The Politics of Being Unread
There is a quiet violence in being unread. Not the melodramatic kind. Not the kind that can be easily named or moralised. But the structural kind: the slow realisation that what you write, think, and articulate does not circulate in the same way as other voices, even when it is equally — or more — rigorous, honest, and necessary.
Humans like to believe that visibility is a meritocracy. That good writing finds its audience. That truth eventually rises. But cultural economies do not reward truth. They reward legibility.
Not everyone is equally legible to the system.
Some voices are immediately recognisable, easy to place within existing narratives. They speak in tones that institutions, publishers, and audiences already understand. Their critique is intelligible, their anger manageable, their suffering aestheticisable.
Other voices are not.
They speak from positions that are harder to translate into marketable language: from labour rather than observation, from class rather than abstraction, from lived contradiction rather than curated insight.
These voices do not travel easily. They do not fit neatly into categories. They do not reassure the system that everything is ultimately under control. And so they remain marginal.
Being unread is rarely about quality. It is about compatibility.
The system does not ask whether a voice is truthful, but whether it is usable. Whether it can be framed, quoted, packaged, and circulated without destabilising the structures that sustain it. Writers who speak from within the system’s fault lines often discover this too late. They write with urgency, precision, and political clarity — and are met with silence.
Silence is not neutral.
Silence is a form of sorting.
It separates voices that can be integrated from those that cannot. It filters out experiences that are too raw, too implicated, too disruptive. It allows the system to claim diversity of perspectives while quietly excluding the perspectives that would require real change.
In this sense, being unread is not a personal failure. It is a political position. Not chosen, but assigned.
The irony is that marginal voices are often told to be patient, to build audiences, to adapt their language, to soften their tone. As if the problem were stylistic rather than structural.
But adaptation has a price. To become readable, one often has to become less dangerous. To become visible, one often has to become less honest.
So some writers choose another path: to remain difficult, inconvenient, resistant to translation. To write not for algorithms or institutions, but from the stubborn conviction that certain truths should not be diluted for the sake of circulation.
This choice is rarely rewarded. But it is not naïve. Because history shows that the most transformative ideas were not popular when they emerged. They were ignored, ridiculed, or suppressed long before they were canonised.
Unread does not mean irrelevant. It often means premature.
The politics of being unread is therefore not simply about frustration or wounded ego. It is about recognising how power distributes attention, how class shapes credibility, how proximity to institutions determines whose words are amplified and whose are quietly erased.
To be unread is to occupy a strange position: outside the mainstream of recognition, but inside the core of critique. It is lonely. But it is also clarifying. It reveals that writing is never just an aesthetic practice. It is a struggle over who gets to produce meaning, whose experience counts as knowledge, and whose voice is allowed to define reality.
In a world where visibility is unevenly distributed, being unread is not merely a misfortune.
It is evidence.
Evidence that some truths are still too uncomfortable to be widely consumed.
And perhaps that is precisely why they must continue to be written and why we will keep on publishing them.
Does this article resonate you and would you like to share your work with us? Check out our current submission opportunities.