In chapter two of The Book, Borsuk discusses how the commodification of the book, and in turn, the creation of the publishing industry, has led to the book as we understand it today: compact, portable, and personal. I found myself very focused on the sections about copyright. Borsuk points to the first copyright as the legal enforcement of “primacy of content over form” (78). It seems ironic to me that as books become more commercial, publishing industries look to designs and additives that can make the book feel more personal.

I see this reflected in the kinds of book paraphernalia available today, from subscription services, to box sets, limited/special editions (with sprayed edges/illustrations/snippets from the next book), etc. Additionally I think this kind of book personalization can be found in the social media presence of authors today. Even if the physical book itself cannot be personalized, then content can be personalized through interaction with the author in digital spaces. In theses spaces readers can personalize their reading experience by asking questions that inspire para-text from the author. This para-text itself is then commercialized (think Dumbledore is gay discourse). I see this a lot with a authors who are active on tiktok.

The focus on content over form also leads to the author becoming a valued figure. Borsuk exemplifies this with copyright law: “In the United States, publiction is not actually required to secure copyright…If a work has been made ‘for hire,’ then copyright belongs to the employer or corporation that commissioned it” (100). This example made me recall the author of The Vampire Diaries, a work for hire book series from Alloy Entertainment, who was fined from writing her own book series after the first three books because the publisher didn’t like where the author was taking the story. After this her series continued to be ghostwritten. I think it’s interesting that in an age where the author itself is part of what’s being commodified we can see that the physical “object” of the author is not as important as the concept of the author.