Introduction

How can social media be used to disseminate national literatures? How can reading them be promoted and the publishing industry, both national and local publishing houses, be strengthened? How can literature become the focus of a broad spectrum of people? How can a conversation be started about what it means to write, publish, and read? This article responds to these questions, taking a Facebook wall administered by an Anglo-Canadian institution as a case study, based on the small stories method that I will use to analyze narrative activities that are important for recognizing the identity-forging work of their narrator as well as the social fabric of practices that people become involved in. The objective is to discover if it has created a virtual community of practice and if it has achieved, at the same time, the ultimate goal of discussing contemporary Canadian identities. Using the concept of virtual communities, as conceived by Robert V. Kozinets, and José M. Tomasena’s approach to dissemination of books through cyberspace, I will prove that, by promoting both reading and writing in social networks, the CBC has fulfilled its aim of not only creating virtual communities of practice but has also disseminated contemporary regional and national quality content. People interact on Facebook walls with different aims. To discover how the walls can be used as tools for disseminating literature, I did a Facebook (Fb) search of groups whose interest lay in Canadian literatures.¹

For the research subject, I found two walls (Canada Reads and Canada Writes) promoted by one of English-speaking Canada’s most important and prestigious cultural institutions: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), a public broadcaster.² I discovered a very interesting conversation, not only about reading and writing, but also an underlying, successful will to disseminate Anglo-Canadian literature. The promotion effort was present for both reading and writing, which goes hand in hand with the production and consumption of books. Since this article is a single part of a broader investigation, I will discuss only Canada Reads.

My starting point for observing and following the groups is the definitions of virtual communities developed by Kozinets, of communities of practice by ^{Wenger and Wenger-Trayner (2018)}, and of the method of small stories proposed by Alexandra Georgakopoulou, as well as an adaptation of Tomasena’s contributions regarding the online dissemination of books. I have kept records from the time I was admitted, in September 2020, throughout 2021, and for the first two months of 2022. I began as a mere observer, but I later began to sporadically participate in discussions in which it seemed respectful to participate in, given that I’m not a Canadian writer; I introduced myself as a Mexican researcher specializing in Canadian studies. This article presents a first approximation to the study of the dynamics of one of the two groups, and a few preliminary conclusions about them.

Why is the methodology of small stories (^{Georgakopoulou, 2016: 266-272}) useful in this case? In the first place, because its starting point is the analysis of a paradigm for the study of narratives and identities that implies taking a position and narrative rewriting in search of the meaning of those stories in daily life as part of the social fabric of practices that people become involved in. This perspective is fundamental for this article, since the community studied here is made up of participants committed to specifically reading Canadian literary texts. In the second place, Georgakoupoulou proposes to recover these small stories to include them in the area of analysis of narratives and identities, which is also pertinent in the sense that the participants define themselves, describe themselves, and simultaneously construct an image of themselves with regard to reading. In other words, they identify and narrate themselves as readers.

^{Georgakopoulou’s methodological proposal (2016: 267)} is that analyzing small stories shows us a range of narrative activities that are important for recognizing the identity-forging work of their narrator. We must keep in mind that these stories are fragmented and open-ended, that they go beyond the confines of a closed conversation, and that they resist the categorization of beginning-middle-end. Because of the dynamic of the groups, the stories are co-constructed, and it is difficult to assign their authorship to a single person. For this reason, they are ideal for reconstructing the idea of reading, writing, and identity that we can recover from the Facebook walls administered by the CBC. For his part, ^{Kozinets (2010: 2)} points out that, using a cultural orientation, studies can be carried out in the communities of the social interaction that happens on the internet through information and communication technologies (ICTS), which is the purpose of this article.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Mandates and Impact on National Literary Production

The CBC was founded in 1936 in part to consolidate the idea of a national identity that all Canadians could recognize and embrace,. Today, it broadcasts content in English, French, and eight First Naton languages (^{Bonikowsky, 2019}). It operates based on a mandate (^{CBC, n. d.}) that defines the corporation as a company of content whose vision is to connect Canadians through attractive Canadian content, with a mission to create audacious, distinctive programming in order to inform, enlighten, and entertain, and whose values include serving the Canadian public (1991 Broadcasting Act). To do this, its programming must be predominantly and distinctively Canadian; it must reflect both the country and its regions for local audiences, while offering special services in those regions. It must contribute actively to the flow and exchange of cultural expressions, seek equitable quality in the official languages and for linguistic minorities, contribute to a shared awareness and national identity, and reflect Canada’s multicultural, multiracial character (^{BTLRP, 2020}).

Regarding content production, the current aim is to ensure cultural sovereignty through communications media (content and platform types; policy aims for the sector that reflect a transformative media) and to embrace the global market. In the current context, it now has the goal of reimagining the support for Canadian content in the media (digital disruption of regulatory models of financing; modernization of the regulatory framework; ensuring public support for Canadian creators) and improving the rights of Canadians by improving confidence in the digital sphere (^{BTLRP, 2020}).

CBC Books is one of those initiatives: its page is called a “home” for people who read and write. The page includes news, interviews, new publications in English, bimonthly lists of Canadian best sellers, reading lists, bibliographical recommendations for every season of the year, calls for literary competitions sponsored by the institution (poetry, essay, and short story), tips for participating in them and the introduction of members of the juries, podcasts, videos, and the page studied in this article, Canada Reads, as well as Canada Writes. It also includes links to other prestigious Canadian literary prizes, such as the Governor General’s Literary Awards and the Scotiabank Giller Prize for the novel, short story, and graphic novel. Lastly, it offers microsites of programs like The Next Chapter, with Shelagh Rogers, or Writers & Company, with Eleanor Wachtel, on which the journalists interview writers and discuss writing.

The page not only invites us to read, but also directs us to CBC productions through social and other types of media.

Image 1 

Image 2 

It should be mentioned how relevant literary competitions are for both the CBC mandate and for the creation of a virtual community based on Canada Books. ^{Tomasena (2019)} explains that the publishing industry is currently facing a profound transformation on multiple fronts: advertising, distribution, and sales.³ When you review the CBC Books page, it is clear that the broadcaster’s strategies are responses to these changes.

Based on Bourdieu’s concept of a field, Tomasena states that in the symbolic literary field, struggles are structured around a principle of dual hierarchization: on the one hand, the specific recognition or literary prestige, an autonomous principle, provided by the symbolic recognition of other artists; and on the other hand, commercial success, a heteronymous principle linked to the field of economics and power, expressed both in successful sales and in prizes.

CBC contests are divided into two distinct kinds: for unpublished manuscripts in genres that are less commercial (such as poetry, essay, and short stories), and for already published books (like Canada Reads, about which I will expand further down). The promotion of awards is an incentive for new voices to participate and also ensures the recognition of the winning authors, not only in the field of prestige, but also commercially. In addition, an emphasis is placed on local and national creation and literature is utilized as a vehicle for multiculturalist national unity and regional identification. Monetary prizes are funded through subscription fees, and by the Canada Council for the Arts; and creative residencies are also offered at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity. So, while this contributes to the possibility of professionalizing writing and consolidating a literary canon, it also fulfills the cultural institution’s mandate, not only by promoting reading in English, but also by encouraging writing and the production of Anglophone literature as an essential part of creating regional and the national cultures. It is in this context that both the pages and the profiles of Canada Reads and Canada Writes emerged.

Canada Reads

Canada Reads is a private Fb page,⁴ created three years ago, managed by the CBC’s Books Division, and linked to the internet page of the same name.⁵ Today, it has around 10,000 members.⁶ Its rules are very clear:

Be kind and courteous. We are in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let’s treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.

No hate speech or bullying. Make sure everyone feels safe. Bullying of any kind isn’t allowed, and degrading comments about things like race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, gender or identity will not be tolerated.

Use spoiler alerts. Keep in mind that members of the group are reading at their own pace.

Canada Reads only. Please keep your discussions about Canada Reads only, except when it is off-season, in which posts can also be about Canadian books and literature. Off-topic posts will be deleted (^{CBC Canada Reads, n.d.})

Its content is closely linked to the competition named for it, which has been defined as the country’s biggest book club.

^{Tomasena (2019)} uses the relational concept of fields (coined by Pierre Bourdieu), to describe the social space that different actors occupy in promoting reading on social media. He points out that these actors possess different kinds of capital that they use in different forms of competition, collaboration, and reward according to the rules of the field. Economic capital belongs to the publishing houses that print/digitalize the books; human capital is that of the writers and readers; and symbolic capital is contained in the literary products, but also possessed by critics and the prizes, which assess the content. In an era when production, distribution, and sale of books have all changed a great deal, Tomasena points out that publishing houses have looked to social media to attract the attention of potential readers, given the current market saturation, dispersion, and specialization.

So, to have a practical sense of what it means to create literature- related content on social media, he proposes that all three kinds of capital are needed: human capital, the ability to publish on social media and relate to others through them; social capital, which is the number of followers you have; and symbolic capital, or knowledge, taste, reliability, and expertise (^{Tomasena, 2019: 6}). The relationship through social media can be very satisfactory both for the writer and the reader since it shows enthusiasm for the work.

Canada Reads creates content based on all the above. Why? To make books visible, attract the attention of readers to the issues they touch on and to the fact that quality writing produces recognition of works in literature. At the same time, promoting reading increases the sales of books not conceived of as bestsellers. This eliminates the debate about the impossibility of commercial success going hand in hand with artistic excellence. The idea is to connect readers with works and based on that, build a community.

The CBC is in a privileged position to promote reading, with the impetus of promoting quality content and encouraging proximity to literature with intellectual depth and aesthetic value. Therefore, on the Facebook wall, it fosters discussion and criticism.

For ^{Kozinets (2010: 8)}, virtual communities are social congregations that emerge from social media when people hold public discussions for a long enough time, with human feelings, to build networks of personal relationships in cyberspace. In online communities, compliments and discussions are exchanged and users become involved in an intellectual discourse; they trade, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, forge and lose friendships, play, and create art.

Image 3 

Canada Reads is a community that revolves around reading in general, but, in particular, around the Anglo-Canadian fiction literary competition of the same name, held since 2002. Since it came into being at a time when reality TV contests became popular, ironically, it uses the format of eliminating one of the five finalist books (picked from a list of fifteen), each defended by a celebrity, every night after a panel discussion, which the CBC broadcasts on radio, television, YouTube, and social media; and a secret vote. The first contest winner was In the Skin of a Lion, by celebrated author Michael Ondaatje, which, although published in 1987, sold more than 70,000 copies after appearing on Canada Reads. This is a sui generis competition. Each year a topic is proposed, and the winning book is the one that best deals with the topic and has the most pertinent meaning in this regard. The books do not have to be recently published. Those who read them, discuss them, and make them winners are not from the world of academia, publishing, or literary criticism, but “celebrities” from Canada’s multicultural worlds of sports, the media (radio or television), acting, or activism. And they do it to invite the country to read.

So, the small stories on this wall are linked together by the discussion of the books that appear both on the preliminary list and among the nominated. Due to that, the conversations they generate come alive only during the competition; that is, the activities of the community members are concentrated solely for a couple of months of the year. The page administrators upload news about the competition, which is stored on the CBC’s website of the same name: they introduce the celebrities that will make up the jury; the extensive list and then the list of finalists; the jury’s opinions; and interviews with the authors.

The members of a virtual community do not passively consume the content, but rather communicate actively among themselves; they connect to form, express, and deepen their social alliances and affiliations (^{Kozinets, 2010}). Also, in the context of the conversation on the wall, their very diverse perspectives underline the multiplicity, fragmentation, specificity of the context, and performativity of the communication practices among them. They are identities in interaction, and a combined focus on the content, author/narrator, form, and the readers as active participants (^{Georgakopoulou, 2016}).

To discover what is being thought about, what is being said, how to read, and how to criticize Anglo-Canadian literature, I will focus on the interaction during the 2020 competition; it is here that the specificity of the context lies. Regarding the identities in interaction, it is important to remember that the CBC’s mandate, the basis for the competition, is to offer literature as a kind of mirror that Canadians can look into it and recognize themselves. That is why the notion of nationalism cannot be excluded from this overview and why a previous post seems pertinent.⁷

So, a first search for the terms “nationalism” and “identity” provided the following small story:

Image 4 

This post is very significant on the wall, where the rules demand courtesy and respect for the presentation of ideas during the debate. Is this a “Canadian” perspective? We should not forget that one of the stereotypes of Canadians, when compared with Americans, is being courteous and non-aggressive (^{Martínez-Zalce, 2016: 32-97}). The conversation constructed around what is expected from an intelligent debate about literature, based on well-founded arguments, makes it clear that belligerence is distasteful to users, given that it’s not a matter of winning at any cost or of destroying the opponent, but of building a consensus based on intelligent, respectful discussion. In the contributions, the disagreement with that style is clear, to the point of “stopping listening to the debates,” suggesting changes to the format, and allowing the public to vote.

The 2021 Canada Reads: A Case Study of Virtual Communities

The year 2021, under the complex circumstances due to the pandemic, began with readers expressing concern over the competition.

Image 5 

The small story narrative about ^{Canada Reads 2021} unfolds based on the following log.⁸ I list the number of user posts related to each topic in parentheses: predictions and speculation about who will be on the long list and the short list (4 posts); recommendations to get on the lists, the twenty favorites, sporadic readings, and possible contenders (11), with special attention to the work of indigenous authors (Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, Alicia Elliot, Richard Wagamese, Tanya Talaga); general issues such as the theme for the year, the mechanics of selection, when the list will come out, panelists, where to get the books (12); posts by the administration (3), announcing ^{Canada Reads 2021} (1); and thanks for being accepted into the group or expressing happiness at being able to participate (6).

The ^{Canada Reads 2021} story, where the topic was “One book to transport us,” is chronicled thus: January 6, the long list is announced, followed by conversations about the titles that the users want to read about or that they are already reading, and which ones they enjoy or not (19 posts); those who read this list write reviews as the list of competitors is announced (1); they share reading practices, such as diaries, for example, podcasts, or a YouTube channel (3); suggestions about what to read first (1); the creation of their own lists of the five competitors that they would propose (3); and promotion of and events with the authors (1). While they wait, in addition to speculation, there are also recommendations of other books. At the end of the month, the administration announces the list of competitors and the panel that will defend them.⁹

After the list of competitors is announced, the small stories revolve around reading and general opinions about the books read-we should remember here the rule of not being too specific in order not to ruin the readings for others. In general, they can be summarized as follows: Two Trees Make a Forest is boring; Jonny Appleseed is heavy-duty; Butter Honey Pig Bread, a very interesting read; The Midnight Bargain, nice; and Hench, enjoyable. All in all, in January, there were around eighty posts.

Because of the uncertainty caused by the pandemic, in general the exchanges were influenced by the context and, in January, several concerns are expressed about how the competition would work, given that the previous year the debates were postponed several months. These ranged from how the books and themes would be selected and when they would be announced, to where people could physically get the books. We should remember that Canada’s sanitary measures were very rigorous, so some of the conversations revolved around the difficulty of getting copies and then included a series of recommendations that range from borrowing them from the library to using electronic books, audiobooks, etc.

Image 6 

After the first list is announced, the titles are the center of the conversations. Readers share the books on the list that they have read, comment whether they enjoyed them or not, and express their opinions about whether they think they should advance in the process. They exchange ideas and even go so far as to make their own selection of five novels that should compete given their quality.

The announcement of the short list intensifies readers’ exchange of opinions. The page administrators direct the specific practices, leading the users to share their opinions with the broad membership in the group; the play between the restrictions-no spoilers, for example-and the possibilities of action on the platform shape both the subjectivity and the presentation of the user (for example, if a user points to reviews published in other media), as well as the interaction with those who respond to their posts (^{Georgakopoulou, 2016: 267}). Since the conversation is concentrated only on the five finalist books, group members share what they’re reading, how their reading is progressing, and whether they like it or not and why, and, in some cases, their order or preference for the award. The administration sends the users to another platform to watch the shorts produced as a hook for attracting readers both to the books and to the competition.

To measure the importance of both the competition and the group, readers’ answers to Jonny Appleseed-the novel that ended up winning-are particularly interesting because due to the theme (being queer, destitute and first nations) and the style (quite colloquial), several readers said that they only finished it to be disciplined.

February’s sixty-four posts are divided into different types of stories: events (2); headway in reading and opinions (46); rating of the books (5); and different kinds of recommendations like podcasts (4); other readings (3); interviews (1); or previous years’ competitions.

Image 7 

The story that users most contribute to is about reading, in preparation for the debate with opinions and comments about each of the books that they have just read or are reading. Participation varies between centering on only one of the books or on comparing them. As time and the reading go on, the posts become more robust (18), with more complex critiques and lists based on personal preferences, which would then get “likes” from people with similar opinions. A general reflection about the entire reading list begins to take form.

The specific textual characteristics of the small stories are fragmentation and the openendness of the stories that go beyond the confines of a single post and a single platform and that resist a categorization of beginning-middle-end. They imply multiple authors in each post, as they can be shared on multiple platforms (^{Georgakopoulou, 2016: 268}). At that point in the discussions, we even find a survey to get an idea of the general opinion of the group (^{CBC Canada Reads, 2021}).

Table 1 PLEASE RANK THE NOVELS OF CANADA READS 2021. 160 responses 

In March, the conversations involve what is happening in the televised debates. Some people talk about the order in which readers would like the books to be ranked (8). Some individual posts also give the reasons why certain books seem better than others to them (15); some include quotes (1 post); others invite people to leave the platform to find others with pertinent information (podcasts, 4) or related events (2) and thematic associations with other readings (3).

As is common on this platform, the conversation doesn’t flow simply through the responses to a post, but also with symbols of approval and links to other platforms.

^{Georgakopoulou (2016)} emphasizes that small stories, in contrast to other kinds of fiction, do not follow a linear logic (beginning, development, climax, and denouement), but rather are characterized by being fragmented. ^{Kozinets (2010)}, for his part, states that users participate in online communities as part of their regular, continuous social experience, and in this case, their reading experience. And they do this in a participatory way, even if they only read the posts and react by saying they agree or disagree with them. Thus, it can be said that March is the month of the most intense exchanges among members of this community: the first few days center on the classification the participants propose for the books in their very brief analyses and opinions about some of the titles in particular, basing themselves also on the promotion of events, podcasts, etc. The administration announces the platforms where members of the group can follow the competition, once again pointing them to other platforms.

Starting on March 8, once the nightly debates begin, the conversation intensifies (57 posts) with opinions about the panel as such and the way that each individual behaves: their arguments, the readings that each proposes, not only of his/her own text but about those that the others defend; the presentation they make of both the books and of their importance for the reading community, in particular the Canadian reading community. They repeat the terms “respectful,” “thoughtful,” “insightful.” And then, the feeling of the community embraces that Canadian pride in the discussion within the limits of attention span and courtesy. There is a positive connotation about what a good debate consists of: it’s not only a matter of expressing something, but of the way you express it, without devaluing disagreement about the order in which the books are eliminated, and which one is the winner. On this occasion, the balance is favorable because the users think the debates were respectful, thoughtful, and insightful and that they invite the broad public to consume novels regardless of whether the readers are familiar with the themes or the characters.

Image 8 

Once the winner is announced, the small story of the competition fades away (between mid-April and December), almost to the point that from that point on, the posts (50) come almost completely from the administrators of the wall. It is important to note that in some of these posts, the verbal comments are not enabled; you can only share or react to them with symbols. You can follow the links to other platforms, but the idea is that they are only informative. So, here there is a change in the narrative of the wall, in which the readers are receiving news and stop being co-creators of the stories.

In December, speculation starts up again, and some of the atypical narrative activities return, following a similar pattern to that of the previous year. ^{Kozinets (2010: 9)} writes that, since these groups share both a cyber culture and a consumer culture, they do much more than transmit information. Going back to ^{Tomasena (2019)}, we can say that this group shares cultural capital and is provided with symbolic consumption of capital: the small stories lead successfully to book purchases and discussions about what literature implies in the lives of those who consume it.

Conclusion: The Communities and Achievements of the Cultural Institution

For decades, the CBC has been part of the lives of Canadians. ^{Bonikowsky (2019)} states that an Ipsos Reid Survey in the last decade (^{Ipsos, 2002}) shows that the population agreed that the CBC was successful in preserving Canadian culture and identity and that they would continue to vote in favor of public radio broadcasting. “Clearly, Canadians find their voice in the CBC,” he concludes. Voters would support political parties that fostered domestic ownership of broadcasting.

Based on following the pages using the methodology of small stories and questioning virtual communities, we can conclude that, by promoting both reading and writing in social networks managed by the CBC, the corporation has fulfilled its aim of disseminating regional and national quality content.

Online connections and positionings affect our social behavior as consumers. Therefore, a competition like Canada Reads offers wide visibility to books that can become well known, and, by encouraging reading, promotes both the publishing houses that have printed them and local bookstores that sell them. But in addition, these online interactions also influence our social behavior as citizens since these social groups have a real existence for their participants, and therefore, have effects and consequences in their behavior (^{Kozinets 2010: 15-29}). Thus, holding discussions on literary issues gives literature not only economic capital, but also human, social, and symbolic capital. ^{Georgakopoulou (2016: 269)} states that underlying the small stories constructed on these platforms are reasons that make it possible to study them. On the one hand, there are the empirical reasons, since they constantly announce fragments of our day-to-day lives that signify how we see and present ourselves in the communities; on the other hand, there are the epistemological reasons, the critical micro-perspectives in the online relations, which can help respond to the question of whether a sociopolitical potential exists for producing changes and which of these practices that construct meaning act in countercultural, hidden and unofficial ways, for engendering their narratives. In her opinion, these traits legitimize the study of the life experience while also reflecting on the role of the researcher.

In Canada Reads, the patterns of interpreting identities are traced based on selecting the proposed readings, on their analysis, on the tone in which the debate is carried out for picking the winning title. Themes, styles, forms, but also public personalities that include the authors, are discussed in order to determine which text is valuable enough for Canadians to read and identify with-or disassociate themselves from-some of its characteristics. The virtual reading community constructs small stories revolving around the value of literature in general and certain books in particular, as the glue that binds together a country based on many diversities.

^{Tomasena (2019)} states that platformization makes it possible to acquire social and symbolic capital that creators can use to become visible and popular, which can be transferred to other platforms. I would say that they can even be used to transfer to other media. This is what the CBC wants for literary work from its two walls and website about books.

I think it is very important to say that Canada Books classifies as entertainment. Despite this, it is not promoted nor presented from the superficial plane associated with entertainment. The social capital the CBC acquires online that is expressed quantitatively (through number of views, subscribers, and followers) and through the active involvement of its audience, gives it the power in the literary field to make known and therefore sell books (^{Tomasena, 2019: 9}). It also enables it to include a very wide variety of titles in the canon, titles that could be classified in a huge number of overlapping categories: literature written by women, migrant literature, Afro-Canadian literature, literature of the First Peoples, queer literature. This turns the CBC into one of the forces that fosters both literature and writing produced in the different regions of the country, as a mirror that can reflect values of every sort, from aesthetic to thematic. These discontinuous narratives, where both readers and writers practice, are also, in turn, a mirror.