Finding Authors with Libraro’s Arsim Shillova

I was particularly intrigued by Libraro’s Arsim Shillova’s talk on Finding Authors by utilising a community of writers and readers. Libraro aims to connect authors, readers and publishers by sifting through manuscripts and using their databases to determine what manuscripts are popular and of professional standard. Shillova stated that ‘[t]hrough that engagement, we really want to give the opportunity to people to actually see and find the content they truly like’ and that Libraro ‘want to let people decide what good content is.’ However, this brought up a lot of ethical questions for me.

Libraro claims that its main aim is to create an inclusive literary ecosystem that provides authors with the opportunity to establish their writing and gain feedback. Whilst readers have more sway over the publishing process, we must consider whether this is a sound system for determining what constitutes ‘good literature’. Are the general public qualified to assess the quality of literature, and even if they are, is this the most suitable method? David Narter comments on a reader’s relationship with enjoyment and comprehensive annotations, stating that ‘[m]ost of our best readers […] “like” reading literature. But ask these same overahievers to annotate as they read, and you’ll hear groans of discontent’ (2013, pp.66). Asking readers for continuous feedback throughout a manuscript for full, cohesive and comprehensive notes may lead to concerning quality gaps. This statement refers to the breaking of natural reading habits, and whilst a trained editor may have an eye for this, the general public may skip over errors to continue reading. However, this raises concerns over how detailed the analysis of good, publishable literature can be identified through sites that are based on reader engagement and data usage.

Although quality control and the use of public data may raise ethical concerns for publishing, Libraro does offer the benefit of democratising publishing. This is achieved by opening space for authors to attain visibility and preventing the marginalisation of voices who may not have access to traditional publishing. This method also allows readers to define their own interests and create a space for their own thoughts and opinions before possible publication. As R. Crosman establishes, ‘[m]eaning, […] is constituted by individual readers as response, and is then negotiated by them into group knowledge. Readers, first individually and then collectively, make meaning’ (1982, pp.210). Without readers, literature would lack significance; readers are what make books work.

Therefore, Libraro’s system foregrounds the connectivity between authors and their consumers. Shillova’s panel was significant to me in raising multiple questions surrounding the publishing industry and the innovations of technology within the business. By using platforms such as Libraro, we begin to navigate a complicated boundary between what quality literature is and the function of traditional publishers, with what social advocacy can do for authors and influencing market trends.