Fetishization of the book as a symbol of “reader” identity

A new framework for our relationship to physical books

Mar 07, 2025

Months before its official release, book influencers were eager to post their advance copies of Intermezzo, Irish author Sally Rooney’s latest novel, that they had received from her publishers. Seemingly everyone in the online reading sphere was receiving this book or lamenting the fact that they were not included on the exclusive early-access list. Owning Intermezzo was a status symbol within this community, denoting both bookish identity and an overall coolness from existing in proximity to Rooney’s protagonists who consistently embody early-twenties melodrama and sex appeal. The book itself was the key to earning this identity, with the ownership of it immediately asserting oneself as a true reader to online viewers.

The online frenzy around the release of Intermezzo showcases how the romanticization of intellectual realms is no longer being placed on necessarily having knowledge, but rather on possessing the objects that connote said knowledge, namely books. The goalpost appears to have shifted from acquiring knowledge by being a reader to acquiring the material possessions that are befitting of a reader. But how do we define this shift in how we associate with books and what, if any, consequences come along with it? Given the epistemic value within books, I will argue that this fetishization of books is an unwarranted attitude since it ignores both the epistemic value of book content and the human ability to engage with the knowledge within the written word. Further, I will propose an alternative model that represents an improved relationship between people and books.

It is important to clarify that I am not offering philosophy of reading, but rather a philosophy of the book as an object and the relationship we as humans have with physical books.

First, I will be explaining how the human capacity for deeper appreciation of intellectual pursuits means that we ought to engage in richer experiences out of respect for our higher faculties. Then, I will be explaining how physical books have become objects of affection and that in using them to project an intellectual identity one creates an inauthentic relationship that undermines both the value of book content and our capacity to engage with that value. Finally, I will move into a third section in which I will propose a superior model of our relationship with books as objects. In this model, I will explain how we can curate an attachment to physical books that promotes their intellectual value, rather than diminishing it behind a stylized “reader” identity.

Human capacity and deeper pleasures

Within John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism, in which he believes that people ought to seek maximal happiness through their actions, he argues that humans are unique in our capacity to pursue “higher pleasures,” whereas other animals can only engage in more carnal pleasures, like eating, sleeping, or sex. These higher pleasures tend to include mental pursuits, such as reading, writing poetry, appreciating music, engaging in debate, and other intellectual tasks. Mill believes that humans will always prefer these more mentally involved methods of appreciation because they are both intrinsically more valuable and extrinsically result in greater satisfaction.

This greater satisfaction is achieved since higher pleasures have lasting benefits that influence pleasure in many domains. For example, reading fiction novels may build empathy within a reader. That empathy will then enable the individual to have stronger friendships, improving their social life in addition to their intellectual capacities. Lower pleasures fail to have these intersectional benefits since they seek to fulfill essential urges as they arise, rather than encourage one to develop more abstract and mentally stimulating skills.

Though lower pleasures are essential to survival, higher pleasures are required to thrive as a human, according to Mill. Failing to engage in higher pleasures deprives an individual of the intellectual growth and development that results from them. Since humans are uniquely capable of pushing ourselves in this manner, we are doing a disservice to our humanity if we fail to engage in life critically since we would be acting in defiance to our capacities.

Yet sometimes the lines between higher and lower pleasures become blurred as we desire the richness of higher pleasures, but also want the instant gratification of lower pleasures. We may want the knowledge that comes from reading an 800-page novel, but it’s much easier to receive a lesser degree of satisfaction by buying a copy and carrying it around with us.

Fetishizing books: Books as objects of affection

What makes physical books attractive as objects? Oftentimes, we seem to love books due to their association with the process of reading. Reading a physical book appears to create an attachment between book and reader due to the intimacy of the reading experience: devoting time and energy into connecting the words on the page to meaning, following the lives of characters, feeling the ups and downs of conflicts and joys. To borrow from Robert Piercey’s philosophy of how books function as things, we can separate books into the “virtual content” of the written word and the “physical object” of the material book itself. The book is an object that reminds us of the story’s virtual content and in fact the very object that enabled us to engage with this content in the first place.

But is this reading experience a prerequisite for feeling affection towards books as objects? The notion of reading as a transformative endeavor has become widely mystified to the point that this sentiment has become cliché. Once our focus has turned to a book’s material form, the authenticity of these sentiments appears to diminish since they have become detached from the experience brought on by engaging with the book’s virtual content. If we’re aware that books allegedly enrich our intellects and imaginations, it follows that we can anticipate the richness of the reading experience and feel a presumptive sentiment towards the book itself. This affection is not born from the contents of the book, but rather from the social lore surrounding the power of the book as a cultivator of intellect and knowledge.

In the spirit of Mill’s theory of higher and lower forms of pleasure, it seems that this unwarranted affection for books due to their assumed intellectual value undermines the human capacity to have a deeper relationship with books. I will argue that the genuine value is based in the epistemic value of their contents. When books are used as objects through which one projects a highly stylized identity as a “reader”, the reader fails to access these epistemic values and instead the book is used to associate oneself with the reading experience.

Establishing a new framework

In establishing a more authentic and appropriate relationship between people and books as objects, there are three major issues that we must address. First, we must develop a framework that avoids reducing the value of physical books to our nostalgic affection towards their material form. Second, we must reflect upon how these previously described affectionate views have created a highly stylized image of a reader that falsely depends upon physical books. Third, we must appreciate making rich connections with literature that engage our intellectual capabilities in alignment with Mill’s theory of higher pleasures.

A proper appreciation of books as objects necessitates an appreciation of their core source of value: the knowledge found within the written word. Literature is an art form that transcends the physical object of its medium. Unlike sculptures or paintings, books do not depend upon their material form to be enjoyed since they can be read as e-books or listened to as audiobooks. This distinction emphasizes how the intellectual value of books is independent from the object of the book since the physical form is dispensable to the reading process. Acknowledging this epistemic value as opposed to highlighting their material value better aligns with our pursuit of higher pleasures since it encourages us to engage our human faculties in a mentally stimulating relationship to literature.

With these considerations in mind, it seems that in romanticizing the object of the book we falsely hold the material object to be sacred when we have the potential to make richer connections with its virtual content than the physical form. The virtual content is the permanent source through which we derive epistemic value and create personal affectionate connections to literature, whereas the object is a potentially transient conveyor of this content and should be seen as such.

In de-centering the function of the object in being a reader, the ways in which we communicate reader identity come into question since identity is no longer conferred by the presence of books alone, but rather by an understanding of virtual content. The current framework of reader identity that depends upon the physicality of the book to display one’s relationship is shallow and can be enriched by the more thoroughly communicative methods required to express an appreciation of a book’s story.

One may object to this assessment of our relationship with physical books by stating that owning physical books can serve an important role in our appreciation of book content. Aesthetic appreciation does not necessitate an ingenuine attachment and may even facilitate a more comprehensive connection to the book and its contents. Ownership over a book gives a reader the ability to physically interact with literature on a closer level, through lengthy contemplation without the fear of having to return the book, personal annotation without the book being considered “damaged,” and the continuous opportunity to revisit a story as one wishes. These interactions with the written word, through note-taking, marking up, or even dog-earing pages, may allow for better comprehension of a book’s virtual content by facilitating a more detailed reading process that corresponds to the needs of the reader. Though books can be accessed in non-physical forms, alternate mediums fail to provide the same opportunities for physical engagement that builds authentic attachments to virtual content. The object of the book is essential in developing this rich line of contact between the book content and the reader and thus cannot be ignored completely.

In response to this objection, I must state clearly that I don’t mean to suggest that it is wrong to own physical books. As stated above, it often seems that the very opposite may be true, it may do us a lot of good to own books that we enjoy going back to, re-reading, and continuing to reflect over. Book ownership and affection towards owned books don’t necessitate diminishing the book to the status of simply a material object, but assuming that the physical book serves as an essential bridge to appreciating book content fails to recognize the many avenues through which we can acquire literary knowledge and overstates the material form of books as their essential component. Even when the object of a book is used to derive value from a book, the value is still coming from the virtual content and not the object itself. If we seek to genuinely appreciate the object, we must respect the root of its value. Thus, if we aesthetically appreciate books as objects, we cannot do so without appreciating them first for their epistemic value since our perception of books as objects that connote an intellectual aesthetic is based on our knowledge of their epistemic value.

Therefore, the framework through which we should relate to books as objects can be stated as follows: the physical object of a book is a medium through which we can derive the epistemic value of the virtual content of the book and as such lacks value outside of its association with the content of literature.

Conclusion

In this article, I have discussed how books have been fetishized as nostalgic and mystified objects of affection and how this romanticization has isolated them from their epistemic value. Then, I reflected on the relationship we have with material books and their use to perform a “reader” identity, ultimately determining that unwarranted attachment to the physical form of books is a disservice to both the book as an epistemic object and the reader as a human capable of a deeper connection to the book’s content. Finally, I proposed a framework in which we ought to value books as objects only in relation to their role as conveyors of virtual content since there is no inherent value for us to derive from their physical form.

the reading revolt

Discussion about this post