How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read

by Pierre Bayard

book data

331 ratings, 3.39 average rating, 156 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		15%
4		34%
3		26%
2		19%
1		3%

edit

published

October 30th 2007 by Bloomsbury USA

binding

Hardcover, 208 pages

isbn

1596914696 (isbn13: 9781596914698)

description

The runaway French bestseller hailed by the New York Times as "a survivor's guide to life in the chattering classes." If civilized people ar...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | compare prices…

new topic
discuss this book

topics	posts	views	last activity
talking about books about talking about books we haven't read	4	41	26 days ago, 09:14AM

friend reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

Books about Books

99 books | 86 voters

Best Book Titles

287 books | 152 voters

More lists...

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 811)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

10/19/07

Abigail rated it:

bookshelves: books-reading, literary-criticism

Read in January, 2008

recommends it for: The Literarily Insecure...

It is clear to me, after reading Pierre Bayard's treatise on the art of "non-reading," that my circle of friends and acquaintances, which I had until now considered to be fairly literate, must surely be lacking the elevated cultural sensibility that seems to pertain in Parisian academia. I freely confess it: there are any number of towering works of genius, pillars of the literary canon, which I have never so much as cracked. But despite the complete candor with which I discuss the sub...more It is clear to me, after reading Pierre Bayard's treatise on the art of "non-reading," that my circle of friends and acquaintances, which I had until now considered to be fairly literate, must surely be lacking the elevated cultural sensibility that seems to pertain in Parisian academia. I freely confess it: there are any number of towering works of genius, pillars of the literary canon, which I have never so much as cracked. But despite the complete candor with which I discuss the subject, I cannot recall the last time someone greeted my non-reading of a text with shock or ridicule. I must either present an astonishingly formidable visage to the world, or have been extremely lucky. Of course, anyone so unwise as to express such sentiments to me would be met with astonished pity, as it is my firm conviction that too inflexible an investment in any given canon is a sign, not of high cultural achievement, but of intellectual error.

Now perhaps Professor Bayard's tome simply didn't sit well with my own "inner book," but I found myself continuously irritated by his efforts to assuage insecurities I do not feel. His assumption that the social dynamic he has observed in some of his own circles is somehow universal, and his insistence upon reducing every interaction to some sort of psychological power-play are perhaps unsurprising in a psychoanalyst. My reading experience was not enhanced, moreover, by the author’s prose, which some have found witty, but which struck me as insufferably self-congratulatory - every point presented as if it were some breathtakingly original discovery.

That said, I find myself in agreement with the basic premise of the book, which is that the activities of “non-reading;” which Bayard expansively defines to include skimming, reading & forgetting (un-reading), and “hearing of” books; are all perfectly legitimate ways of interacting with a text, and more than sufficient for intelligent discussion. His ideas about the three kinds of library - the collective, inner, and virtual - and the ways in which they converge, and at times come into conflict, are intriguing. I am also in agreement with the idea that any given text must not be treated as some sort of isolated document, but part of a larger cultural whole, in which we must strive to locate it.

In short: what can be understood of this book is not be quarreled with, and therein lies its second weakness. Although Bayard manages to express himself quite clearly when summarizing his major points, the great bulk of his work - when not given over to literary quotations - is a confusing morass of self-contradiction and "cultured" cynicism. Perhaps I am too eager to take a page out of the professor's book, but it strikes me that he is the one crippled by fear. Almost from the opening of the book I was struck by the author's assumption that "mastery" of the whole (as in, overall cultural literacy) is the only possible goal of reading, and social interaction its only meaningful arena. The enrichment of the inner self, the transformative potential of new ideas or viewpoints, the restorative power of beauty, the strengthening (or weakening) nature of truth, are all subordinate here to the value books have for us as cultural commodities. Here everything is directed outward, as if we were nothing but social actors.

A man, confronted with the vast storehouse of human knowledge, itself only an infinitesimal fraction of what can be known, acknowledges that he will never be able to absorb it all. But perhaps, he tells himself, he can see the "whole picture," he can understand the "totality" of it. Or is it all just a clever game he has made up, so as to avoid facing his human limitations and imperfections, his smallness? How original... a man rebels against his mortality...(less)

Like this review? yes (10 people liked it)

7 comments

03/16/09

Manny rated it:

(review of isbn 2707319821)

bookshelves: french, linguistics-and-philosophy, parody-homage, well-i-think-its-funny

Most of the people who criticize this book are referring to the English translation How To Talk About Books You Haven't Read. If you take the trouble to consult the original French edition, you'll see all sorts of clever allusions to the intertextual tradition that has grown up in Continental Philosophy over the last 40 years, many of which are lost in the transition to a different language. When Derrida observed that nous sommes tous des bricoleurs, he was stating a daring new thesis. Now, when...more

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

13 comments

10/23/07

Eric marked it as to-read

bookshelves: to-read

Some reviews have expressed shock at Bayard's cheek in suggesting that, really, erudition consists of familiarity with the handful of cultured platitudes that reside around famous books. I have no idea why some people are scandalized, because it's not as if Bayard is being all that paradoxical--the academic study of literature is wholly based upon knowing about a book, as opposed to knowing it. In college I encountered only one professor--Aleksandr Dolinin--who talked wholly about the specific d...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

05/03/08

Jason Pettus rated it:

Read in April, 2008

This is one of four newish books I recently read mostly so I could finally get them off my queue list, all of which were actually pretty good but are mere wisps of manuscripts, none of them over 150 pages or so in length. This one is the surprisingly thoughtful How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read, by a hip French literature professor named Pierre Bayard; because make no mistake, this is not exactly a practical how-to guide to faking your way through cocktail parties, but more a sneaky exami...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

01/21/08

Debnance rated it:

Catchy title. Was it a parody? Was the author writing in earnest? I heard an interview with the author on NPR and realized there might be more to this book than I’d initially thought.

Bayard defintes “books you haven’t read” broadly, including the obvious “books never opened”, but adding “books skimmed”, “books you’ve heard about but that you’ve never read”, and “books you’ve read but that you’ve forgotten.” Whew! That doesn’t leave much to put into t...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

12/22/07

Corrielle rated it:

bookshelves: non-fiction

Read in May, 2008

If one were to follow the the logic of this book to its inevitable conclusion, one would have to admit that none of us have "read" any books at all. We have all come into contact with a variety of books, it's true, but they are all "unread" books of some sort. Either they belong to the vast sea of works that we have never even heard of, they are works we've heard of but never actually opened, books we have only skimmed, or books that we have read that have been forgotten to...more If one were to follow the the logic of this book to its inevitable conclusion, one would have to admit that none of us have "read" any books at all. We have all come into contact with a variety of books, it's true, but they are all "unread" books of some sort. Either they belong to the vast sea of works that we have never even heard of, they are works we've heard of but never actually opened, books we have only skimmed, or books that we have read that have been forgotten to the point where when we talk about them, we are talking about a fragmented reconstruction of the original that is of our own creation anyway. It's reader response theory gone horribly, wonderfully awry.

The important thing about books, then, is not actually reading them, but understanding the book's place in the collective library, engaging in meaningful conversation about the book (a feat which is completely possible even if neither participant in the conversation has read the book), and using the work as a source of individual and creative critical responses that may or may not have anything to do with the original work at all. (Yes, this is Wilde, whose Critic as Artist is discussed at length.)

Along with the collective library, which exists externally, Bayard talks about an inner library, which is filled with our conceptions of the books that we have read and the highly individual ways in which those books have shaped us. This, he says, is can be a major stumbling block when having discussions about works of literature. The Other's private conception of the novel is so different from the real thing that it's useless to have read the real thing in the first place. The chapters on conversing with loved ones and conversing with authors are especially applicable here. In the chapter about the author, he talks about how the book that the author thinks he or she has written is sometimes so out of sync with the response to it that it is impossible for the author to recognize his/her work in it. As with all of the other chapters, he uses an example from a work of literature where books and reading form a part of a plot point. In this example (one of my favorites, which is why I include it here), an "author" who is only pretending to have written the book in question ends up having a conversation with a "reader" who is only pretending to have read it.

What staggers me is how right he is. In educated circles, there are books that one is expected to have read, or at least have a passing knowledge of. However, it is the ability to comment intelligently and insightfully on these books that is key, not the actual act of reading. We tend to treat the reading of certain books as symbols of status and worth. I know I do. While I have not read as much as some people, I have read a great deal, some of it very weighty. I've read Anna Karenina. Twice. I read the unabridged Les Miserables when I was in the seventh grade and got strange looks from students and teachers alike. But am I any more equipped to talk about these novels than one who hasn't read them? What do I really remember about the actual text of the books, anyway? I remember "Every happy family is alike. All unhappy families are unhappy in their own way," or something very like that, is the opening line of Anna. I remember some very profound passages about simplicity and farming and peasant life, and other very good stuff about Anna herself (especially the night of the dance and the train ride in the storm) and something about comparing her to a horse whose back is broken as her lover Vronsky rides it in a race. I remember even less of Les Mis, and separating out what I know from the book and what I know from the musical is increasingly difficult. I remember long sections about minor characters (there is an entire chapter devoted to the priest who gives Jean Valjean the candlesticks, and another about Marius' grandfather and battle of Waterloo) and I remember paying lots of attention to any section involving Javert, who I was completely enamored of at the time. Does this make me any different than other people who have the same fragmented knowledge who haven't ever read the whole things cover to cover?

So... why should any of us read books at all if the important thing is the conversation/place in the collective library? First, I might suggest that even having forgotten much of a book, reading a book in the first place allows it to be joined to the inner library, allows it to mesh with individual experiences and perceptions and alter them slightly, perhaps. Second, if no one is reading books in the first place, there is a great void at the center of the intellectual universe. Someone has to be actually reading books, however quickly those books may turn into unread books, otherwise, we are all speaking in circles about something that is unknown to all of us (which, in my experience, happens a great deal anyway when a group of literate people start discussing books). Third, if books remain unread in the strictest since of the word (no one is physically opening the covers and setting eyes on the page), why are authors writing books? We could write for our own pleasure, yes, but for many writers (I am one of them) the urge to communicate something in our writing, to establish a connection with our readers, are important driving forces behind our writing. To be read, then filtered through the skein of the reader's own consciousness, perhaps even to be misunderstood, is far preferable to not being read at all.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

12/10/07

Alexa Garvoille rated it:

Read in December, 2007

recommends it for: High School English Teachers, Reader-Response Theory Junkies

I should say as a disclaimer that I actually took a course with Pierre Bayard at the Université de Paris 8 a few years back and would like to share two observations on that point: first, the course I took was titled "Madame Bovary," yet at no point in the course did we actually read Flaubert; second, Bayard is much more engaging (not to mention friendlier and less pompous) in print.
...
Bayard's playful essay-livre is a simple retelling of Reader-Response Theory crafted for ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

3 comments

11/25/07

Tom rated it:

Read in December, 2007

recommends it for: Theory-types

Bayard explores the oft-overlooked reader-responce theory with an expanded definition of "reader". His overall argument is that it is not so important to have read an "actual" book as it is to have an understanding of the book as it exists in within society and within both the collective and individual psyche. Through this understanding of the "essence" of a book - which Bayard argues is clouded by ones choice to read one book, and thus passively not-read every ot...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

01/31/08

Laine Bergeson rated it:

Read in April, 2008

This is a dense but strangely delightful book by a French philosopher, Pierre Bayard, about the act of reading a book and why, at it's core, reading a book is about the same as not reading a book and how, pretty much, we could practically be the author of a book and still manage not to have read it. Somehow his argument makes complete sense — and none at all — all at the same time.

Perhaps what I enjoyed most about the book is the irony inherent in reducing the act of reading to ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

03/08/09

Randall Yelverton rated it:

Read in March, 2009

One assumes from the outset that this this tiny volume was written ironically given its title. But as you proceed, you realize the author has a little something else in mind. And that he's dead serious. Bayard's book belongs to the reader-response school of criticism where a work is defined by what each audience member brings to the text. A work is not truly completed until it is interpreted by an individual.

Bayard offers a fascinating example of cross cultural interpretation and ho...more One assumes from the outset that this this tiny volume was written ironically given its title. But as you proceed, you realize the author has a little something else in mind. And that he's dead serious. Bayard's book belongs to the reader-response school of criticism where a work is defined by what each audience member brings to the text. A work is not truly completed until it is interpreted by an individual.

Bayard offers a fascinating example of cross cultural interpretation and how it defines a text in the story of the West African Tiv tribe hearing "Hamlet" for the first time. Unfamiliar with this considered to be the paramount of English literature, the Tiv, with their own unique supernatural lore cannot except the elder Hamlet as a ghost--the dead do not talk--and believe Claudius should have married Gertrude much sooner. Portions of the text are accepted at the point that they conform to and affirm the Tiv's cultural norms.

Bayard believes that we do this with each text and necessarily edit out parts we either forget or choose not to acknowledge. Therefore, this new interpretation is not really the book itself, but the text as we remember it. Due to this act of internal editing, none of us have ever truly read a book because our own editing and experiences change the text we remember.

It's an interesting idea that Bayard hashes out and expands upon through several chapters. I found it to be a worthwhile brain stretching exercise in critical thought until the book's third and final section where Bayard tries to sell the idea that expecting one to read a text before he or she can talk about is redundant and an affront to creativity. Because the act of talking about a book is essentially revealing one's self then talking about the self is the end goal of textual interpretation. Therefore reading a book is superfluous. Also, in an attempt to show familiarity with a text the reader will get a chance to exercise creativity as they try to obfuscate their lack of textual knowledge.

Maybe Bayard's having fun and I'm missing it. He carefully builds his argument and seems to be writing with sincerity. But then again I always thought that while reader-response theory had a great deal to offer, if ascribed to fully then consequently reading aa text is unnecessary. A fun little exercise that's easy to read, but its conclusion is lacking.(less)

Like this review? yes

add a comment

02/09/09

Chani rated it:

(review of isbn 2707319821)

Read in March, 2007

Pierre Bayard's theory is that there are many ways towards literature and that one of them might be not reading books. It's quite a joke since the paradox is that you have to read his books to learn about the practice of non-reading. His "narrator" is a Literature lecturer in University, like Bayard himself, who never reads the books he talks about. Bayard even says or makes his narrator say that non-readers are best to speak on literature. Of course it's obvious that you have to have ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

06/08/09

david-baptiste is currently reading it

bookshelves: currently-reading, re-rereading

Read in June, 2009

I'm rereadig this at a book store abt a year after i first read it, when itcame out in english. Bayrd has a new book outin france i have found excerpts from on line--inc. one inenglish--i nwhich he tackles the questions of reviewing, esp of books he puts in a select category which is that which emocpasses the worst books or unifinsed works of great or at least good writers.

In the How to talk book, Bayard is examing some of the implications which the old "Bluffer's Guyides" m...more I'm rereadig this at a book store abt a year after i first read it, when itcame out in english. Bayrd has a new book outin france i have found excerpts from on line--inc. one inenglish--i nwhich he tackles the questions of reviewing, esp of books he puts in a select category which is that which emocpasses the worst books or unifinsed works of great or at least good writers.

In the How to talk book, Bayard is examing some of the implications which the old "Bluffer's Guyides" mapped out as "taekn for granted" social/diplomatic policeis--that is, how to seem s though one has amuch borader filed of specialized kjknwoeldges packed in one's mind and ready at the drop of a aht to be able to propound upon them, though one may have not read a bokk, seeen a film hgeard some muci--nonetheless one hold's one
's own even among the more than usually informed.

(The Bluffer's Guide for Cinema was actully very good-veyr subversive in implications in ways Bayard isnot. After al he is a professor of Literature so can't write about not reading at all!)
Bayard's primary insight is that i the ways one speaks about, and hasgathered theinformation used to speak about, books one has not read, or has but forgotten al but the title of, or may have read, feels likeone has butis not really sure--and other such asepcts of "reaading"--in constructing or investi8agintg these, each person i in effect contributing to an evr ongoing wwiurting of these books and of new books of one's own.
Thisis in keeping with the law which states that no emergy is lost even when converted to another form--
In this sense, though don't think the author had this in min, one may read the book as a akindof reassurance re the economy of writing in relation to its being tlaked about, as much as more than being read.

The mergy opf writ9ing not coonverted to that of reading there fore is not lost in the non-=readings or forggotten readings, but is recuperated in the talking about the books, evenif they thesmlevs are but close to being as it were empty vessels.

All the unwritten spoken about logomania around writte texts then has a chnace through sheer humbers of granting the prorbality of the regenerstation and gereation outof the non read but written materials in to yet more writings . . . as wel as more readings as more tlaked about versions become evermore talked about and so at some point, again given the laws of proabality, wil engender a few or many new actaul readers of the writing--(less)

Like this review? yes

add a comment

06/07/09

Laura added it

bookshelves: nonfiction

Read in June, 2008

“I never read a book I must review; it prejudices you so.”–Oscar Wilde

Wilde’s epigram precedes Bayard’s table of contents and sums up the style of the book that is to follow. Bolstered by dry wit and an impressive grasp of a range of literary critical thought, Bayard discusses reading, non-reading, and the relationship between one’s reading and cultural literacy.

Bayard writes “Reading is first and foremost non-reading” since “…the act of picking up and ope...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

03/07/09

Grace rated it:

(review of isbn 1551929627)

bookshelves: my-books

This book seemed to go against every belief I have ever had about books and reading. I was told from when I was very young that the more I read the more I learn. I did not feel comfortable with the fact that this idea was being challenged. I began reading this book with intense skepticism and the intense desire to find something wrong with Bayard's argument. Instead, I found myself agreeing with him.[return:][return:]There are always books we cannot make ourselves read or we start reading them n...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

11/10/07

I-in rated it:

Read in November, 2007

It seems hard to believe that this book would hit the best-seller lists in France, where books are still regarded as sacred objects and the writer occupies a social position somewhere between the priest and the rock star. The ostensible anti-intellectualism of the title seems more Anglo-Saxon than Gallic, an impression reinforced by the epigram from Oscar Wilde: "I never read a book I must review; it prejudices you so."

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

06/09/09

Michael rated it:

Read in January, 2008

Isn't the book's title intriguing? We actually talk about book we haven't read all the time. For example, I skimmed James Joyce's Ulysses in high school. But from that experience, I can talk about select parts of the book, and I have a knowledge of its structure (takes place in 1 day) and literary techniques (stream of consciousness and parallels with The Odyssey).

The most interesting parts of the book are the examples and stories Bayard gives to make his case. I also enjoyed hi...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

06/08/09

Nathan rated it:

Read in June, 2009

I now realize the author's point is to say what everyone thinks about books. He puts into words all the different ways to view a book and how active and passive participation and even no participation affects this. Books reveals mysteries about themselves through reading, but also through social interaction and discussion. One can know a book by pretending to know, watching a movie about the book, reading a review, knowing the author, hearing about the book from another, or even READING the d...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

12/28/07

Pamela rated it:

bookshelves: abandoned

Didn't actually read it--I didn't care for the design. So I suppose I shouldn't have it on the "read" shelf. I got the sense of the thing, and it spent a lot of time on my night table. But I already know, anyway, how to talk about books I haven't read.

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

02/05/09

Michelle rated it:

Read in February, 2009

I'm trying to figure out if the author is joking or if he's totally serious....

He does make some good points, though I am hard pressed to explain any of them thoroughly since I am skimming this book (v. appropriate, considering the author's lauding of such a technique).

One point is that all you need to know about Joyce's Ulysses is that it takes place in a day, employs stream-of-consciousness, etc. And I'm happy with that. Don't want to waste my time reading canon tit...more

Like this review? yes

2 comments

11/24/08

caldron rated it:

Read in September, 2008

I guess the premise was thought provoking enough & part of that post-modernist take which posits some sort of 'cultural meme space' whereby we are supposedly sufficiently 'aware' of the specific subject-matter (in this case a particular novel or book obviously) by way of our exposure to, or consumption of, the broad spectrum media and therefore, based on our own existing opinions, knowledge, experience and intelligence can effectively 'join the dots' as it were to be able to speak about the book...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 40 41 next »

recent status updates | recommend it | blog it

combine
other editions (15)

More editions...

quotes from this book

"The title of the work, its place in the collective library, the nature of the person who tells us about it, the atmosphere established in the written or spoken exhange, among many other instances, offer alternatives to the book itself that allow us to talk about ourselves without dwelling upon the work too closely." More quotes...