Who Does Literature Belong To? Readers, Elites, or the Mass?

During a recent literary gathering in Odisha, a senior academic and playwright framed his concerns about contemporary writing through Der Spätkapitalismus (Late Capitalism) by Ernest Mandel. His argument centred on the observation that present-day literature increasingly aligns itself with market demand, reader expectations, and visibility-driven ecosystems rather than with sustained intellectual or critical inquiry.

From this position followed a more categorical assertion: that literature is not meant for the masses, and that attempts to expand its reach inevitably compromise literary seriousness. While the argument was presented as a diagnosis of the current moment, it also reopened long-standing questions about readership, authority, and the social function of literature.

Photo by Stanislav Kondratiev

Commodification and Literary Production

Mandel’s formulation of late capitalism examines how cultural production becomes structurally integrated into capitalist economies, where exchange value, circulation speed, and market visibility exert growing influence over creative work. When this framework is applied to literature, several questions arise. What precisely constitutes commodification in literary terms? Is it measured through sales figures, genre repetition, marketing strategies, or the prominence of festival and prize circuits? Do algorithmic recommendation systems and digital platforms play a decisive role in shaping literary form and content? If so, does commodification originate from readership preferences or from the institutional and economic mechanisms that mediate between writers and readers?

These questions suggest the need to distinguish between literary demand and the infrastructures that manufacture and amplify demand. Publishing houses, distribution platforms, cultural festivals, and media coverage collectively shape what gains visibility and what remains marginal. In this context, assigning responsibility to “the mass” risks overlooking the systemic conditions under which literary choices are produced and circulated.

Defining ‘the Mass’ in Literary Discourse

The term “mass” frequently appears in literary debates without a clear definition. Does it refer to non-academic readers, students outside elite institutions, digital-native audiences, or first-generation readers engaging with literature through translations and online access? Each of these groups represents distinct reading practices and interpretive contexts. Treating them as a single, undifferentiated category simplifies a complex social reality.

When literature is described as unsuitable for the masses, what criteria are being applied? Are assumptions being made about attention span, interpretive ability, or aesthetic sensitivity? If such assumptions exist, on what empirical or historical basis do they rest? The absence of clear definitions makes it difficult to assess whether concerns about mass readership are grounded in observable shifts in literary practice or in inherited hierarchies of cultural valuation.

Historical Precedents in Odia Literary Culture

Odia literary history offers a significant point of reference in this debate. The Utkal Sammilani, established in the early twentieth century, relied extensively on literary production, essays, editorials, poems, pamphlets, and journals to mobilise public opinion around linguistic and cultural identity. These texts circulated beyond academic elites and reached students, professionals, and the wider reading public. Literary engagement played a central role in shaping political consciousness and contributed directly to the formation of Odisha on linguistic grounds.

This historical context raises questions about the present framing of mass readership as a liability. If literature addressed to a broad public was instrumental in cultural and political consolidation, how should contemporary anxieties about accessibility be interpreted? Have the economic and institutional conditions of literary production changed to such an extent that similar outreach now produces different outcomes? Or do current debates reflect shifts in authority rather than in literary capacity?

Elitism, Gatekeeping, and Literary Authority

Literary value has traditionally been mediated by institutions such as universities, academies, journals, and critical forums. These institutions perform essential roles in evaluation, archiving, and contextualisation, yet they also function as gatekeepers. Decisions about what qualifies as “serious” literature often emerge from these spaces. When literature circulates outside institutional validation, through popular publishing channels, digital platforms, or community-driven initiatives, questions of quality and legitimacy are frequently raised.

This raises further points for inquiry. Are concerns about mass readership also concerns about the erosion of institutional authority? Are contemporary writers being evaluated using criteria shaped by earlier historical contexts without adequate consideration of changing forms of production and circulation? How do new reading publics challenge established hierarchies of literary judgement?

Market Mediation Versus Public Access

A crucial distinction in this debate lies between mass access and market mediation. Does literature lose complexity because it reaches a wider audience, or because its circulation is governed primarily by profit-oriented systems? Would large readerships provoke similar concerns if literature were disseminated through public libraries, non-commercial digital archives, or open-access platforms rather than competitive publishing markets?

If commodification is identified as the central issue, attention may need to shift from readership size to ownership and control of literary infrastructure. Who determines pricing, distribution, visibility, and longevity of texts? How do these factors influence what is written, published, and preserved?

Questions for Future Inquiry

Several lines of inquiry emerge from this discussion that require systematic research rather than normative judgment. How have readership patterns in Odia literature evolved over recent decades? What correlations exist between publishing economics and shifts in literary themes or forms? How do academic and non-academic reading cultures interact, overlap, or diverge? Can literary quality be assessed independently of circulation and popularity, or has such separation always been contingent on institutional privilege?

The framing of literature as the domain of a select few also invites scrutiny. Who benefits from such framing, and who is excluded? Does it function as a safeguard against market pressures, or does it risk reinforcing social and cultural boundaries that literature has historically crossed?

Perspectives Without Closure

The question of ownership, “who literature belongs to”, may resist definitive answers. Literature operates across multiple publics, each shaped by distinct social, economic, and institutional conditions. Examining how authority, access, and value are negotiated within these conditions may prove more productive than resolving the debate through binary positions. The issues raised by contemporary literary practice point toward transitions in readership, infrastructure, and cultural power that remain open to continued investigation.