaskar's Curation: The Power of Selection in a World of Excess (London: Piatkus, 2016).
40. Murray, "Publishing Studies," 4.
41. Alistair McCleery, David Finkelstein and Jennie Renton, An Honest Trade: Bookseller and Bookselling in Scotland (Edinburgh: John Donald, 2008).
42. Iain Stevenson, Bookmakers: British Publishing in the Twentieth Century (London: British Library, 2010).
43. Jason Ensor, Angus & Robertson and the British Trade in Australian Books, 1930–1970: The Getting of Bookselling Wisdom (London: Anthem Press, 2013)
44. Beth le Roux, A Social History of the University Presses in Apartheid South Africa: Between Complicity and Resistance (Boston: Brill, 2015)
45. David S. Miall, "Empirical approaches to studying literary readers: The state of the discipline," Book History 9, no. 1 (2006): 291–311.
46. Trysh Travis, "The women in print movement: History and implications," Book History 11, no. 1 (2008): 275–300.
47. Susan Pickford, "The Booker Prize and the Prix-Goncourt: a case study of award-winning novels in translation," Book History 14, no. 1 (2011): 221–240.
48. Alan Galey, "The Enkindling Reciter: E-books in the bibliographical imagination," Book History 15, no. 1 (2012): 210–247.
49. Stevie Marsden, "Positioning Publishing Studies in the Cultural Economy." Inter-script, June 13, 2017, http://ifhbff435ef5d72324367sk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/online-magazine/positioning-publishing-studies-in-the-cultural-economy.
50. Christian Hjorth-Andersen, "Publishing" in A Handbook of Cultural Economics, ed. Ruth Towse (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2011), 399.
51. Ted Striphas, The Late Age of Print: Everyday book culture from consumerism to control (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 3.
52. Simone Murray, The Adaptation Industry: The Cultural Economy of Contemporary Literary Adaptation, (Routledge, 2012).
53. Millicent Weber, Literary Festivals and Contemporary Book Culture, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).
54. Murray, "Publishing Studies," 14.
55. Sarah Brouillette, Postcolonial Writers and the Global Literary Marketplace (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).
56. Sandra Ponzanesi, The Postcolonial Cultural Industry: Icons, Markets, Mythologies (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 1.
57. Claire Chambers, "Multi-Culti Nancy Mitfords and Halal Novelists: The Politics of Marketing", Textus 23, no. 2 (2010): 389–403.
58. Corinne Fowler, "Publishing Manchester's black and Asian writers," in Postcolonial Manchester: diaspora space and the devolution of literary culture, ed. Robert H Crawshaw, Corinne Fowler and Lynne Pearce (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013), 79–110.
59. Melanie Ramdarshan-Bold, "The Eight Percent Problem: Authors of Colour in the British Young Adult Market (2006–2016)", Publishing Research Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2018): 385–406.
60. Claire Squires, "Publishing's Diversity Deficit", CAMEo Cuts No.2 (Leicester: CAMEo Research Institute for Cultural and Media Economies, University of Leicester, 2017).
61. Alistair McCleery and Melanie Ramdarshan Bold, "What Is My Country?: Supporting Small Nation Publishing," Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies 6, no. 1 (2012): 115–31.
62. Kovač and Squires, "Scotland and Slovenia."
63. Boswell, "What We Write About."
64. Noorda, "The Power of the Small Press."
65. Stevie Marsden, "The Saltire Society Literary Awards, 1936–2015: A Cultural History," (PhD thesis, University of Stirling, 2016).
66. Per Henningsgaard, "Outside Traditional Book Publishing Centres: The Production of a Regional Literature in Western Australia" (PhD Thesis, University of Western Australia, 2008).
67. Millicent Weber, Aaron Mannion, and Katherine Day, eds., Publishing Means Business: Australian Perspectives (Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2017).
68. Jon Helgason, Sara Kärrholm, and Ann Steiner, eds. Hype: Bestsellers and Literary Culture (Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2014).
69. Gillian Roberts, Prizing Literature: The Celebration and Circulation of National Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011).
70. Edward Mack, Manufacturing Modern Japanese Literature: Publishing, Prizes and the Ascription of Literary Value (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010).
71. Marie Orton, "Writing the Nation: Migration Literature and National Identity", Italian Culture 3:1 (2012): 21.
72. Sydney Shep, "Books Without Borders: The Transnational Turn in Book History," in Books Without Borders, ed. Robert Fraser and Mary Hammond, vol. 1 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
73. Robert Fraser and Mary Hammond, "Introduction," Books without Borders, 1–12.
74. Weber and Mannion, "Discipline and Publish".
75. Boswell, "What We Write About When We Write About Publishing".
76. Marsden, "Positioning".
77. Weber and Mannion, "Discipline and Publish," 188.
78. Simone Murray, "Charting the Digital Literary Sphere", Contemporary Literature 56, no. 2 (2015): 312.
79. Murray, "Charting the Digital Literary Sphere," 312.
80. Murray, "Charting the Digital Literary Sphere," 313.
81. Claire Squires, Marketing Literature: The Making of Contemporary Writing in Britain, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 4.
82. "The Reading Experience Database (RED), 1450–1945)", The Open University, accessed August 7, 2017, http://ifhbf225a5d28da7640b6hk5q6vu0nonf66nu9.fbhb.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/Arts/RED/
83. Matthew L. Jockers, Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013), 7.
84. Matthew Kirschenbaum and Sarah Werner, "Digital scholarship and digital studies: the state of the discipline," Book History 17, no. 1 (2014), 440.
85. Matthew Kirschenbaum, Mechanisms: New media and the forensic imagination (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008).
86. Kirschenbaum and Werner, "Digital scholarship," 434.
87. Rowberry, "Ebookness."
88. For example, Matt Rubery explores the 150-year-old history of audiobooks, beginning in 1877 with Edison's reciting on a phonograph. Matt Rubery, The Untold History of the Talking Book (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016).
89. Exemplified by Lisa Gitelman's Paper Knowledge, which gives a history of the vernacular genre of documents that extends from the 19th century to the present day. Lisa Gitelman, Paper Knowledge: Toward a Media History of Documents (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014).
90. Matthew G. Kirschenbaum, Track Changes: A Literary History of Word Processing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016).
91. Kathi Berens, "Judy Malloy's seat at the (database) table: a feminist reception history of early hypertext literature," Literary and Linguistic Computing 29, issue 3 (2014): 340–348.
92. Murray, "Charting the Digital Literary Sphere," 319.
93. At the 2017 SHARP conference there were a number of research papers which used multi-method approaches to the contemporary and contextual analyses of digital texts, for example, Laura Blair, "Reading and Reviewing in the Digital Era: Examining Readers and Reader Response Using Goodreads.com"; Maxine Branagh-Miscampbell and Stevie Marsden, ""The Commodification of the Ideal Young Female Reader in the 21st Century: Zoella Book Club, A Case Study", Beth Driscoll and Claire Squires, "Serious Fun: Gaming the Book Festival," and Simon Rowberry, ""Modelling the Book: Amazon's Patents and the Book as Technology". Other examples include Melanie Ramdarshan-Bold's "The Return of the Social Author," 2016; Miriam Johnson's "The Rise of the Citizen Author," 2017; and Millicent Weber, "Conceptualizing Audience Experience at the Literary Festival", Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 29 no.1 (2015): 84–96.
94. Kirschenbaum and Werner, "Digital Scholarship," 451.
95. Murray, "Publishing Studies", 5.
96. See Stanley Unwin, The Truth About Publishing (London: Allen & Unwin, 1926); John Baker, The Book Business (London: John Baker, 1971); Elizabeth A. Geiser, Arnold Dolin and Gladys S. Topkis, eds, The Business of Book Publishing: Papers by Practitioners (London: Boulder, 1985); Peter Owen, ed., Publishing: The Future (London: Peter Owen, 1988); John P. Dessauer, Book Publishing: The Basic Introduction, 3rd edition (New York: Continuum, 1989); Peter Owen, ed, Publishing Now (London: Peter Owen, 1993); Gordon Graham, As I Was Saying: Essays on the International Book Business (London: H. Zell, 1994); Alison Aprhys, Careers in Publishing and Bookselling: How to Get the Job You Want (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger, 1997); Murray, "Publishing Studies," 5.
97. Kelvin Smith, The Publishing Business: From p-Books to e-Books (London: AVA Publishing, 2012).
98. Adrian Bullock, Book Production (Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2012).
99. Giles Clark and Angus Phillips, Inside Book Publishing, 5th ed. (Abingdon: Rout-ledge, 2014).
100. Alison Baverstock, How to Market Books, 5th ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015).
101. Lynette Owen, Selling Rights, 7th ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014).
102. Murray, "Publishing Studies," 6.
103. Stephen Brown, Consuming Books: The Marketing and Consumption of Literature (Oxford: Routledge, 2006).
104. Squires, Marketing Literature, 2007; Nickianne Moody and Nicole Matthews, eds., Judging a Book by Its Cover: Fans, Publishers, Designers, and the Marketing of Fiction (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2007).
105. Audrey Laing and Jo Royle, "Marketing and the bookselling brand: Current strategy and the managers' perspective," International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 34, no. 3 (2006): 198–211.
106. Simon Frost, "Bespoke bookselling for the twenty-first century: John Smith's and current UK higher education," Book 2.0 5, no. 1–2 (2015), 39–57.
107. Danielle Fuller and DeNel Rehberg Sedo, "Fun…And Other Reasons for Sharing Reading With Strangers: Mass Reading Events and the Possibilities of Pleasure," in McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), Knut Oterholm, Paulette M. Rothbauer and Kjell Ivar Skjerdingstad, eds. Plotting the Reading Experience: Theory/Practice/Politics (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2016): 133–147.
108. Beth Driscoll, "Readers of Popular Fiction and Emotion Online," in New Directions in Popular Fiction: Genre, Distribution, Reproduction, ed. Ken Gelder (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 425–449.
109. First introduced by John W. Schouten and James H. McAlexander, "Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers," Journal of consumer research 22, no. 1 (1995): 43–61.
110. Pamela Schultz Nybacka, "Bookonomy."
111. Frost, "Bespoke bookselling."
112. Susanne Bartscher-Finzer, "Proactivity and the Entrepreneurial Self-Concept of Book Publishers" in Publishing Means Business (2017), 48.
113. David Throsby, "Commerce or culture? Australian book industry policy in the twenty-first century" in Publishing Means Business (2017), 1–21.
114. Ann Steiner, "Serendipity, Promotion, and Literature: The Contemporary Book Trade and International Megasellers," in Hype: Bestsellers and Literary Culture, ed. Jon Helgason, Sara Kärrholm, and Ann Steiner (Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2014), 41–67.
115. Jeremy Rosen, Minor Characters Have Their Day: Genre and the Contemporary Literary Marketplace (New York: Colombia University Press, 2016).
116. It should be noted that while 'cultural industry' and 'creative industry' are often used interchangeably, the term 'cultural' has been favored over 'creative' in the description of contemporary cultural industries and economy for this paper, borrowing Justin O'Connor's definition of 'cultural economy' as being 'concerned [with] understand[ing] how 'the economy' is culturally constructed'. Justin O'Connor, "Intermediaries and Imaginaries in the Cultural and Creative Industries," Regional Studies, 49 no. 3 (2015): 375.
117. David Hesmondhalgh, The Cultural Industries, 4th edition (London: Sage, 2019), 14.
118. Hesmondhalgh, The Cultural Industries, 14. Emphasis in the original.
119. James English, The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards and the Circulation of Cultural Value (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008).
120. Jim Collins, Bring on the Books for Everybody: How Literary Culture Became Popular Culture (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010).
121. Mack, Manufacturing Modern Japanese Literature.
122. Beth Driscoll, The New Literary Middlebrow: Tastemakers and Reading in the Twenty-First Century (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2014).
123. Millicent Weber, Literary Festivals and Contemporary Book Culture, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).
124. Jodie Archer and Matthew L. Jockers, The Bestseller Code: Anatomy of the Block-buster Novel (London: Allen Lane, 2016).
125. Danielle Fuller and DeNel Rehberg-Sedo, Reading Beyond the Book: The Social Practices of Contemporary Literary Culture (London: Routledge, 2013).
126. Simone Murray, The Adaptation Industry.
127. Sarah Brouillette, Literature and the Creative Economy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014): 8.
128. Brouillette, Literature and the Creative Economy, 8.
129. Murray, "Publishing Studies," 17.
130. Murray, "Publishing Studies," 12.
131. Mark Banks, The Politics of Cultural Work (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007).
132. David Hesmondhalgh and Sarah Baker, Creative Labour: Creative Work in Three Cultural Industries (London: Routledge, 2011).
133. Mark Banks, Rosalind Gill and Stephanie Taylor, Theorizing Cultural Work: Labour, Continuity and Change in the Cultural and Creative Industries (London: Taylor & Francis, 2013).
