Podcast Summary: Book Riot – The Podcast

Episode: “How Much Does Genre Matter to Readers?”

Date: October 15, 2025
Hosts: Jeff O’Neal, Rebecca Schinsky
Guest: Dr. Laura McGrath (Temple University)

Episode Overview

This episode of Book Riot’s flagship podcast dives into a fundamental question for the book world: How much does genre matter to readers? Host Jeff and Rebecca, joined by Dr. Laura McGrath, analyze how readers think about genre, how publishing and marketing lean on genre divisions, and what new research—especially a study using Goodreads data—reveals about real-world reader behavior. Rather than centering on industry assumptions, the episode explores how omnivorous (and sometimes univorous) actual reading habits really are, with insights about cultural capital, marketing pitfalls, and the shifting role of genre in a digital, algorithmic world.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Laying Out Priors: How the Hosts Choose Books

• Initial Reader Self-Identification

  • Rebecca admits she’s “not much of a genre reader,” generally choosing literary fiction, memoir, and pop science, with occasional detours into popular genre fare.

    “I will dip my toe into like the occasional thriller or the occasional romance or something that bubbles up because it's really popular and people say it's good.” (06:40)

  • Jeff describes himself as open to any book that strikes his interest, with little conscious regard for genre, except for potential “category avoidance” of certain genres deeply rooted in marketing.

    “My eye is not going to fall on them... I’m going to fall on something that—What is that? I’m not sure. Does it strike me? …almost zero impact of genre, except for maybe...category avoidance.” (08:56)

• Are Most Readers Eclectic?
  Hosts agree they’re “big weirdos” and not typical; they speculate that most readers structure around genre/tropes more, or at least say they do.

  • Rebecca: “The civilians in my life, their reading seems much more structured around a genre or increasingly around particular tropes within a genre.” (10:44)
  • Jeff: “I think there are veins of that readership that are very deep, but I actually think they may be more narrow...I think a lot of people are going to say they're eclectic readers, even if they actually don't…it shows up in their actual reading.” (10:57)

The Omnivore Hypothesis

• Background
  Dr. McGrath introduces the "omnivore hypothesis," originating in classical music sociology—the idea that cultural taste is shifting from high vs. lowbrow divides toward omnivorousness: loving many kinds of culture within or across media.

  “Rather than these cultural connoisseurs about music being only invested in classical music…he finds that connoisseurs of classical music…love music of all sorts, of all varieties...That is the general omnivore hypothesis that people are more invested as cultural consumers…rather than stuck in this high low divide.” (13:35)

• Books Lag Behind
  • Only recently has this hypothesis been rigorously applied to books, because robust, granular reader data (as opposed to sales) has been hard to get.

How the Industry Treats Genre

• Publisher and Marketer Perspective
  • Jeff explains that Book Riot’s advertisers and publishers heavily weight genre-targeted marketing—even though, as Book Riot’s own ad data revealed, general book ads perform as well as hyper-targeted genre ads.

    “My prior here is that advertisers and publishers really care where readers really don’t.” (21:15)

  • Rebecca adds that imprint identities and copycat trends (e.g., Romantasy) further drive this, but publishers underestimate how much regular readers cross genres.

    “I think publishers really care about genre... they extrapolate that is from this genre. And so we should make more of that genre...But I think they underestimate the degree to which a general reader is also maybe interested in…science fiction.” (21:50)

The Goodreads Study by English & Porter

Method

• Dataset

  • Focused on "super-users" (≥150 reviews) on Goodreads; this is <0.5% of users, but a robust, engaged group (~3,200 users).
  • Not interested in sales, focus groups, or casual browsers—but real behaviors of active readers (shelving, not just reviewing).

    “This 0.2% of all the Goodreads super users amounts to around 3200 users...they are not interested in the bots, they're not interested on the dummy accounts...they want to find readers who are genuinely engaging on this site in some meaningful way.” (37:17)

• Analysis

  • Instead of using pre-set genre categories, researchers used user-created shelf names to crowdsource how real readers categorize their books.
  • Network analysis discerned 8 major genre clusters: children's, fantasy, sci-fi, graphic novels, historical, literary, mystery/thriller, nonfiction, romance.
  • Genre assignments exist in a multidimensional "genre cloud," e.g. Underground Railroad might be 70% historical fiction, 30% speculative per shelving.

Findings

1. Eclecticism Score

• Each user gets scored for how broadly they read across genres.
• Stereotypes hold in part:
  • The least eclectic (most “univorous”) readers are heavy romance readers—a finding the hosts note has roots in gendered stereotypes and publishing history.

    “Those readers who are the least eclectic are reading primarily romance novels.” (44:47)

  • Most eclectic are literary fiction readers, who tend to read the “best of everything” (46:31), with more genre crossing and complexity.

    “The readers who are most eclectic are also the readers who are reading the most literary fiction.” (46:20)

2. Even “Deep” Genre Fans Show Variety

• While romance has the deepest single-genre readers, even romance is a vast ecosystem with more sub-variation than any other genre.

  “Unlike with other genres, you could be primarily a romance reader and also be a very eclectic reader. Because you could be invested in cozies and also in hockey romances...” (54:24)

3. Most Readers Are Genuinely Eclectic

• The research shows genre isn’t the core driver for most, except among romance users.
• Book choice is often driven by other factors: quality, mood, author, subject (“I like books about octopuses”), or even “vibe.”

  “Genre is still... it just does not seem to be the thing that is really drawing readers to particular books. I don't see here that's not the clear and easy division.” (55:30)

4. Literary Fiction as “Alternative Radio”

• Literary fiction shelves behave like the old alternative radio stations—oddly highbrow, yet encompassing a wide array of styles and flavors.

  “Literary fiction is a sort of non genre genre...I tend to read the best of everything in my right. Like I joined for research, I joined a romance book club…found out very quickly I am not a romance reader.” (47:53)

• Literary fiction readers thus become the classic “omnivores,” with cultural capital accruing from broad and serious engagement.

5. Genre Stickiness Over Time

• Users who first join Goodreads tend to fill their shelves with classics and literary fiction (perhaps for cultural capital), but over time, their actual reading becomes less “literary” and more genre fluid, with mystery/thriller being the “stickiest” genre over time.

  “What they found is that literature, literary fiction does not seem to be a sticky category... the genre that is however, very sticky that seems to be consistent across people's reading lives is mysteries and thrillers.” (64:14–64:43)

6. Limitations

• Data is Anglophone-biased and doesn’t perfectly represent median, non-Goodreads readers.
• Goodreads users tend to be heavier readers, which may skew results.
• “It’s the worst data set, except for all the others.” (59:08)

The Changing Nature of Taste & Cultural Capital

• Being “eclectic” (or “omnivorous”) is the new mark of taste and cultural cool, similar to knowing both Bach and Taylor Swift.
• There’s “book nerd cultural capital” in claiming broad taste, but descriptions don’t always match shelves; readers talk one way, read another.
• The algorithmic present (rec engines, tropes) may push readers to become “narrow” again, but evidence (per Goodreads data) suggests most are still more omnivorous than marketing presumes.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I think publishers overweight it (genre) significantly…they underestimate the degree to which a general reader is also maybe interested in, in my example, science fiction. It’s not just your hardcore sci-fi fans…” – Rebecca (21:50)
• “Those readers who are the least eclectic are reading primarily romance novels…There are really important gendered histories that are worth thinking about there…” – Laura (44:47, 45:10)
• “We simply don’t see readers, with the exception of romance, who read only one thing and only one thing forever…Readers who call themselves eclectic statistically really are.” – Laura (55:30)
• “The high/low divide— that’s being reinforced even in the way that Goodreads readers are approaching their own eclecticism.” – Laura (46:34)
• “Booksellers and librarians…are doing matchmaking about how it feels. Something that they know about how it feels to read that book. The experience that the reader is getting, not the ingredients that go into the book.” – Rebecca (57:52)
• “I want to know what makes people read literary fiction that is not required...What makes them pick up Toni Morrison some random day when they’re waiting in the carpool line when they’re 39 years old…?” – Laura (69:09)
• “There is a greater value placed on those very, very few writers who are allowed entrance to the field…all of these problems of inequality and prestige and class can compound on each other in ways that I find so fascinating that again, we just totally miss in the genre conversation.” – Laura (61:31)

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |---|---| | 06:12 | Hosts’ personal genre preferences
| 10:44 | Do most readers read by genre?
| 12:27 | Introduction to the omnivore hypothesis
| 13:35 | Applying omnivore theory to books
| 19:43 | How publishing thinks about genre
| 34:24 | The Goodreads study: methodology
| 38:38 | Defining genres via Goodreads shelving
| 44:47 | Least and most eclectic readers revealed
| 46:31 | Literary fiction as a marker of high eclecticism
| 53:57 | The “romance snow globe” and subgenres
| 55:30 | Why genre is overrated as a dividing line
| 64:14–64:43 | “Sticky” genres across a reading life
| 69:09 | The biggest unanswered question: why do people pick up literary fiction voluntarily?

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Genre marketing persists in the industry, mostly out of habit and ease, but real readers—except perhaps in romance—don’t live by genre alone.
• Most engaged readers are far more eclectic than publishing gives them credit for; literary fiction readers are the peak “omnivores” but even “monovores” display underlying diversity.
• There’s an urgent call for publishers and marketers to reexamine the primacy of genre as their audience-defining tool.
• These findings should also shape how teachers, librarians, and literary advocates think about “gateway drugs” to lifelong reading—and how best to foster a vibrant reading culture.

Further Reading:

• Text Crunch (Laura McGrath’s substack)
• Book Riot.com/listen

Contact:

• podcast@bookriot.com (for industry insights or responses)