Abigail's review

How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read
by Pierre Bayard

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1143788.How_to_Talk_About_Books_You_Haven_t_Read?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read" border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41dwNjuT3cL._SL160_.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1143788.How_to_Talk_About_Books_You_Haven_t_Read?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/32811.Pierre_Bayard">Pierre Bayard</a> 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7935616?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
 rating: 2 of 5 stars 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...
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/424514?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

Abigail's review
rating:

bookshelves: books-reading, literary-criticism
recommended for: The Literarily Insecure...
status: Read in January, 2008

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 ...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 (9 people liked it) flag

comments (showing 1-7 of 7)

newest »

date

message 1: by Kim

01/27/2008 03:59PM

Thanks for this suggestion...I've never heard of it and look forward to reading it...this seems a handy cocktail party skill. :-)

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 2: by Abigail

01/27/2008 04:36PM

Hi Kim: I'm around 2/3 of the way through this, and I'm not sure that I would give it my recommendation. I agree with some of the author's points about placing books in a wider cultural and literary context, but find his ideas about the meaning of that context, and the reader's relationship to culture and literacy, somewhat misguided. I'll probably post a review in the next few days...

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 3: by Kim

01/27/2008 05:00PM

I will look forward to that review...especially around the subject of cultural literacy. I teach high school and I often find myself in discussions with other educators about what kids "must" read. I tend to be more thematic, tend to lean towards being able to study and analyze literature for the connection it gives us to humanity (and therefore often find myself on the opposite side of the argument for why, for example, kids MUST read To Kill A Mockingbird - a book I love, but I can't bring myself to say there is any ONE book that all kids MUST read) - maybe I'm just a natural trouble- maker. :-) Anyway, I often find my students having to fall into the role of talking about literature they haven't read and think this book might lead to some interesting conversations with them.

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 4: by Kim

01/29/2008 08:01PM

Hi Abigail. Your review, in short, ROCKED. You have left me not only pitying this man (if he can feel pity from atop his high horse) but also singing the praises of those of us commoners who don't feel the need to wander around trying to impress people all the time with our perceived knowledge...I, for one, know I am mortal, revel in it, and just enjoy a good book when I come across it knowing I will never, ever read as much as I'd like or as much as I "should". I just want to read because I like it. Whether it's a classic or not, "literary" or not. Thanks for such insight - you saved me some time!

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 5: by Abigail

01/29/2008 08:31PM

Kim: thanks for your response. I found this a very difficult book to read, for a variety of reasons. In all fairness to Bayard, I do think that he is arguing for a more liberated reading experience, less bound by the expectations of the "literatti." He seems, on one level, to be seeking to puncture some of the pretentiousness of the "lit-crit" scene. But at the same time, some of his underlying philosophical ideas about culture and human interaction seem off to me.

I am always wary of authors who seem to be universalizing one experience - paradoxically, Bayard makes the point in one of his chapters that culture is not universal...

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 6: by David

01/29/2008 08:33PM

Awesome review, Abigail. Thanks!

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 7: by Kim

01/29/2008 10:52PM

Thanks, Abigail. I'm sure I was a bit hard on him in my response. I, too, have trouble when author's universalize an experience because I always think there is a grey area; however, it sounds like he might have just been caught up in his argument. See, this is why I write fiction :-) It's brave of someone to put an argument out there, to put themselves out there like that. I get to hide behind my characters. :-) Thanks for writing such a thorough, thoughtful review. I appreciate that kind of depth.

post a comment »

flag abuse *

all Abigail's books »