When Did Annotating Become a Performance?

Annotation used to feel like the most authentic part of my reading. There was something really satisfying and cathartic about filling my margins with notes that would never be read, drawing little lopsided hearts next to my favorite lines, or messily underlining a sentence just because it sounded so insanely beautiful. My annotations were never really neat or coordinated, but they were mine.

As annotation culture has gained more visibility, however, it’s changed. Now, before I even open my book, I think about my annotation in a different way. What highlighter matches the book cover the most? Which tab represents symbolism and which one is for questions? Now, annotating is one of the most tiring and stressful parts of my reading time. It’s intimidating. Trying to make it all look pretty takes more effort than the reading itself. I don’t think that the act of annotation has changed. Instead, social media has changed what annotation can look like. I believe that social media has transformed annotation from a valuable reading strategy into a visible performance of academic achievement.

Annotation, at its core, is the act of responding to a text. That response could be genuinely anything. It might be underlining a sentence that really connects with you, or writing a question in a margin. For me, it’s usually noting my increasing emotional investment in a slow-burn romance, or scribbling “WHAT???” next to an unexpected plot twist. The point isn’t, and has never been, to create beautiful pages. The point is to think.

Teachers usually encourage annotation for students because it changes reading from a passive activity into an active conversation. Instead of words moving endlessly past your eyes, you’re engaging with the text. You can make predictions, notice patterns, or just share your unfiltered thoughts.

There’s typically lots of freedom in annotation, because there’s no “correct” way to annotate. Some readers write entire paragraphs in the margins, while others just underline. Some people use symbols instead of words; I always add spirals whenever something connects back to a theme. Annotation was always meant to be personal because reading itself is personal; no two people experience the same book in exactly the same way. Also, part of what makes annotation so personal is that, for a long time, annotation has been mostly invisible. Your Language Arts teacher might briefly see your notes, or a friend might borrow your book, but annotations exist primarily for one audience: yourself.

Social media has changed that. StudyTok, BookTok, Bookstagram, study channels, and Pinterest boards have suddenly made studying incredibly public. Videos popping up on my page show the perfect, curated study environment every time. Spotless desks, matching notebooks, and highlighters lined up in perfect rainbows. Reading became accompanied by aesthetic background music and minimalist desk setups. Annotation wasn’t just something people did: it was something people watched.

Entire videos revolve around preparing annotation supplies before reading a single page of a novel. Amazon storefronts advertise annotation kits with color-coded tabs, transparent sticky notes, and pastel highlighters. Influencers create tutorials explaining their annotation systems, usually assigning specific colors to themes like symbolism, romance, or character development.

The truth is, there’s nothing really inherently wrong with any of this. Many readers genuinely enjoy the organization or the easy-to-follow systems. Color-coding can absolutely improve comprehension, and matching your sticky tabs to the color of your book cover isn’t a crime. Seeing other people’s methods can inspire readers who never really considered annotating before. The problem begins when the appearance of annotation becomes more important than the thinking behind it.

Social media naturally rewards things that are visually appealing, and the reality is that critical thinking isn’t always aesthetic. No phone camera can really capture the moment when a reader suddenly understands a character’s motivation or connects two seemingly unrelated storylines in a crazy, last-minute plot twist.

A page covered in color-coded rainbow tabs, however, is instantly recognizable. It’s shareable. It’s aesthetic. It’s striking. As a result, the visual aspect of studying becomes more important than the studying itself.

Psychologists frequently distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation comes from genuinely enjoying an activity or valuing its purpose, and extrinsic motivation comes from external rewards like praise, recognition, or social approval. Annotation has traditionally relied on intrinsic motivation: you annotated because it helped you and made you feel good. Social media has introduced extrinsic motivation into reading; now, annotations can earn likes, comments, admiration, followers, and validation, especially if it looks pretty.

The biggest misconception social media creates is that more annotating automatically means better reading. Books overflowing with sticky notes look more intellectual than books with only a handful of notes. But annotation isn’t measured by volume: it’s quality over quantity. One simple question written in the margin might be more effective in broadening your understanding of a book than thirty perfectly highlighted phrases. The purpose of annotation isn’t to prove to anyone that you read the text.

This performance of intelligence isn’t limited to books. An entire culture has been centered around making productivity look beautiful. Study vlogs, color-coordinated notes, expensive stationery, and fancy pens have all made their respective rounds on my social media pages. Even those perfectly productive “study with me” morning routines that somehow start at five o’clock. None of these things are inherently harmful; I’m actually just jealous of anyone that can consistently get up that early to study. But together, they create a wildly unrealistic image of what intelligence supposedly looks like. Productive. Disciplined. Organized. Always working. Within this culture of visible productivity, annotation becomes another visual marker of academic success, instead of an unfiltered method of comprehension.

Readers might feel pressure to own expensive annotating supplies, create extensive color coding systems, or fill every page with deep and thoughtful notes— not because these strategies necessarily improve their individual understanding, but because they signal seriousness. We start performing productivity instead of genuinely practicing it, and reading begins to resemble content creation. Sometimes I find myself trying to write something witty in my margins, or align my tabs perfectly with the edge of the page, before realizing, “who am I doing this for?”

One of the most subtle consequences of aesthetic annotation is that readers begin believing there’s one “right” way to annotate. So let me reiterate: there isn’t. Social media can present annotating as if it follows strict rules. Blue means symbolism. Pink means romance. Green means character development. But copying someone else’s system isn’t useful if it doesn’t match how your own brain processes information.

Maybe you only need one pen. Maybe writing silly reactions and emojis matters more than highlighting. Maybe your annotations are mostly questions. Maybe your pages stay almost completely blank because that’s just how you focus. Reading is so intensely individual. The best annotation system is the one that helps you think, not the one that photographs the best.

Despite all of the negative components of this culture, it would be unfair to ignore social media’s positive influence on reading and studying; for example, BookTok has introduced millions of people to casual reading. In the same way, annotation itself has become more accessible. Many readers first learned what annotation was through school, but learned what it could be through social media. Reading has become more social; people exchange ideas, recommend books, and build communities centered around a love for literature. So, the issue isn’t visibility. The issue is what happens when visibility replaces purpose.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying annotation tabs. Or creating color systems. Or enjoying aesthetic stationery. Or filming reading videos. I have genuinely done all of these things and have no intent of stopping. These things can make reading more enjoyable: romanticizing your life is fun. The aesthetic just shouldn’t become the goal instead of the tool. If decorating your pages helps you think deeper, awesome. If color-coding lets you identify patterns faster, amazing. If aesthetic supplies encourage you to read consistently, they’re serving their purpose! But if you’re spending more time lining up your sticky tabs and drawing straight highlighter lines than engaging with the words on the page, it may be worth asking who those annotations are really for. Yourself, or your camera roll?

Some of the most meaningful annotations I’ve made were definitely not pretty. They were huge ‘OMG’s. Big hearts around my favorite lines, cutting through the next paragraphs. Crooked lines of rambling squeezing into the most random margin spaces because I ran out of room. Looking back, those pages remind me exactly what I was thinking in that specific moment. That’s what annotation is supposed to preserve. Not proof that we’re intelligent enough to call ourselves readers. Just evidence of a conversation between us and our books.

Maybe that’s why annotating feels stressful and competitive now. Reading hasn’t changed, but we’ve started imagining an audience sitting over our shoulder, judging our notes. The most valuable annotations might be the least photogenic, because real thinking is usually messy, not visually appealing. The best way to reclaim annotation isn’t by throwing away the aesthetic sticky notes or deleting StudyTok: it’s just remembering that the margins belong to us. Not the algorithm.

Leave your comments for Lynley below!