The numbers have been crunched, the data analyzed, and the results are in. The bookiest (most bookish?) city in the United States is … not Minneapolis. And not St. Paul. Not even close.
How can this be?
Neither of the Twin Cities? Even though we have the Loft Literary Center, all those wonderful free public library programs, no more library fines, a million writers, a zillion bookstores? Who, might I ask, is more of a book town than we?
The folks at the website Apartmentguide.com did their research, they say.
They started with 14,000 cities in the United States that had at least one bookstore or library. They then lopped off all cities below 50,000, leaving them with 764 cities. From there, it was all about ratios per capita. And that was our downfall. We are too big.
"We then calculated the ratio of book-related establishments per 100,000 residents in each to determine the cities deemed the Top 10 best cities for book lovers in the nation," they noted on the website.
This seems like a dubious methodology to me. It doesn't take into account how many writers live in a town (Louise Erdrich, Danez Smith, Curtis Sittenfeld, Charles Baxter, Robert Bly …) nor the number of book events (Talk of the Stacks, Talking Volumes, Club Book, the programs at the University of Minnesota, Wordplay, Books and Bars, the Twin Cities Book Festival, and all of the bookstore events), nor MFA programs, nor other writing classes and workshops.
Just "book-related establishments" per capita. That seems a pretty narrow definition of bookish, and it gives an enormous advantage to smaller cities. (Also: Could there be a less-inspired phrase than "book-related establishments"?)