I've been obsessed with wordle.net since I heard about it last week!

Beyond Market Models and Resistance: Organization as a Middle Layer in the History of Reading
by Christine Pawley

I'm writing my reactions as I read through the article, so bear with me as I work through the questions that arose in the first part of the article.  I am interested in how poaching could be perceived as subversive and exciting, but it also retains the impression of illegality, dishonesty, and villainy.  The latter seem like strange descriptors for readers, exactly those for whom the texts are created and marketed.  Digesting books, projecting oneself onto the author's creation, and interacting meaningfully with the text seem like the intended purpose of the books, not some sort of resistance.  I can understand that the resistance theory itself is a reaction to the authoritative market models, but I don't see how reading itself is a resistance since producers of books--authors, editors, publishers--rely on reader consumption and trends to guide their work, as Pawley quotes, "'Cultural consumption, whether popular or not,'...' is at the same time a form of production, which creates ways of using that cannot be limited to the intentions of those who produce" (78).  It seems she's saying that there is power inherent in consumer choice.  I think my issue is that while Pawley criticizes the two models she does not distinguish who the authority figure is in each model.  Is she implying that readers resist or revolt against the powers of publishers and writers?  My perception was that market models are about readers and producers while resistance models address the clash between readers and greater societal power structures.  However, as I read further, I began to see that since producers are in the position to either perpetuate or terminate racist or sexist ideals, readers can exert their power of selection to positively influence publishing choices while also educating themselves.  I also saw that I came to the same conclusion that Pawley did: "the concept of reader resistance only makes sense if applied selectively" (90).  Yesss!  I'm not going crazy!

When reading about earlier ideas about "high" and "low" reading, especially concerning comics, I was reminded of how the debate about the value of comics as reading material is still being played out.  It appears that cultural acceptance of comics has evolved out of several institutions and individuals at once, illustrating the interplay involved in the consumption and production of reading materials.  As libraries and schools let go of their disapproval of comics, children would have had more comics at their disposal.  As the demand for comics increased, so would the production of new comics in additional genres and markets.