What do you think?
Rate this book
Cómo hablar de los libros que no se han leído
Quienes acudan a este libro con la esperanza de encontrar claves para poder encandilar convincentemente a sus profesores, colegas, amigos o amantes con profusas disquisiciones librescas adquiridas sin apenas esfuerzo o tiempo, habrán cometido un error. Tras un título voluntariamente provocador, que corre el riesgo de ser interpretado como un signo de cinismo o de impostura, el ensayo de Bayard nos brinda en realidad una lúcida y estimulante reflexión a propósito de qué significa la lectura. Ese y no otro es el interrogante primordial alrededor del cual gravita su propuesta.
Para resolver ese enigma, Bayard se impone como tarea ineludible desenmascarar con una gran dosis de honestidad, inteligencia y humor uno de los tabúes sociales más extendidos y mejor amordazados: el hecho de que en algún momento de nuestras vidas todos hayamos fingido haber leído un libro que, a pesar de considerarse imprescindible, nunca fue abierto.
En Cómo hablar de los libros que no se han leído, Bayard no solo asume con naturalidad nuestra sempiterna condición de no-lectores (por mucho que seamos ávidos devoradores de libros, el número de lecturas pendientes siempre será infinitamente mayor), sino que convierte esa en apariencia vergonzante no-lectura en el núcleo mismo de la lectura.
Para resolver ese enigma, Bayard se impone como tarea ineludible desenmascarar con una gran dosis de honestidad, inteligencia y humor uno de los tabúes sociales más extendidos y mejor amordazados: el hecho de que en algún momento de nuestras vidas todos hayamos fingido haber leído un libro que, a pesar de considerarse imprescindible, nunca fue abierto.
En Cómo hablar de los libros que no se han leído, Bayard no solo asume con naturalidad nuestra sempiterna condición de no-lectores (por mucho que seamos ávidos devoradores de libros, el número de lecturas pendientes siempre será infinitamente mayor), sino que convierte esa en apariencia vergonzante no-lectura en el núcleo mismo de la lectura.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 11, 2007
335 people are currently reading
8648 people want to read
About the author
Pierre Bayard
52 books123 followersPierre Bayard (born 1954) is a French author, professor of literature and connoisseur of psychology.
Bayard's recent book Comment parler des livres que l'on n'a pas lus?, or "How to talk about books you haven't read", is a bestseller in France and has received much critical attention in English language press.
A few of his books present revisionist readings of famous fictional mysteries. Not only does he argue that the real murderer is not the one that the author presents to us, but in addition these works suggest that the author subconsciously knew who the real culprit is. His 2008 book L'Affaire du Chien des Baskerville was published in English as Sherlock Holmes was Wrong: Re-opening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles. His earlier book Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? re-investigates Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. His book on Hamlet which argues that Claudius did not kill Hamlet's father remains untranslated into English.
Bayard's recent book Comment parler des livres que l'on n'a pas lus?, or "How to talk about books you haven't read", is a bestseller in France and has received much critical attention in English language press.
A few of his books present revisionist readings of famous fictional mysteries. Not only does he argue that the real murderer is not the one that the author presents to us, but in addition these works suggest that the author subconsciously knew who the real culprit is. His 2008 book L'Affaire du Chien des Baskerville was published in English as Sherlock Holmes was Wrong: Re-opening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles. His earlier book Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? re-investigates Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. His book on Hamlet which argues that Claudius did not kill Hamlet's father remains untranslated into English.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,090 reviews
January 6, 2016
If Pierre Bayard was in charge of Goodreads, the three standard categories (Read, Currently Reading, Want to Read) would be entirely eliminated. Instead there would be: Books that are unknown to me (I don't know about them and am not aware of them); Books that I have skimmed; Books that I have heard about (you can know lots about Romeo and Juliet even if you've never read the play); and finally, Books that I have Forgotten.
You will note that there is no category for having read a book, for as soon as we read the words on the pages we start to forget them. This is the real reason I personally review books on Goodreads--like Montaigne, a famous essayist, and a self-proclaimed forgetter of books--I realize that they are ephemeral, that my experience of them disappears, sometimes to where I forget the book entirely. Reviewing a book on Goodreads does not make me remember the book, but it does help me record a particular reaction and experience with it at a particular time.
Further, we forget books because it is impossible to pin a text down, to make it stationary--the context of the book and its interpretations, and its place in the collective library, are always changing. And we too, as readers, are changing.
Bayard goes so far to propose that it is better to be an active non-reader than part of the "mob of passive readers" (185). In some ways this is tongue in cheek--I don't believe Bayard is proposing we give up books entirely--but he thinks it is more important to talk about books than to read them, to be able to place them in a critical and cultural context, and most importantly, we need to be creators ourselves. (Much of the book takes on a humorous, tongue-in-cheek tone, which adds to the experience of reading--and forgetting--this text.)
This book reminds me of what I loved about college classes, particularly graduate school classes. But it also reminds me of why I have no interest in pursuing a PhD or becoming a theorist. In large part, Bayard's audience is for academics who frequently find themselves having to talk about books they haven't read. But he is, on a wider scale, writing to anyone who is a reader and a thinker.
I now feel no shame in reviewing books I have skimmed on Goodreads. Bayard quotes Oscar Wilde, speaking through one of his characters on the virtues of not reading: "To know the vintage and quality of a wine one need not drink the whole cask" (170). This book also makes me want to spend more time thinking about connections between books and how everything fits together.
And now for my favorite quote in the book. Bayard is discussing our inner libraries ("that set of books...around which every personality is constructed, and which then shapes each person's individual relationship to books and to other people.") He goes on to say:
You will note that there is no category for having read a book, for as soon as we read the words on the pages we start to forget them. This is the real reason I personally review books on Goodreads--like Montaigne, a famous essayist, and a self-proclaimed forgetter of books--I realize that they are ephemeral, that my experience of them disappears, sometimes to where I forget the book entirely. Reviewing a book on Goodreads does not make me remember the book, but it does help me record a particular reaction and experience with it at a particular time.
Further, we forget books because it is impossible to pin a text down, to make it stationary--the context of the book and its interpretations, and its place in the collective library, are always changing. And we too, as readers, are changing.
Bayard goes so far to propose that it is better to be an active non-reader than part of the "mob of passive readers" (185). In some ways this is tongue in cheek--I don't believe Bayard is proposing we give up books entirely--but he thinks it is more important to talk about books than to read them, to be able to place them in a critical and cultural context, and most importantly, we need to be creators ourselves. (Much of the book takes on a humorous, tongue-in-cheek tone, which adds to the experience of reading--and forgetting--this text.)
This book reminds me of what I loved about college classes, particularly graduate school classes. But it also reminds me of why I have no interest in pursuing a PhD or becoming a theorist. In large part, Bayard's audience is for academics who frequently find themselves having to talk about books they haven't read. But he is, on a wider scale, writing to anyone who is a reader and a thinker.
I now feel no shame in reviewing books I have skimmed on Goodreads. Bayard quotes Oscar Wilde, speaking through one of his characters on the virtues of not reading: "To know the vintage and quality of a wine one need not drink the whole cask" (170). This book also makes me want to spend more time thinking about connections between books and how everything fits together.
And now for my favorite quote in the book. Bayard is discussing our inner libraries ("that set of books...around which every personality is constructed, and which then shapes each person's individual relationship to books and to other people.") He goes on to say:
For we are more than simple shelters for our inner libraries; we are the sum of these accumulated books. Little by little, these books have made us who we are, and they cannot be separated from us without causing us suffering....Comments that challenge the books in our inner libraries, attacking what has become a part of our identity, may wound us to the core of our being. (73-4)
July 27, 2025
Summary: If you don’t know about a book, just make stuff up. If you get caught, lie again and say, “Oh, I’m just confused.”
My goodness…….
What about ethics and integrity? Are these concepts just so old-fashioned and archaic that they are discarded in modern society?
Besides being of dubious moral fabric, Bayard supports his theories with examples from fiction. Fiction. Does Bayard know what the term fiction means? Here is one definition, “something that is invented or untrue.” So that hardly sounds like a creditable source.
Also, since when did mediocrity and low standards become the goal post for educators? Shouldn’t you show up to academic discussions hmmmm prepared and ready to push the academic discussion forward and blaze new trails?
When I was at the F. Scott Fitzgerald Society Conference, one of the officers asked Charles Scribner, “Do you think F. Scott Fitzgerald would have been better off at another publisher?” Scribner launched into an extremely interesting story about how Matthew Bruccoli attempted to woo Fitzgerald’s daughter, Scottie, to another publishing house. Ultimately, Scottie remained with Scribners, and the rest is history.
After the presentation, I chatted with the officer, and I mentioned that no other publisher would have put up with Fitzgerald. When I visited The Princeton archives, I noticed many letters where Fitzgerald was constantly asking for money including one letter where he wrote, “I need $2,000 now.” Creditors were literally at his door and threatening to take away his furniture. When Scribners refused to lend Fitzgerald any additional money, Maxwell Perkins (his editor) made personal loans to him.
The officer admitted that he hadn’t been to the archives yet. Guess what? I didn’t look down upon him. He asked a question, and the audience benefited from an extremely interesting story.
How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read does suggest just telling people that you haven’t read the book. For me, this used to be embarrassing, mortifying. It would have been easier if the ground could just open up and swallow me whole. However, many years ago, I decided that I would consider myself to be “well-read” when I finished reading the “BBC’s Top 100 Books You Need to Read Before You Die.”
While I haven’t yet finished the entire list (I aim to read one book per month), I have developed my confidence as a reader.
Because my confidence as a reader was shattered by the authoritarian educational system.
In school, we learn so many lies:
1. Audiobooks don’t count as reading and don’t waste time rereading
2. Only high literature counts
3. You are a moron for not understanding the obvious symbolism in Book X
4. Learning ends outside the classroom walls
5. Reading is boring and dead
6. Never consult secondary sources
7. The only type of reading that you can do is where you intimately know a book
Deprogramming from these lies took years. And let me address each one now.
1. Audiobooks don’t count as reading and don’t waste time rereading
Guess what? I made a major literary discovery (actually two) in the last year. F. Scott Fitzgerald was reading War and Peace while he was writing The Great Gatsby. In fact, many of the lines from The Great Gatsby originated out of War and Peace.
When I was at The Fitzgerald Society, I shared this finding (previously I wrote an entire review on this in my War and Peace review on GoodReads). One attendee excitingly informed me, “This is a huge literary discovery! Tolstoy isn’t listed as one of the known literary influences of F. Scott Fitzgerald.”
How did I make this discovery?
Well, first of all, I know The Great Gatsby. It is written on my heart. I have read it between 15-25 times, and there will certainly be more readings. I even wrote out The Great Gatsby by hand in 2024, writing out one page per day.
Secondly, when I read War and Peace, I utilized an audiobook. War and Peace is about 1,400 pages, and the audiobook helped to pace me. When I heard a familiar phrase, I knew the approximate location in The Great Gatsby. This right here is how literary discoveries are made.
To the people who say audiobooks don’t count, should I give back my literary discovery?
And this is how professors should show up to literary discussions—prepared and ready to meaningfully contribute (unlike the author, Pierre Bayard).
In September, I plan to read Ulysses for the first time, and I had to give myself permission to be able to go back and reread it in the future. Often, I find myself trying to come up with a plan to try to extract all of the goodness out of a book on the first read; this is not always practical or advisable.
2. Only high literature counts
You can read whatever you want. Make your heart sing with reading.
Sometimes we don’t meet a book at the right time. For example, I once picked up Dubliners, thinking eh I should be able to finish this little book in a day or two. Dead wrong. I needed to read just one story at a time, and I relied heavily on ooooooo the dreaded secondary sources. Muah haha!
There was a lot of symbolism in the book that I just wasn’t getting organically, and it was going to take more time to go through it than I estimated.
While we are on the subject, Lord of the Flies was too dark for me. I wasn’t ready to read it in high school, and such a pessimistic tone was the last thing I needed at that time. When I was much older and more cynical, it didn’t impact me as deeply—I had seen plenty of horror out in the real world.
If you want to read poetry, read poetry. If you want to read fiction, read fiction. It doesn’t matter what your stodgy teacher thinks. Do not get your identity from your “teacher.” Be your own teacher and form your own literary identity.
3. You are a moron for not understanding the obvious symbolism in Book X
My teacher was up at the front of the class when he said, “The symbolism in The Outsiders is obvious.” But it wasn’t obvious to me so I must be stupid.
This deterred me from reading for decades. It negatively shaped my identity as a reader. Who died and made my teacher “Reading Czar”? I still had meaningful contributions to make. So what if my teacher is disappointed? Maybe my teacher should know that I am disappointed in him.
The most important role that a teacher can ever have is to encourage learning, to light a fire in a student’s soul. If the student already has a fire, to make it burn brighter and brighter, creating a supernova effect, that will last for a lifetime.
In the great game of life, we are all students and teachers. No one person is better than anyone else. We can all learn from each other. Perhaps I know more than my teacher.
Recently, I have been involved in The Catherine Project where we are studying Paradise Lost (they also offer free courses studying many other ancient texts). At the beginning of each class, we go around, and every single participant contributes a question they had while reading this week’s assignment. Then, we take time to talk about certain questions, and we wrestle with the text. There is no authoritarian “teacher” who looks down on us. We learn from each other, and I have never learned so much.
4. Learning ends outside the classroom walls
Teachers, these days, frequently give 5-minute assignments with everyone getting a happy face, an A+, or a flying hippopotamus. Instead of reading classics, they are given passages.
Please. The next generation is capable of so much more.
Become a subject matter expert with your favorite authors. Read everything that you can get your hands on. And even ask when you can’t get your hands on it. Trust me. Librarians can be pretty awesome. Ask them for help. Pierre Bayard asserts only spend 10 minutes on a book. Again. Please.
Earlier this year, I read all of JD Salinger’s published works, and I read his biography. I went to Princeton and read some of his “secret” stories. A couple of weeks ago, I met Matt Salinger, JD Salinger’s son, who talked about running a literary estate. And I don’t regret any of the time that I spent on that.
By the way, JD Salinger was a fan of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and, if you look closely enough, you can see some subtle (and not-so-subtle) nods to Fitzgerald.
But don’t wait for your almighty teacher to assign you these tasks. Plunge in yourself. List out a few of your favorite authors and learn all you can.
Reject 5-minute assignments and embrace your true potential. Don’t wait for someone else to recognize your inner value.
5. Reading is boring and dead
Reading can feel boring and dead, because some “teachers” know how to suck the life out of it.
A couple of years ago, I brought along, Peter and Wendy (aka Peter Pan), to the park. I freed my copy from my pocket and began reading it to the two children at my table. Let’s just say, I really get into it. What I do is not even reading, it is a performance. It is magic. And I was really into it, because when I looked up from the page, the entire table was filled with kids from all over the park.
Similarly, I was recently reading The Cat Who Saved Books. I did a British accent for the cat and a Japanese accent for some of the characters. My readers loved it. They want to try their own hand at delivering the dialogue in their own accents.
If you look at some older books, the woodcut drawings are simply incredible. Now, we give children an iPad and don’t want to invest in paper for children to write with. Even though writing by hand has proven to stimulate areas of the brain involving creativity and memory. Okay……
One of my favorite books is Walden by Henry David Thoreau. Most people describe it as boring. However, it is much like yoga for the mind. It isn’t supposed to have pirates and fire bombs and ghosts and excitement. It is about nature and stillness, taking a breath. And just because it is hard, doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth it. Walden isn’t meant for binge reading; it is like a fine wine—better to be sipped.
And for me, specifically, Walden is a real place. I went to Walden Pond, sat in the woods, read the book, gazed upon turtles basking in the warm sunshine, and heard the birds chirping.
F. Scott Fitzgerald was a real person. I held his letters in my hand, read his struggles, when he was questioning his literary legacy, and I cried real tears.
Louisa May Alcott, author of Little Women, was also a real person. She had three sisters who were the models for the characters in her book. I went to her house, and I saw the little desk where she wrote her famous novel.
But I haven’t just connected with old, dead authors. On occasion, I have written to some of my favorite modern authors, and, more often than not, I have received a response. But some authoritarian “teacher” didn’t tell me to reach out. I took the first step on my own.
6. Never consult secondary sources
This one comes from How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler. When I tried to read Shakespeare, starting with As You Like It, I was completely disoriented. There were a bunch of characters, archaic language, and a complex plotline. In other words, I didn’t have a clue what was going on when I first tried to pick up the play.
But then I consulted Spark Notes, and I was able to orient myself. Instead of getting 1% out of the play, I was getting 65% of the goodness from it. Shakespeare is one of those authors that I have given myself permission to reread, because I look forward to extracting even more with additional rereads.
Using secondary sources isn’t failing.
7. The only type of reading that you can do is where you intimately know a book
This might be the only part of How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read that I agree with. There are lots and lots of books out in the world, and no one will be able to read them all. Some books can be skimmed. Give yourself permission to skim.
Haven’t I told that you that sometimes I know right away that a book isn’t for me? It might be the author’s writing style. If I am following along with a text and an audiobook, I might turn up the speed of the narration. Otherwise, my mind will wander. Because there are books worth investing in. And there are certainly books worth investing more than 10 minutes of your time.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Bye, Bayard!
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Hardcover Text – Free from Thriftbooks (I redeemed one of my Reading Rewards)
Audiobook – $7.20 on Audible
Connect With Me!
Blog Threads BookTube Facebook Insta My Bookstore at Pango
My goodness…….
What about ethics and integrity? Are these concepts just so old-fashioned and archaic that they are discarded in modern society?
Besides being of dubious moral fabric, Bayard supports his theories with examples from fiction. Fiction. Does Bayard know what the term fiction means? Here is one definition, “something that is invented or untrue.” So that hardly sounds like a creditable source.
Also, since when did mediocrity and low standards become the goal post for educators? Shouldn’t you show up to academic discussions hmmmm prepared and ready to push the academic discussion forward and blaze new trails?
When I was at the F. Scott Fitzgerald Society Conference, one of the officers asked Charles Scribner, “Do you think F. Scott Fitzgerald would have been better off at another publisher?” Scribner launched into an extremely interesting story about how Matthew Bruccoli attempted to woo Fitzgerald’s daughter, Scottie, to another publishing house. Ultimately, Scottie remained with Scribners, and the rest is history.
After the presentation, I chatted with the officer, and I mentioned that no other publisher would have put up with Fitzgerald. When I visited The Princeton archives, I noticed many letters where Fitzgerald was constantly asking for money including one letter where he wrote, “I need $2,000 now.” Creditors were literally at his door and threatening to take away his furniture. When Scribners refused to lend Fitzgerald any additional money, Maxwell Perkins (his editor) made personal loans to him.
The officer admitted that he hadn’t been to the archives yet. Guess what? I didn’t look down upon him. He asked a question, and the audience benefited from an extremely interesting story.
How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read does suggest just telling people that you haven’t read the book. For me, this used to be embarrassing, mortifying. It would have been easier if the ground could just open up and swallow me whole. However, many years ago, I decided that I would consider myself to be “well-read” when I finished reading the “BBC’s Top 100 Books You Need to Read Before You Die.”
While I haven’t yet finished the entire list (I aim to read one book per month), I have developed my confidence as a reader.
Because my confidence as a reader was shattered by the authoritarian educational system.
In school, we learn so many lies:
1. Audiobooks don’t count as reading and don’t waste time rereading
2. Only high literature counts
3. You are a moron for not understanding the obvious symbolism in Book X
4. Learning ends outside the classroom walls
5. Reading is boring and dead
6. Never consult secondary sources
7. The only type of reading that you can do is where you intimately know a book
Deprogramming from these lies took years. And let me address each one now.
1. Audiobooks don’t count as reading and don’t waste time rereading
Guess what? I made a major literary discovery (actually two) in the last year. F. Scott Fitzgerald was reading War and Peace while he was writing The Great Gatsby. In fact, many of the lines from The Great Gatsby originated out of War and Peace.
When I was at The Fitzgerald Society, I shared this finding (previously I wrote an entire review on this in my War and Peace review on GoodReads). One attendee excitingly informed me, “This is a huge literary discovery! Tolstoy isn’t listed as one of the known literary influences of F. Scott Fitzgerald.”
How did I make this discovery?
Well, first of all, I know The Great Gatsby. It is written on my heart. I have read it between 15-25 times, and there will certainly be more readings. I even wrote out The Great Gatsby by hand in 2024, writing out one page per day.
Secondly, when I read War and Peace, I utilized an audiobook. War and Peace is about 1,400 pages, and the audiobook helped to pace me. When I heard a familiar phrase, I knew the approximate location in The Great Gatsby. This right here is how literary discoveries are made.
To the people who say audiobooks don’t count, should I give back my literary discovery?
And this is how professors should show up to literary discussions—prepared and ready to meaningfully contribute (unlike the author, Pierre Bayard).
In September, I plan to read Ulysses for the first time, and I had to give myself permission to be able to go back and reread it in the future. Often, I find myself trying to come up with a plan to try to extract all of the goodness out of a book on the first read; this is not always practical or advisable.
2. Only high literature counts
You can read whatever you want. Make your heart sing with reading.
Sometimes we don’t meet a book at the right time. For example, I once picked up Dubliners, thinking eh I should be able to finish this little book in a day or two. Dead wrong. I needed to read just one story at a time, and I relied heavily on ooooooo the dreaded secondary sources. Muah haha!
There was a lot of symbolism in the book that I just wasn’t getting organically, and it was going to take more time to go through it than I estimated.
While we are on the subject, Lord of the Flies was too dark for me. I wasn’t ready to read it in high school, and such a pessimistic tone was the last thing I needed at that time. When I was much older and more cynical, it didn’t impact me as deeply—I had seen plenty of horror out in the real world.
If you want to read poetry, read poetry. If you want to read fiction, read fiction. It doesn’t matter what your stodgy teacher thinks. Do not get your identity from your “teacher.” Be your own teacher and form your own literary identity.
3. You are a moron for not understanding the obvious symbolism in Book X
My teacher was up at the front of the class when he said, “The symbolism in The Outsiders is obvious.” But it wasn’t obvious to me so I must be stupid.
This deterred me from reading for decades. It negatively shaped my identity as a reader. Who died and made my teacher “Reading Czar”? I still had meaningful contributions to make. So what if my teacher is disappointed? Maybe my teacher should know that I am disappointed in him.
The most important role that a teacher can ever have is to encourage learning, to light a fire in a student’s soul. If the student already has a fire, to make it burn brighter and brighter, creating a supernova effect, that will last for a lifetime.
In the great game of life, we are all students and teachers. No one person is better than anyone else. We can all learn from each other. Perhaps I know more than my teacher.
Recently, I have been involved in The Catherine Project where we are studying Paradise Lost (they also offer free courses studying many other ancient texts). At the beginning of each class, we go around, and every single participant contributes a question they had while reading this week’s assignment. Then, we take time to talk about certain questions, and we wrestle with the text. There is no authoritarian “teacher” who looks down on us. We learn from each other, and I have never learned so much.
4. Learning ends outside the classroom walls
Teachers, these days, frequently give 5-minute assignments with everyone getting a happy face, an A+, or a flying hippopotamus. Instead of reading classics, they are given passages.
Please. The next generation is capable of so much more.
Become a subject matter expert with your favorite authors. Read everything that you can get your hands on. And even ask when you can’t get your hands on it. Trust me. Librarians can be pretty awesome. Ask them for help. Pierre Bayard asserts only spend 10 minutes on a book. Again. Please.
Earlier this year, I read all of JD Salinger’s published works, and I read his biography. I went to Princeton and read some of his “secret” stories. A couple of weeks ago, I met Matt Salinger, JD Salinger’s son, who talked about running a literary estate. And I don’t regret any of the time that I spent on that.
By the way, JD Salinger was a fan of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and, if you look closely enough, you can see some subtle (and not-so-subtle) nods to Fitzgerald.
But don’t wait for your almighty teacher to assign you these tasks. Plunge in yourself. List out a few of your favorite authors and learn all you can.
Reject 5-minute assignments and embrace your true potential. Don’t wait for someone else to recognize your inner value.
5. Reading is boring and dead
Reading can feel boring and dead, because some “teachers” know how to suck the life out of it.
A couple of years ago, I brought along, Peter and Wendy (aka Peter Pan), to the park. I freed my copy from my pocket and began reading it to the two children at my table. Let’s just say, I really get into it. What I do is not even reading, it is a performance. It is magic. And I was really into it, because when I looked up from the page, the entire table was filled with kids from all over the park.
Similarly, I was recently reading The Cat Who Saved Books. I did a British accent for the cat and a Japanese accent for some of the characters. My readers loved it. They want to try their own hand at delivering the dialogue in their own accents.
If you look at some older books, the woodcut drawings are simply incredible. Now, we give children an iPad and don’t want to invest in paper for children to write with. Even though writing by hand has proven to stimulate areas of the brain involving creativity and memory. Okay……
One of my favorite books is Walden by Henry David Thoreau. Most people describe it as boring. However, it is much like yoga for the mind. It isn’t supposed to have pirates and fire bombs and ghosts and excitement. It is about nature and stillness, taking a breath. And just because it is hard, doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth it. Walden isn’t meant for binge reading; it is like a fine wine—better to be sipped.
And for me, specifically, Walden is a real place. I went to Walden Pond, sat in the woods, read the book, gazed upon turtles basking in the warm sunshine, and heard the birds chirping.
F. Scott Fitzgerald was a real person. I held his letters in my hand, read his struggles, when he was questioning his literary legacy, and I cried real tears.
Louisa May Alcott, author of Little Women, was also a real person. She had three sisters who were the models for the characters in her book. I went to her house, and I saw the little desk where she wrote her famous novel.
But I haven’t just connected with old, dead authors. On occasion, I have written to some of my favorite modern authors, and, more often than not, I have received a response. But some authoritarian “teacher” didn’t tell me to reach out. I took the first step on my own.
6. Never consult secondary sources
This one comes from How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler. When I tried to read Shakespeare, starting with As You Like It, I was completely disoriented. There were a bunch of characters, archaic language, and a complex plotline. In other words, I didn’t have a clue what was going on when I first tried to pick up the play.
But then I consulted Spark Notes, and I was able to orient myself. Instead of getting 1% out of the play, I was getting 65% of the goodness from it. Shakespeare is one of those authors that I have given myself permission to reread, because I look forward to extracting even more with additional rereads.
Using secondary sources isn’t failing.
7. The only type of reading that you can do is where you intimately know a book
This might be the only part of How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read that I agree with. There are lots and lots of books out in the world, and no one will be able to read them all. Some books can be skimmed. Give yourself permission to skim.
Haven’t I told that you that sometimes I know right away that a book isn’t for me? It might be the author’s writing style. If I am following along with a text and an audiobook, I might turn up the speed of the narration. Otherwise, my mind will wander. Because there are books worth investing in. And there are certainly books worth investing more than 10 minutes of your time.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Bye, Bayard!
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Hardcover Text – Free from Thriftbooks (I redeemed one of my Reading Rewards)
Audiobook – $7.20 on Audible
Connect With Me!
Blog Threads BookTube Facebook Insta My Bookstore at Pango
Read
July 18, 2017عصر انفجار اطلاعات
در روزگار عجيب و غريبى زندگى مى كنيم. سالانه نزديك به دو ميليون و دويست هزار عنوان جديد كتاب در سراسر جهان چاپ مى شود، و اين غير از كتاب هايى است كه تجديد چاپ مى شود، و تازه كتاب، آهسته ترين رسانه ى جهان امروز است. تلويزيون ها و اينترنت، كه ديگر منحصر به سايت هاى بسته نيست، اطلاعات را با سرعت ديوانه وارى به سراسر جهان مخابره مى كنند. هر قطعه اطلاعات همچون شهابى است كه لحظه اى مى سوزد و بى درنگ خاموش مى شود و جاى خود را به ده ها ميليون شهاب ديگر مى دهد كه به همين ترتيب، بيش از كسرى از ثانيه عمر نمى كنند.
مى گويند ما در عصر انفجار اطلاعات زندگى مى كنيم و پس از انفجار اطلاعات دوره ى ركود اطلاعات فرا مى رسد، دوره اى كه از فرط بارش اطلاعاتى، افراد نسبت به اطلاعات بى تفاوت مى شوند و - شايد براى گريز از جنون - ديگر پيگير اطلاعات جديد نخواهند بود. دوره اى كه سكوت آرزوى انسان ها مى شود، در ميان هياهوى سرگيجه آورى كه ديگر معنايى ندارد.
ما در آستانه ى چنين دوره اى زيست مى كنيم و برای یافتن نشانه های فرارسیدنش، نیازی به دقت و ریزبینی نیست، بلکه آشکارا مقدماتش را در زندگی هرروزه ى خود شاهدیم و بايد خود را براى زيستن در اين جهان جديد آماده كنيم. چگونه؟ نمى دانم، اما گمان مى كنم اين كتاب مثال خوبى از آن چه بايد باشيم ارائه مى دهد، حتى اگر راه حل هاى اين كتاب را نپسنديم، باز مقدمه ى خوبى است براى ايجاد اين دغدغه در ذهنمان و جستجو به دنبال بديل هايى بهتر.
چرا نبايد بخواهم كتاب بخوانم؟
براى يك كتابخوان اين بزرگ ترين سؤال است، و همين باعث مى شود عنوان كتاب را اهانتى به خود تلقى كند. در حقيقت مؤلف هم نمى كوشد در اين باره كمكى كند و با توضيحات فصل اول وضع را بدتر مى كند. انگار مسئله ى اصلى مؤلف آن است كه چطور مى توانيم جلوى ديگران اظهار فضل كنيم، بى آن كه كتابى خوانده باشيم، و پيداست كه اين هم مسئله ای غيراخلاقى است و هم بى اندازه سخيف و ناچيز.
مسئله ى مهم تر آن است كه در دنياى آشفته و آشوبناك اطلاعات، چطور خود را از جنون غرق شدن در اطلاعات نجات دهيم، بى آن كه به كل دست از دانستن بكشيم. آيا در دوران پسا اطلاعات، دوران ركود اطلاعات، دورانى كه به ناچار بايد از غرقاب اطلاعات فاصله گرفت، مى توان به گونه اى خود را از مهلكه ى جاهليت ثانى بركنار داشت؟ مى توان مبتلا به سطحى انديشى و ركود فكرى نشد؟ و سخنان مؤلف با اين مسئله سازگارتر است، تا مسئله ى كم ارزشى كه خود طرح مى كند.
بگذاريد مثالى بزنم. شايد مثال اشتباه باشد، اما منظور را مى رساند. فرض كنيد من مى خواهم سخنان ويتگنشتاين را بفهمم و قصد دارم با خواندن شرح هاى نويسندگان ديگر شروع كرده، به كتاب هاى ويتگنشتاين برسم. پس در اين جا نخست نياز است ده كتاب در شرح ويتگنشتاين بخوانم تا بتوانم كتاب هاى خود ويتگنشتاين را بخوانم. اما در اين ميان متوجه مى شوم كه ويتگنشتاين حرف هاى خودش را بر راسل بنا كرده. پس بايد نخست راسل را بفهمم. و در اين راه، براى رسيدن به كتاب هاى خود راسل، نخست مى خواهم چند كتاب در شرح و تبيين راسل بخوانم. اما در مى يابم كه راسل از فرگه الهام گرفته و فرگه هم از كانت و كانت حدّ جامعی است بین هيوم و لایب نیتس. از طرفی هيوم از باركلى تبعیت کرده، و از طرف دیگر لایب نیتس تا حدّی از اسپینوزا، و این هر دو شاخه در نهایت بر سنت دكارتى، و دكارت هم بر سنت مدرسى ها سخنان خود را بنا كرده اند. اما كار به همين جا پايان نمى يابد، چون مدرسى ها پيرو آكويناس هستند، و آكويناس از طريق ابن سينا و ابن رشد و موسی بن میمون، از ارسطو بهره گرفته، و فلسفه ى ارسطو جواب فلسفه ى افلاطون است، و افلاطون نيز تا حدى بر فيثاغورسيان ابتنا دارد.
و اين تنها يك رشته از علم بود.
مى بينيد كه اگر من بخواهم حقيقتاً كتب تمام اين افراد را بخوانم و بفهمم، نياز به سال ها وقت دارم، تازه اگر در ميان راه نبرم و جا نزنم. طبيعى است كه اين رشته، همچون ريشه هاى درخت پيوسته از هر سو گسترده مى شود، و اگر بخواهم عمق همه چيز را بدانم، هرگز عمق هيچ چيز را نخواهم دانست.
چه بايد كرد؟
مؤلف راهى پيشنهاد مى كند، كه خالى از نقص و نقد نيست، اما براى شروع تفكر در اين باره بد نيست. وى مى گويد: به جاى عمق در يك كتاب، به جاى رفتن تا نهايت عمق، به رابطه ى بين كتاب ها بپردازيد. اگر به جاى "كتاب" بگذاريم "نظريات" يا "اطلاعات" مى توانيم سخن او را گسترش دهيم، و بگوييم: وقتى تنها يك برگ داشته باشيم، مطالعه ى ريزبينانه ى برگ شناخت خوبى از برگ به ما مى دهد، اما وقتى اين برگ در ميان هزاران برگ يك درخت قرار گرفت، مطالعه ى ريزبينانه ى تك تك برگ ها نه تنها هيچ شناختى از درخت به ما نخواهد داد، بلكه حتى همان برگ منفرد را هم به درستى درك نخواهيم كرد. و وقتى كار به جنگلى انبوه رسيد، مطالعه ى برگ ها، در بهترين حالت مطلقاً بى ثمر است، و در بدترين حالت به جنون ختم خواهد شد.
راه مطالعه ى مجموعه هاى بزرگ، همچون جنگلى از بى شمار برگ، آن است که از آن به قدر كافى دور شده، طرح و نقشه ى كلى جنگل را بشناسيم، و جز از اين طريق به هيچ شناختى نخواهيم رسيد.
آيا اين استدلال درست است؟
من به تمامى تأييدش نمى كنم، چون همان طور كه برخى در ريويوهاى خود نوشته بودند، بحث "لذت" از يك كتاب در اين جا مغفول مانده است. اما آن چه كه درباره اش با كتاب توافق دارم، آن است كه بايد فكرى به حال اين مشكل كرد.
پ ن:
واضح است كه من اين كتاب را نخوانده ام، هر چند از محتوايش آن قدر مطلعم كه بتوانم درباره اش حرف بزنم! و فكر مى كنم خواندن كتابى كه اكيداً مى گويد: "نبايد كتاب خواند" توهينى است به آن كتاب!
در روزگار عجيب و غريبى زندگى مى كنيم. سالانه نزديك به دو ميليون و دويست هزار عنوان جديد كتاب در سراسر جهان چاپ مى شود، و اين غير از كتاب هايى است كه تجديد چاپ مى شود، و تازه كتاب، آهسته ترين رسانه ى جهان امروز است. تلويزيون ها و اينترنت، كه ديگر منحصر به سايت هاى بسته نيست، اطلاعات را با سرعت ديوانه وارى به سراسر جهان مخابره مى كنند. هر قطعه اطلاعات همچون شهابى است كه لحظه اى مى سوزد و بى درنگ خاموش مى شود و جاى خود را به ده ها ميليون شهاب ديگر مى دهد كه به همين ترتيب، بيش از كسرى از ثانيه عمر نمى كنند.
مى گويند ما در عصر انفجار اطلاعات زندگى مى كنيم و پس از انفجار اطلاعات دوره ى ركود اطلاعات فرا مى رسد، دوره اى كه از فرط بارش اطلاعاتى، افراد نسبت به اطلاعات بى تفاوت مى شوند و - شايد براى گريز از جنون - ديگر پيگير اطلاعات جديد نخواهند بود. دوره اى كه سكوت آرزوى انسان ها مى شود، در ميان هياهوى سرگيجه آورى كه ديگر معنايى ندارد.
ما در آستانه ى چنين دوره اى زيست مى كنيم و برای یافتن نشانه های فرارسیدنش، نیازی به دقت و ریزبینی نیست، بلکه آشکارا مقدماتش را در زندگی هرروزه ى خود شاهدیم و بايد خود را براى زيستن در اين جهان جديد آماده كنيم. چگونه؟ نمى دانم، اما گمان مى كنم اين كتاب مثال خوبى از آن چه بايد باشيم ارائه مى دهد، حتى اگر راه حل هاى اين كتاب را نپسنديم، باز مقدمه ى خوبى است براى ايجاد اين دغدغه در ذهنمان و جستجو به دنبال بديل هايى بهتر.
چرا نبايد بخواهم كتاب بخوانم؟
براى يك كتابخوان اين بزرگ ترين سؤال است، و همين باعث مى شود عنوان كتاب را اهانتى به خود تلقى كند. در حقيقت مؤلف هم نمى كوشد در اين باره كمكى كند و با توضيحات فصل اول وضع را بدتر مى كند. انگار مسئله ى اصلى مؤلف آن است كه چطور مى توانيم جلوى ديگران اظهار فضل كنيم، بى آن كه كتابى خوانده باشيم، و پيداست كه اين هم مسئله ای غيراخلاقى است و هم بى اندازه سخيف و ناچيز.
مسئله ى مهم تر آن است كه در دنياى آشفته و آشوبناك اطلاعات، چطور خود را از جنون غرق شدن در اطلاعات نجات دهيم، بى آن كه به كل دست از دانستن بكشيم. آيا در دوران پسا اطلاعات، دوران ركود اطلاعات، دورانى كه به ناچار بايد از غرقاب اطلاعات فاصله گرفت، مى توان به گونه اى خود را از مهلكه ى جاهليت ثانى بركنار داشت؟ مى توان مبتلا به سطحى انديشى و ركود فكرى نشد؟ و سخنان مؤلف با اين مسئله سازگارتر است، تا مسئله ى كم ارزشى كه خود طرح مى كند.
بگذاريد مثالى بزنم. شايد مثال اشتباه باشد، اما منظور را مى رساند. فرض كنيد من مى خواهم سخنان ويتگنشتاين را بفهمم و قصد دارم با خواندن شرح هاى نويسندگان ديگر شروع كرده، به كتاب هاى ويتگنشتاين برسم. پس در اين جا نخست نياز است ده كتاب در شرح ويتگنشتاين بخوانم تا بتوانم كتاب هاى خود ويتگنشتاين را بخوانم. اما در اين ميان متوجه مى شوم كه ويتگنشتاين حرف هاى خودش را بر راسل بنا كرده. پس بايد نخست راسل را بفهمم. و در اين راه، براى رسيدن به كتاب هاى خود راسل، نخست مى خواهم چند كتاب در شرح و تبيين راسل بخوانم. اما در مى يابم كه راسل از فرگه الهام گرفته و فرگه هم از كانت و كانت حدّ جامعی است بین هيوم و لایب نیتس. از طرفی هيوم از باركلى تبعیت کرده، و از طرف دیگر لایب نیتس تا حدّی از اسپینوزا، و این هر دو شاخه در نهایت بر سنت دكارتى، و دكارت هم بر سنت مدرسى ها سخنان خود را بنا كرده اند. اما كار به همين جا پايان نمى يابد، چون مدرسى ها پيرو آكويناس هستند، و آكويناس از طريق ابن سينا و ابن رشد و موسی بن میمون، از ارسطو بهره گرفته، و فلسفه ى ارسطو جواب فلسفه ى افلاطون است، و افلاطون نيز تا حدى بر فيثاغورسيان ابتنا دارد.
و اين تنها يك رشته از علم بود.
مى بينيد كه اگر من بخواهم حقيقتاً كتب تمام اين افراد را بخوانم و بفهمم، نياز به سال ها وقت دارم، تازه اگر در ميان راه نبرم و جا نزنم. طبيعى است كه اين رشته، همچون ريشه هاى درخت پيوسته از هر سو گسترده مى شود، و اگر بخواهم عمق همه چيز را بدانم، هرگز عمق هيچ چيز را نخواهم دانست.
چه بايد كرد؟
مؤلف راهى پيشنهاد مى كند، كه خالى از نقص و نقد نيست، اما براى شروع تفكر در اين باره بد نيست. وى مى گويد: به جاى عمق در يك كتاب، به جاى رفتن تا نهايت عمق، به رابطه ى بين كتاب ها بپردازيد. اگر به جاى "كتاب" بگذاريم "نظريات" يا "اطلاعات" مى توانيم سخن او را گسترش دهيم، و بگوييم: وقتى تنها يك برگ داشته باشيم، مطالعه ى ريزبينانه ى برگ شناخت خوبى از برگ به ما مى دهد، اما وقتى اين برگ در ميان هزاران برگ يك درخت قرار گرفت، مطالعه ى ريزبينانه ى تك تك برگ ها نه تنها هيچ شناختى از درخت به ما نخواهد داد، بلكه حتى همان برگ منفرد را هم به درستى درك نخواهيم كرد. و وقتى كار به جنگلى انبوه رسيد، مطالعه ى برگ ها، در بهترين حالت مطلقاً بى ثمر است، و در بدترين حالت به جنون ختم خواهد شد.
راه مطالعه ى مجموعه هاى بزرگ، همچون جنگلى از بى شمار برگ، آن است که از آن به قدر كافى دور شده، طرح و نقشه ى كلى جنگل را بشناسيم، و جز از اين طريق به هيچ شناختى نخواهيم رسيد.
آيا اين استدلال درست است؟
من به تمامى تأييدش نمى كنم، چون همان طور كه برخى در ريويوهاى خود نوشته بودند، بحث "لذت" از يك كتاب در اين جا مغفول مانده است. اما آن چه كه درباره اش با كتاب توافق دارم، آن است كه بايد فكرى به حال اين مشكل كرد.
پ ن:
واضح است كه من اين كتاب را نخوانده ام، هر چند از محتوايش آن قدر مطلعم كه بتوانم درباره اش حرف بزنم! و فكر مى كنم خواندن كتابى كه اكيداً مى گويد: "نبايد كتاب خواند" توهينى است به آن كتاب!
November 14, 2023
Read it few years ago and it didn't impress me much. Although it had some intresting ideas.
September 23, 2014
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 so much of what is written is hypertext, and works are directly linked together so that a single mouse-click can take us to a "different" book, Derrida's argument is just common sense. Try explaining it to a Web-literate 15 year old, and see if you can make them understand why anyone would have found it surprising.
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)
January 14, 2022
În definitiv, cine e fraierul care a citit cu adevărat toate dialogurile lui Platon, toate tratatele lui Aristotel, toate piesele lui Shakespeare, toate cărţile lui Goethe, toate romanele lui Marquez, toate epigramele lui Păstorel? Despre cele mai multe cărți am auzit de la alţii (bunici, unchi, învățători, profesori, academicieni, influenceri etc.), o parte considerabilă ni s-a şters cu desăvîrșire din minte, despre multe, prea multe nu am auzit niciodată nimic. Și nici nu vom auzi. Ați citit cumva Transcendent Kingdom: A Novel de Yaa Gyasi? Mă îndoiesc.
Pierre Bayard consideră, în mare, că există patru specii de cărţi despre care vorbim cu mare drag:
(i) Cărţi despre care nu ştim absolut nimic, fiindcă nu le-am avut niciodată în faţa ochilor și nici n-am avut norocul să citim cîteva rînduri despre ele ori să ni le prezinte un expert la TV (pp.21-29).
(ii) Cărţi pe care le-am uitat (în parte sau complet): e vorba de majoritatea cărţilor pe care le-am citit sau răsfoit cîndva, dar, mai ales, de cărțile pe care nu le-am citit (pp.55-62).
(iii) Cărţi pe care le-am parcurs cîndva şi le ştim într-o oarecare măsură, fiindcă sîntem profi la Litere sau Filosofie și trăim din asta (pp.30-42). Și
(iv) Cărţi despre care am auzit vorbindu-se (în recenzii, la o conferință academică, la un parastas literar mai animat etc.): acestea sînt, fireşte, cele mai multe (pp.43-54). De citit, am avut grijă să nu le citim.
Pierre Bayard susţine - şi pe bună dreptate - că noţiunea de cultură e „înainte de orice o chestiune de orientare. A fi cultivat nu înseamnă a fi citit cutare sau cutare carte, ci a şti să le identifici locul în ansamblul lor, a şti, aşadar, că aceste cărţi formează un ansamblu şi a fi în măsură de a situa fiecare element prin raport cu celelalte” (p.27).
Pe aceste temeiuri teoretice, Pierre Bayard edifică partea a doua a eseului, care constă în inventarierea situaţiilor în care putem fi constrînşi să vorbim despre ceea ce nu am citit (încă):
(i) „În viaţa mondenă” (pp.66-75): „Proust e sublim! Dar și Flaubert a fost genial, genial...”.
(ii) „În faţa profesorului examinator” (pp.76-85): „În căutarea timpului pierdut este, desigur, o capodoperă...”.
(iii) „În faţa scriitorului însuşi” (pp.86-95): „Maestre, mi-a plăcut teribil cum ați combinat versul alb cu versul liber. Felicitări!”.
(iv) „Cu fiinţa iubită” (pp.96-103): „Dragă, dar nu mai stingi odată veioza aia? Ce-ți bați capul cu cărțile? Toate sînt doar maculatură. E deja 11: 45. Mîine am ședință de catedră la prima oră...”.
Să văd cum vă descurcați :)
Pierre Bayard consideră, în mare, că există patru specii de cărţi despre care vorbim cu mare drag:
(i) Cărţi despre care nu ştim absolut nimic, fiindcă nu le-am avut niciodată în faţa ochilor și nici n-am avut norocul să citim cîteva rînduri despre ele ori să ni le prezinte un expert la TV (pp.21-29).
(ii) Cărţi pe care le-am uitat (în parte sau complet): e vorba de majoritatea cărţilor pe care le-am citit sau răsfoit cîndva, dar, mai ales, de cărțile pe care nu le-am citit (pp.55-62).
(iii) Cărţi pe care le-am parcurs cîndva şi le ştim într-o oarecare măsură, fiindcă sîntem profi la Litere sau Filosofie și trăim din asta (pp.30-42). Și
(iv) Cărţi despre care am auzit vorbindu-se (în recenzii, la o conferință academică, la un parastas literar mai animat etc.): acestea sînt, fireşte, cele mai multe (pp.43-54). De citit, am avut grijă să nu le citim.
Pierre Bayard susţine - şi pe bună dreptate - că noţiunea de cultură e „înainte de orice o chestiune de orientare. A fi cultivat nu înseamnă a fi citit cutare sau cutare carte, ci a şti să le identifici locul în ansamblul lor, a şti, aşadar, că aceste cărţi formează un ansamblu şi a fi în măsură de a situa fiecare element prin raport cu celelalte” (p.27).
Pe aceste temeiuri teoretice, Pierre Bayard edifică partea a doua a eseului, care constă în inventarierea situaţiilor în care putem fi constrînşi să vorbim despre ceea ce nu am citit (încă):
(i) „În viaţa mondenă” (pp.66-75): „Proust e sublim! Dar și Flaubert a fost genial, genial...”.
(ii) „În faţa profesorului examinator” (pp.76-85): „În căutarea timpului pierdut este, desigur, o capodoperă...”.
(iii) „În faţa scriitorului însuşi” (pp.86-95): „Maestre, mi-a plăcut teribil cum ați combinat versul alb cu versul liber. Felicitări!”.
(iv) „Cu fiinţa iubită” (pp.96-103): „Dragă, dar nu mai stingi odată veioza aia? Ce-ți bați capul cu cărțile? Toate sînt doar maculatură. E deja 11: 45. Mîine am ședință de catedră la prima oră...”.
Să văd cum vă descurcați :)
May 3, 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 examination of what it means to "read" a book anyway, if by "read" you mean "understand, relate to, can recall details of, and can discuss with others." After all, if we read a book as a child and then completely forget its story as an adult, do we still get to count that as a "read" book? Bayard gets into all kinds of interesting questions like this, ultimately arguing that the most important thing we can do as readers is understand the entire time period that book is a result of; in the goal of accomplishing that, then, he argues that it's perfectly okay to just read the Cliff Notes of famous huge books you know you're never going to get around to actually reading, perfectly okay to discuss a book at a cocktail party you're familiar with but haven't actually sat down and scanned each and every page. This is how we learn, he argues, how we grow as both humans and patrons of the arts; every Wikipedia entry we read, every conversation we fake our way through, every BBC adaptation we check out, ultimately helps us understand the full-length books we do sit and closely read from the beginning to the end, which is why we shouldn't be ashamed of any of these activities but rather proud of them. Funny, smart, and very French; a very fun afternoon of reading.
Out of 10: 9.2
Out of 10: 9.2
March 1, 2021
السيد" بيير بايار" يرى إنه علينا خلق مكتبتنا الافتراضية ذات النظرة الشمولية للكتب دونما الحاجة لقراءتها ، ويكفينا أن نعرف آراء الآخرين عنها بغض النظر عن اختلاف ذائقتنا الأدبية ..لا بأس ابداً من أن نعبر بنظرات سريعة خاطفة على صفحات الكتاب ، ويمكننا أن نختلق الأكاذيب والتضليل بشأن الكتب التي لم نقرأها ولابد من التحرر من الشعور بالخجل والحرج اذا ما تبين جهلنا أمام الآخرين...هذا يكفي اليس كذلك...
يا سيدي الكريم دعني اخبرك إذن بحقيقة علاقتنا بالكتب التي نقرأها ، لطالما كنا غير محصنين ، نسلم أرواحنا منذ اللحظة الاولى لتعارفنا بها ، نثني طرف الستائر المُنسدلة على الكلمات في محاولة منا للبحث عن المعنى الذي يتوارى في ظل الخفاء....
واذا ما قبضنا عليه نستشعر لذة النص وتستولي علينا متعة نعجز كثيراً في التعبير عنها بعدما يلقى بنا على تخوم الواقع من جديد....
هل اطلعك على سر صغير ، احياناً امعن النظر بالكتب المتراصة امامي واتساءل من يخبرها إن فارقت الحياة بأن عليها أن تكف عن الانتظار وأن شغفي بها لم ينته بعد..
أم عن النسيان الذي يهددنا بعد قراءتنا ، احب ان اخبرك ليس هناك داع للقلق ، فنحن لسنا بحاجة لذاكرة حية عن تفاصيل اى كتاب ، اتدري لماذا ؟؟..
لأنه عندما يحين الوقت للتحدث عن الكتب ، مكتبتنا الداخلية التي تمكث بداخلنا ستتكفل بالمهمة عنا ، نثق بها انها لن تخذلنا ..
واخيراً نحن نقف عاجزين أمام كتب نقرؤها فتزوغ منا الكلمات عند التحدث عنها ، فما بالك بكتب لم نقرأها..، وحمداً لله إنني ممن تبتلعها الكتب وتعيش بها إلى أن تُنهيها ولا تنتهي منها ❤
يا سيدي الكريم دعني اخبرك إذن بحقيقة علاقتنا بالكتب التي نقرأها ، لطالما كنا غير محصنين ، نسلم أرواحنا منذ اللحظة الاولى لتعارفنا بها ، نثني طرف الستائر المُنسدلة على الكلمات في محاولة منا للبحث عن المعنى الذي يتوارى في ظل الخفاء....
واذا ما قبضنا عليه نستشعر لذة النص وتستولي علينا متعة نعجز كثيراً في التعبير عنها بعدما يلقى بنا على تخوم الواقع من جديد....
هل اطلعك على سر صغير ، احياناً امعن النظر بالكتب المتراصة امامي واتساءل من يخبرها إن فارقت الحياة بأن عليها أن تكف عن الانتظار وأن شغفي بها لم ينته بعد..
أم عن النسيان الذي يهددنا بعد قراءتنا ، احب ان اخبرك ليس هناك داع للقلق ، فنحن لسنا بحاجة لذاكرة حية عن تفاصيل اى كتاب ، اتدري لماذا ؟؟..
لأنه عندما يحين الوقت للتحدث عن الكتب ، مكتبتنا الداخلية التي تمكث بداخلنا ستتكفل بالمهمة عنا ، نثق بها انها لن تخذلنا ..
واخيراً نحن نقف عاجزين أمام كتب نقرؤها فتزوغ منا الكلمات عند التحدث عنها ، فما بالك بكتب لم نقرأها..، وحمداً لله إنني ممن تبتلعها الكتب وتعيش بها إلى أن تُنهيها ولا تنتهي منها ❤
June 29, 2017
أعتقد أن الكاتب الإنجليزي "كولن ولسون" هو من قال بأن قراءة الرواية يجب أن تكون للمتعة أولاً وآخرًا. وأنا أتفق معه كثيرًا، إن كان فعلاً قد قال هذا الكلام ولم تخني الذاكرة، فنحن نقرأ الروايات بهدف المتعة، ومن ثم تأتي كل الأشياء الأخرى. وعندما نحكم على رواية ما بالسوء (أو الجودة) فإننا لا نفعل ذلك إلا لأننا لم نجد (أو وجدنا) فيها ما يمتعنا. صحيح أننا نتعلم الكثير من الروايات، ولكن كل ذلك يأتي مغلفًا بقالب من المتعة!
وأتذكر، ومتأكد هذه المرة، أن الكاتب والناقد الإنجليزي سومرست موم قال بأن الرجل العاقل لا يقرأ الرواية كعبء يجب أن يؤديه.
هذا الكتاب قد يعجب القرّاء المدّعين الذين يحبون التبجّح أمام الآخرين بقائمة قراءاتهم، حتى لو لم تكن حقيقية، لأنّه أولاً يقدم لهم تبريرات سخيفة لممارسة هذا النوع من التثاقف، ولأنه ثانيًا يقدّم لهم نصائحًا حول كيفية التحدّث عن روايات لم يقرأوها!
أمّا القارئ، الذي لا يهمه كم رواية قرأ بقدر اهتمامه بالمتعة التي يجنيها من قراءتها، فقطعًا لن يعجبه هذا الكتاب.
وأتذكر، ومتأكد هذه المرة، أن الكاتب والناقد الإنجليزي سومرست موم قال بأن الرجل العاقل لا يقرأ الرواية كعبء يجب أن يؤديه.
هذا الكتاب قد يعجب القرّاء المدّعين الذين يحبون التبجّح أمام الآخرين بقائمة قراءاتهم، حتى لو لم تكن حقيقية، لأنّه أولاً يقدم لهم تبريرات سخيفة لممارسة هذا النوع من التثاقف، ولأنه ثانيًا يقدّم لهم نصائحًا حول كيفية التحدّث عن روايات لم يقرأوها!
أمّا القارئ، الذي لا يهمه كم رواية قرأ بقدر اهتمامه بالمتعة التي يجنيها من قراءتها، فقطعًا لن يعجبه هذا الكتاب.
March 19, 2010
This book, which I read in its entirety, is about 25% sensible commentary wrapped in an irritating froth of supercilious bullshit. Professor Bayard has a number of observations to make about the whole exercise of reading, some of which are insightful and on point and many of which are bloody obvious. The irritating part is that each little nugget is presented with the kind of self-congratulatory smugness befitting a Faberge egg. But, for the most part, the professor doesn't scintillate nearly as much as he imagines.
As other reviewers have noted, the title is misleading - Bayard is not interested in providing you with a bluffer's guide. Instead, his tongue-in-cheek advocacy of non-reading is used as a point of departure to explore the whole exercise of reading from a variety of perspectives. An odd feature of the book is the amount of time spent exhorting us to overcome the feelings of guilt and inadequacy we are assumed to experience because we read so little. The assumption seems ill-founded and says more about the author's potential insecurities than anything else.
So, the book is sporadically witty and makes a number of decent points. Why didn't I like it more? Probably because it is neither as witty or as clever as the author obviously believes it to be.
As other reviewers have noted, the title is misleading - Bayard is not interested in providing you with a bluffer's guide. Instead, his tongue-in-cheek advocacy of non-reading is used as a point of departure to explore the whole exercise of reading from a variety of perspectives. An odd feature of the book is the amount of time spent exhorting us to overcome the feelings of guilt and inadequacy we are assumed to experience because we read so little. The assumption seems ill-founded and says more about the author's potential insecurities than anything else.
So, the book is sporadically witty and makes a number of decent points. Why didn't I like it more? Probably because it is neither as witty or as clever as the author obviously believes it to be.
January 21, 2008
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 the book log for the year, does it? How many books, read cover to cover, remain vivid in one’s mind, long after the book has been returned to the shelf?
I took away from this book what I found to be Bayard’s main thought: Don’t let anything stop you from talking about books. Reading, he says, is imperfect. A reader won’t take away from a book the same things another reader will nor the same things the author might have hoped his readers would take away from the book. It is okay, Bayard assures us, to skim books. It is okay to misunderstand books. It is okay to forget books. But, Bayard continues, don’t let any of these things stop you from reading books, from talking about books, from writing about books, from thinking about books.
But, then again, I may have misunderstood the whole thing.
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 the book log for the year, does it? How many books, read cover to cover, remain vivid in one’s mind, long after the book has been returned to the shelf?
I took away from this book what I found to be Bayard’s main thought: Don’t let anything stop you from talking about books. Reading, he says, is imperfect. A reader won’t take away from a book the same things another reader will nor the same things the author might have hoped his readers would take away from the book. It is okay, Bayard assures us, to skim books. It is okay to misunderstand books. It is okay to forget books. But, Bayard continues, don’t let any of these things stop you from reading books, from talking about books, from writing about books, from thinking about books.
But, then again, I may have misunderstood the whole thing.
February 7, 2017
به نظر مي رسد كه نويسنده ي كتاب در مسابقه اي قرار دارد كه به او گفته اند تا پايان عمرت بايد در مورد همه ي كتاب هاي عالم نظر بدهي يا آن ها را تورق كني و اگر نتواني اين كار را انجام دهي يا ناقص انجام دهي عمرت را از تو مي گيريم.
به اين دليل كه در نظر ايشان بيش تر صحبت كردن و كم نياوردن در مورد كتاب ها مهم است و بس و اينكه بخواهيم از كتابي كه مي خوانيم لذت ببريم يا آن را با زندگي خود عجين كنيم كاري بيهوده است.
كتاب را نخوانيم بهتر است چون بعد از مدتي فقط شماي كلي آن را در ذهنمان داريم يا اينكه از ترس اينكه كتاب ها فراموش مي شوند نيازي نيست آن ها را كامل بخوانيم.
به نظر من برداشت ايشان تا حدودي اشتباه است و صرفا به واسطه ي شغلي كه دارد و اينكه مجبور است جلو دانشجويانش كم نياورد در مورد كتاب خواندن اينطور قضاوت كرده است.
در سراسر اين كتاب نويسنده به ما راه هايي را نشان ميدهد كه بتوانيم به واسطه ي آن در بحث در مورد اينكه كتاب را خوانده ايم يا نخوانده ايم پيروز شويم،در صورتي كه هدف از خواندن كتاب براي هر شخصي متفاوت است و لزومي نيست تا پايان عمرمان همه ي كتاب هاي دنيا را خوانده باشيم،صرفا مطالعه ي همان كتاب هايي كه با شخصيتمان بيش تر عجين است و بيش تر مي تواند ما را به مفاهيمي كه دوست داريم به آن ها برسيم رهنمون كند كافيست.
در همان بخش اول كتاب كه داستان كتابدار موزيل را روايت مي كند مي توان اين نكته را استباط كرد كه نويسنده سعي دارد به نحوي نشان دهد كه شغلش با اينكه با ادبيات و كتاب مرتبط است اما همين كه كتابي را تورق كنيم كافيست تا در مورد آن صاحب نظر شويم.شغل كتابدار موزيل باعث شده تا كتابدار نتواند كتاب ها را بخواند و صرفا مطالعه ي فهرست كتاب ها برايش كافيست در غير اينصورت اگر وارد جريان هر كتاب شود شغلش را از دست خواهد داد.
در كل از ديد من اين كه بخواهيم كتابي را تورق كنيم و بعد در مورد آن اظهار نظر كنيم نوعي بي احترامي به نويسنده ي كتاب هم خواهد بود.
هر چند دسته بندي كتاب بسيار زيباست و مواردي از كتاب ها و نويسندگاني كه در هر بخش تحليل مي كند حركت زيباييست اما كاملا با نظر نويسنده در اينباره مخالفم و كتاب ايشان را آموزش راه هايي براي تنبلي و فرار و توجيه كتاب نخواندن مي دانم و تقسيم بندي عجيب و غريب نويسنده را هم بيهوده ميدانم چون در سر تا سر كتاب نام آثاري را مي آورد و در پاورقي مي زند كه فقط تورق كرده ام يا فراموش كرده ام يا در موردش شنيده ام و جالب اينكه از اول تا آخر آن اثر را هم نقد مي كند كه اين نوعي بي احترامي نسبت به نويسنده ي آن اثر است.
به اين دليل كه در نظر ايشان بيش تر صحبت كردن و كم نياوردن در مورد كتاب ها مهم است و بس و اينكه بخواهيم از كتابي كه مي خوانيم لذت ببريم يا آن را با زندگي خود عجين كنيم كاري بيهوده است.
كتاب را نخوانيم بهتر است چون بعد از مدتي فقط شماي كلي آن را در ذهنمان داريم يا اينكه از ترس اينكه كتاب ها فراموش مي شوند نيازي نيست آن ها را كامل بخوانيم.
به نظر من برداشت ايشان تا حدودي اشتباه است و صرفا به واسطه ي شغلي كه دارد و اينكه مجبور است جلو دانشجويانش كم نياورد در مورد كتاب خواندن اينطور قضاوت كرده است.
در سراسر اين كتاب نويسنده به ما راه هايي را نشان ميدهد كه بتوانيم به واسطه ي آن در بحث در مورد اينكه كتاب را خوانده ايم يا نخوانده ايم پيروز شويم،در صورتي كه هدف از خواندن كتاب براي هر شخصي متفاوت است و لزومي نيست تا پايان عمرمان همه ي كتاب هاي دنيا را خوانده باشيم،صرفا مطالعه ي همان كتاب هايي كه با شخصيتمان بيش تر عجين است و بيش تر مي تواند ما را به مفاهيمي كه دوست داريم به آن ها برسيم رهنمون كند كافيست.
در همان بخش اول كتاب كه داستان كتابدار موزيل را روايت مي كند مي توان اين نكته را استباط كرد كه نويسنده سعي دارد به نحوي نشان دهد كه شغلش با اينكه با ادبيات و كتاب مرتبط است اما همين كه كتابي را تورق كنيم كافيست تا در مورد آن صاحب نظر شويم.شغل كتابدار موزيل باعث شده تا كتابدار نتواند كتاب ها را بخواند و صرفا مطالعه ي فهرست كتاب ها برايش كافيست در غير اينصورت اگر وارد جريان هر كتاب شود شغلش را از دست خواهد داد.
در كل از ديد من اين كه بخواهيم كتابي را تورق كنيم و بعد در مورد آن اظهار نظر كنيم نوعي بي احترامي به نويسنده ي كتاب هم خواهد بود.
هر چند دسته بندي كتاب بسيار زيباست و مواردي از كتاب ها و نويسندگاني كه در هر بخش تحليل مي كند حركت زيباييست اما كاملا با نظر نويسنده در اينباره مخالفم و كتاب ايشان را آموزش راه هايي براي تنبلي و فرار و توجيه كتاب نخواندن مي دانم و تقسيم بندي عجيب و غريب نويسنده را هم بيهوده ميدانم چون در سر تا سر كتاب نام آثاري را مي آورد و در پاورقي مي زند كه فقط تورق كرده ام يا فراموش كرده ام يا در موردش شنيده ام و جالب اينكه از اول تا آخر آن اثر را هم نقد مي كند كه اين نوعي بي احترامي نسبت به نويسنده ي آن اثر است.
December 7, 2016
ما الداعي لتأليف كتاب يريد به صاحبه ألا نقرأ، تفلسفٌ معقدٌ يصور لنا القراءة عملية مشبوهة قد يلقي القبض عليك أحدهم متلبسا بها؟! لا أدري والله!
الكتاب يكفي أن يكون عقابا مستحقا بسبب هروبي من الدوام من أجل قراءته ، "كيف تتحدث عن كتاب لم تقرأه " مثلما يقول المصريين ولا له أي تلاتين لزمه !
ما دمت تتخذ من القراءة متعة وفائدة فإن هذا الكتاب لا يصلح لك البتة، أظنه قد يفيد أصحاب الثرثرة الفارغة الذين يريدون الوصول عبر الثقافة بأقل مجهود ممكن.
الكتاب يكفي أن يكون عقابا مستحقا بسبب هروبي من الدوام من أجل قراءته ، "كيف تتحدث عن كتاب لم تقرأه " مثلما يقول المصريين ولا له أي تلاتين لزمه !
ما دمت تتخذ من القراءة متعة وفائدة فإن هذا الكتاب لا يصلح لك البتة، أظنه قد يفيد أصحاب الثرثرة الفارغة الذين يريدون الوصول عبر الثقافة بأقل مجهود ممكن.
March 24, 2024
It is a truth universally acknowledged that the person wishing to be well-read, or more dangerously, considered well-read, realising the exponentially expanding wealth of books to read (exemplified by the TBR list), must acquire practical knowledge of how to talk about books you have not read.
Ta Da! Here is such a guide. I was eager to read it from cover to cover. It has changed the way I read and therefore changed my life. How many books can we say that about? Well, there is Ramachandra Guha's A Corner of a Foreign Field: The Indian History of a British Sport with R.K. Narayan on the cover which led me to read everything the great man (RKN) ever wrote and develop a warm regard for Ramachandra Guha.
The thing to keep in mind is that Professor Bayard does not really suggest you lie and say you have read Proust when you have not opened the first page of the first book. Bayard uses Proust as an example of works you can successfully skim, skimming being one way of approaching the material; for books you have heard of he suggests you can attend to other’s views. He allows that works which have actually been read, but forgotten, still count as being read. And he opens by saying that ‘not reading’ is our default position - there are so many books out there that we can only read a small proportion of them, but that should not stop us talking about those we know but have not read.
He is really on about different ways of approaching the content of books.
I once knew a woman with a PhD who told me just read the bits you need. That’s especially relevant to non-fiction, perhaps not appropriate for fiction (although people debate about skipping the whaling bits of Moby-Dick or, The Whale). But in any case how do you know which bits you need. Personally I am a big user of indexes, especially with biographies so I can get what I want out of the story, and inevitably I discover other matters of interest I wasn’t aware of initially.
Bayard observes that we develop ‘inner libraries’ of books we have read and ‘screen libraries’ constructed by readers based on their inner libraries, but warns that each person’s experience will depend on their own circumstances, so true communication may not be achieved even if we have read the same book. And of course we know that one work can generate diverse views.
How does Bayard conclude? This way:
I have another philosophical question for interactive Goodreads people: is it an obligation to actually read a review where we have hit the ‘like’ button? Or is the act of so doing sufficiently encouraging of the reviewer, that it is immaterial whether or not the liker has read the review? Discuss.
Ta Da! Here is such a guide. I was eager to read it from cover to cover. It has changed the way I read and therefore changed my life. How many books can we say that about? Well, there is Ramachandra Guha's A Corner of a Foreign Field: The Indian History of a British Sport with R.K. Narayan on the cover which led me to read everything the great man (RKN) ever wrote and develop a warm regard for Ramachandra Guha.
The thing to keep in mind is that Professor Bayard does not really suggest you lie and say you have read Proust when you have not opened the first page of the first book. Bayard uses Proust as an example of works you can successfully skim, skimming being one way of approaching the material; for books you have heard of he suggests you can attend to other’s views. He allows that works which have actually been read, but forgotten, still count as being read. And he opens by saying that ‘not reading’ is our default position - there are so many books out there that we can only read a small proportion of them, but that should not stop us talking about those we know but have not read.
He is really on about different ways of approaching the content of books.
I once knew a woman with a PhD who told me just read the bits you need. That’s especially relevant to non-fiction, perhaps not appropriate for fiction (although people debate about skipping the whaling bits of Moby-Dick or, The Whale). But in any case how do you know which bits you need. Personally I am a big user of indexes, especially with biographies so I can get what I want out of the story, and inevitably I discover other matters of interest I wasn’t aware of initially.
Bayard observes that we develop ‘inner libraries’ of books we have read and ‘screen libraries’ constructed by readers based on their inner libraries, but warns that each person’s experience will depend on their own circumstances, so true communication may not be achieved even if we have read the same book. And of course we know that one work can generate diverse views.
How does Bayard conclude? This way:
Beyond the possibility of self-discovery, the discussion of unread books places us at the heart of the creative process, by leading us back to its source. To talk about unread books is to be present at the birth of the creative subject. In this inaugural moment when book and subject separate, the reader, free at last from the weight of words of others, may find the strength to invent his own text, and in that moment, he becomes a writer himself. (p180)In a modified way this sentiment about the creative process applies to the Goodreads reviewer: if you have an understanding of the words of the author, however acquired, but can separate from their weight, and create a commentary on the work, I think we are doing what Professor Bayard would have us do.
I have another philosophical question for interactive Goodreads people: is it an obligation to actually read a review where we have hit the ‘like’ button? Or is the act of so doing sufficiently encouraging of the reviewer, that it is immaterial whether or not the liker has read the review? Discuss.
February 24, 2019
العنوان مغاير تماماً للمضمون وهو مضلل للأمانة.
فالكتاب حسب ما رأيتُ لا يحرّض للادعاء، ولا التباهي بكيف تتحدث عن كتب لم تقرأها ولكنه يطرق جانباً مجهولاً في علاقاتنا مع الكتب.
للأمانة أحببتُ الكتاب قبل أن أقرأه حين اطلعت على لقاء مع أمبرتو إيكو، وكان الحديث عن كيف تتأثر بكتب لم تقرأها وجواب إمبرتو كان في غاية الذكاء والنباهة حين قال إنّه دائماً ما يتعرض للسؤال المحرج: هل قرأتَ كل كتاب في مكتبتك؟
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsUuc...
بداية المؤلف أستاذ جامعيّ وكانب ومحلل نفسي، فالكتاب هو خليط من هذه العلوم الثلاثة، فهو يمارس تحليله النفسي، ويضع تجربته التعليمية في سياق الاستئناس.
فكرة الكتاب تُستخلص من قضية موازية لموضوع القراءة وهي [ اللاقراءة ] التي تعني حقّ أيّ أحد من ألا يقرأ أي كتاب، لكن هذا لا يمنعه من الحديث عنها إذا قرأ عنها أو سمع من يتحدث عنها.
أعجبتني فكرة الحواف/ ومختصرها أنّ غالبية أمناء المكتبات يعرفون عن الكتب ولا يقرأون الكتب، أي أن حدود معرفتهم فيها تقيهم من الانغماس فيها وهذا بالنسبة لهم شيء كاف.
أحببتُ فكرة أنّ الكتب التي قرأنها قديماً ونسينا محتواها أو أننا قرأناها هل تًحسب لنا ككتباً مقروءة؟ سؤال يستحق التأمل.
وقسّم الكتب لأقسام:
1- كتب لا نعرفها مطلقاً
2- كتب نعرفها وتصفحناها
3- كتب سمعنا بها
4- كتب نسيناها
وأنّ ما يدعونا للحديث عن كتب لم نقرأها كاملةً هي مواقف اجتماعية غالباً أو اضطراراً خصوصاً إذا كنت في مهنة تستلتزم منك التقييم [ كمحرري دور النشر أو أساتذة الجامعات ]
==
فكرة كون الكتاب ليس كتاباً واحد لدي الجميع، بل هو كتاب جماعي لبعضهم، وكتاب افتراضي لآخرين، وكتاب شخصي لآخرين.
وهدف الكاتب كله هو ألا نطيل الوقوف على الكتب، ونخلق مساحة خاصة لنا.
==
طبعاً كون بعض المشاهير تتحدث عن كتب لم تقرأها فهو أمراً ليس مستحدثاً وهناك أمثلة قديمة وحديثة وهو أمر بحد ذاته ليس عيباً لكن العيب أن تتحول كل قراءتنا إلى هذا النوع.
أسماء الكتب والمقالات الواردة في الكتاب جميلة وتستحق القراءة، وأظن أن الكتاب يستحق الوقوف عنده أكثر من النظرة السطحية العامة التي رُوج لها.
هذا كتاب يدعوك من طرفٍ خفيّ للقراءة، لكنها القراءة الخاصة بك غير الخاضعة لمعايير السوق والمجتمع، وأن تتحلى بالجرأة والشجاعة أن تقول عن كتاب ما لم تقرأه.. نعم لم أفعل، ولا عيب في ذلك.
هناك لفتات كثيرة يمكن التوقف عندها لكني سأكتفي بهذا القدر.
تنويه: يمكنني أن أكتب هذه المراجعة دون أن أقرأ الكتاب، وستظنّ أنني قرأته/ لكني لا أٌقدر أن أغش نفسي :)
لقد قرأتُ الكتاب وكان ممتعاً.
وأنصحك بأن تقرأه بنفسك وتحكم.
فالكتاب حسب ما رأيتُ لا يحرّض للادعاء، ولا التباهي بكيف تتحدث عن كتب لم تقرأها ولكنه يطرق جانباً مجهولاً في علاقاتنا مع الكتب.
للأمانة أحببتُ الكتاب قبل أن أقرأه حين اطلعت على لقاء مع أمبرتو إيكو، وكان الحديث عن كيف تتأثر بكتب لم تقرأها وجواب إمبرتو كان في غاية الذكاء والنباهة حين قال إنّه دائماً ما يتعرض للسؤال المحرج: هل قرأتَ كل كتاب في مكتبتك؟
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsUuc...
بداية المؤلف أستاذ جامعيّ وكانب ومحلل نفسي، فالكتاب هو خليط من هذه العلوم الثلاثة، فهو يمارس تحليله النفسي، ويضع تجربته التعليمية في سياق الاستئناس.
فكرة الكتاب تُستخلص من قضية موازية لموضوع القراءة وهي [ اللاقراءة ] التي تعني حقّ أيّ أحد من ألا يقرأ أي كتاب، لكن هذا لا يمنعه من الحديث عنها إذا قرأ عنها أو سمع من يتحدث عنها.
أعجبتني فكرة الحواف/ ومختصرها أنّ غالبية أمناء المكتبات يعرفون عن الكتب ولا يقرأون الكتب، أي أن حدود معرفتهم فيها تقيهم من الانغماس فيها وهذا بالنسبة لهم شيء كاف.
أحببتُ فكرة أنّ الكتب التي قرأنها قديماً ونسينا محتواها أو أننا قرأناها هل تًحسب لنا ككتباً مقروءة؟ سؤال يستحق التأمل.
وقسّم الكتب لأقسام:
1- كتب لا نعرفها مطلقاً
2- كتب نعرفها وتصفحناها
3- كتب سمعنا بها
4- كتب نسيناها
وأنّ ما يدعونا للحديث عن كتب لم نقرأها كاملةً هي مواقف اجتماعية غالباً أو اضطراراً خصوصاً إذا كنت في مهنة تستلتزم منك التقييم [ كمحرري دور النشر أو أساتذة الجامعات ]
==
فكرة كون الكتاب ليس كتاباً واحد لدي الجميع، بل هو كتاب جماعي لبعضهم، وكتاب افتراضي لآخرين، وكتاب شخصي لآخرين.
وهدف الكاتب كله هو ألا نطيل الوقوف على الكتب، ونخلق مساحة خاصة لنا.
==
طبعاً كون بعض المشاهير تتحدث عن كتب لم تقرأها فهو أمراً ليس مستحدثاً وهناك أمثلة قديمة وحديثة وهو أمر بحد ذاته ليس عيباً لكن العيب أن تتحول كل قراءتنا إلى هذا النوع.
أسماء الكتب والمقالات الواردة في الكتاب جميلة وتستحق القراءة، وأظن أن الكتاب يستحق الوقوف عنده أكثر من النظرة السطحية العامة التي رُوج لها.
هذا كتاب يدعوك من طرفٍ خفيّ للقراءة، لكنها القراءة الخاصة بك غير الخاضعة لمعايير السوق والمجتمع، وأن تتحلى بالجرأة والشجاعة أن تقول عن كتاب ما لم تقرأه.. نعم لم أفعل، ولا عيب في ذلك.
هناك لفتات كثيرة يمكن التوقف عندها لكني سأكتفي بهذا القدر.
تنويه: يمكنني أن أكتب هذه المراجعة دون أن أقرأ الكتاب، وستظنّ أنني قرأته/ لكني لا أٌقدر أن أغش نفسي :)
لقد قرأتُ الكتاب وكان ممتعاً.
وأنصحك بأن تقرأه بنفسك وتحكم.
December 12, 2016
در برابر اسم اين كتاب مي شه گارد گرفت و با خوندن بخش اول مي شه ازش عصباني شد. اما بايد بهش وقت داد و سراغ بخش دوم و سوم رفت. اگر فرض كنيم صحبت هاي بعضاً حق به جانب نويسنده كاملاً درسته، باز يه مسئله خيلي بزرگ باقي مي مونه كه هيچ جاي كتاب بهش نپرداخته. و اون موضوع لذته. لذت خواندن يك كتاب. نگاه نويسنده به كتاب ها فقط از جهت مواجهه خواننده با ساير افراد هست.
اساسي ترين سوالي كه توي كتاب مطرح مي شه اينه كه كدام نوع خواندن صحيح تره: كسي كه كتابي رو ژرف مي خونه اما در مكان يابي اون كتاب در ميان ساير كتاب ها ناتوان است، يا كسي كه در هيچ كتابي ژرف نمي شه، اما در ميان همه كتاب ها گشت و گذار مي كنه.
اساسي ترين سوالي كه توي كتاب مطرح مي شه اينه كه كدام نوع خواندن صحيح تره: كسي كه كتابي رو ژرف مي خونه اما در مكان يابي اون كتاب در ميان ساير كتاب ها ناتوان است، يا كسي كه در هيچ كتابي ژرف نمي شه، اما در ميان همه كتاب ها گشت و گذار مي كنه.
May 28, 2019
Se não ler é mal visto, é também mau ler depressa ou fazer uma leitura rápida e, acima de tudo, dizê-lo, diz Pierre Bayard.
Esta frase suscita-me:
1) uma dúvida: ler depressa ou leitura rápida não será o mesmo?
2) um problema: como falar deste livro que não li (ou, para ser mais exacta, li depressa) sem ficar mal vista?
Li apenas metade do livro mas após fazer umas contas rápidas e redondas concluí que li 110%, conforme a seguinte demonstração:
Às 150 páginas do livro (100%) diminuo [30 páginas de repetições+30 páginas de transcrições de outros livros+30 páginas de resumos de livros que já li] o que soma um total de 60 páginas de texto útil. Como li metade (75 páginas), resulta que li 15 páginas de texto inútil; ou seja, 100% (60 páginas)+10% (15 páginas)=110%, Q. E. D.
Esta frase suscita-me:
1) uma dúvida: ler depressa ou leitura rápida não será o mesmo?
2) um problema: como falar deste livro que não li (ou, para ser mais exacta, li depressa) sem ficar mal vista?
Li apenas metade do livro mas após fazer umas contas rápidas e redondas concluí que li 110%, conforme a seguinte demonstração:
Às 150 páginas do livro (100%) diminuo [30 páginas de repetições+30 páginas de transcrições de outros livros+30 páginas de resumos de livros que já li] o que soma um total de 60 páginas de texto útil. Como li metade (75 páginas), resulta que li 15 páginas de texto inútil; ou seja, 100% (60 páginas)+10% (15 páginas)=110%, Q. E. D.
July 17, 2024
✨ It was so bad, I want to give you a zero, but that's not possible, so I give you a one ✌️😚✨
My DUDE, if you just wanted to yap about all the different forms of media you've absorbed that also happen to have a loose connection to the concept of reading, you could have JUST. TOLD. US. 😭(rather than go on a 185 page tangent, making me think you were gonna talk about something else... oop, what did I say 👀)
This had no business being this long. (even though you'd think it's short 🥴)
The synopsis had no business deceiving me as such. (seriously, who is this book actually for...)
And this book had no business consuming my time the way it did. (that one's on me, y'all ✋😞)
What should have been a 3-minute conversation was turned into a 3-hour book that I skimmed into 2 🫢 And for all my poor, fellow readers who also read this, we can justify that this skimming counts 🫠
Please, y'all, you already know how to read and talk about books. And reading the epilogue is essentially like reading the book, and I would still contest that reading the synopsis is essentially like reading the book 🙃
The FORWARD even says, and I quote, "[h]aving just read his witty How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read, I have now discovered that there was no reason for me to have read it in the first place." Like... 😦 WHY DIDN'T I LISTEN, FRANCINE PROSE 😭(she then goes on to try to justify why we still ought to read the book, but it's okay, we're all a little dululu sometimes)
Either way, please don't waste your time; I already did it for you 😃👍
Honesty, though, from a cultural perspective, this is probably the most French book I've read and may ever read 🥖 C'est la vie c'est comme ça ✨
My DUDE, if you just wanted to yap about all the different forms of media you've absorbed that also happen to have a loose connection to the concept of reading, you could have JUST. TOLD. US. 😭
This had no business being this long. (even though you'd think it's short 🥴)
The synopsis had no business deceiving me as such. (seriously, who is this book actually for...)
And this book had no business consuming my time the way it did. (that one's on me, y'all ✋😞)
What should have been a 3-minute conversation was turned into a 3-hour book that I skimmed into 2 🫢 And for all my poor, fellow readers who also read this, we can justify that this skimming counts 🫠
Please, y'all, you already know how to read and talk about books. And reading the epilogue is essentially like reading the book, and I would still contest that reading the synopsis is essentially like reading the book 🙃
The FORWARD even says, and I quote, "[h]aving just read his witty How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read, I have now discovered that there was no reason for me to have read it in the first place." Like... 😦 WHY DIDN'T I LISTEN, FRANCINE PROSE 😭
Either way, please don't waste your time; I already did it for you 😃👍
Honesty, though, from a cultural perspective, this is probably the most French book I've read and may ever read 🥖 C'est la vie c'est comme ça ✨
January 5, 2008
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 the thoughtfully self-absorbed masses. Well written and translated, this piece successfully develops a unique and usable critical vocabulary (inner library / collective library / virtual library : inner book / screen book / phantom book), draws strictly upon literary examples, and develops in a thoughtful progression of chapters--all the trappings of good lit theory. His psychoanalyst perspective frames reading as an attempt to locate one's own inner book, in a never-ending return to the ego that calls up Freud's theories on repetition and return to childhood. While this egotistical approach to reading would offend those high school English teachers hell-bent on plot (they'd give Bayard a red check for optimistically re-writing the ending of Eco's The Name of the Rose: he always thinks the library was saved from the flames), I think this book certainly deserves the praise and publicity it has garnered, if only to introduce to those impoverished souls that, yes, there is more than one way to read a book.
...
I plan to compare this book with Harry G. Frankfurter's earlier essay On Bullshit, as the shared premise of having to speak convincingly of things one doesn't know about leads them to opposing moral viewpoints on this less-than-informed verbal act.
See The Rebellious Reader in the near future for more.
...
Bayard's playful essay-livre is a simple retelling of Reader-Response Theory crafted for the thoughtfully self-absorbed masses. Well written and translated, this piece successfully develops a unique and usable critical vocabulary (inner library / collective library / virtual library : inner book / screen book / phantom book), draws strictly upon literary examples, and develops in a thoughtful progression of chapters--all the trappings of good lit theory. His psychoanalyst perspective frames reading as an attempt to locate one's own inner book, in a never-ending return to the ego that calls up Freud's theories on repetition and return to childhood. While this egotistical approach to reading would offend those high school English teachers hell-bent on plot (they'd give Bayard a red check for optimistically re-writing the ending of Eco's The Name of the Rose: he always thinks the library was saved from the flames), I think this book certainly deserves the praise and publicity it has garnered, if only to introduce to those impoverished souls that, yes, there is more than one way to read a book.
...
I plan to compare this book with Harry G. Frankfurter's earlier essay On Bullshit, as the shared premise of having to speak convincingly of things one doesn't know about leads them to opposing moral viewpoints on this less-than-informed verbal act.
See The Rebellious Reader in the near future for more.
December 4, 2016
کتاب اندیشمندانه ایه - در واقع اطلاق مطالب پست مدرنه به حوزه ی مطالعه و کتابخوانی آن هم به زبان قابل فهم برای عموم. من که مطالبش رو جذاب و بصیرت بخش یافتم
February 22, 2024
Çok zeki olduğu belli olan yazar okuru da zekasıyla etkileyeceğini düşündüğü kurmacalarla kendince bir sonuç çıkarıyor. Oldukça sıkıcı ve biraz da bilmişçe yazılmış buldum kitabı. Sanki “körler sağırlar birbirini ağırlar” atasözünü açıklamak istercesine yazılmış bir kitap. 1,5’dan zorla 2
October 28, 2015
من اكثر الكتب غباء التي قرأتها ..
أحدهم حين بدأت الحديث عز هذا الكتاب هاجمني على أساس أنه ساخر و اني اعطيته أهمية لا يستحقها،كونه ساخر فهذا خطأ و كوني أعطيته أهمية لا يستحقها فهذا خطأ أيضا لأن هدفي احتفظت به للآخر و حتى لو أقنعت شخصا واحدا فقط بعدم قراءة هذا الكتاب سأكون قد حققت هدفي من قراءتي له و حديثي عنه..الكتاب ببساطة يقول يمكننا بكل بساطة أن نتحدث عن كتب لم نقرأها و أن نتحدث بجدية و باهتمام يصل أن نفرض اراءنا بل قد تصل بنا الجرأة أن نتحدث عن كتب غير موجودة أصلا هذا يعتبره بيار إبداعا. .في معرض عرض فكرته هذه استعان بكتاب ليس لهم ولع القراءة كاوسكار وايلد و فاليري و استعان بشخصيات روائية في عدد من الأعمال كروية اسم الوردة و رواية رجل بلا ملامح و كان يفصل أحداث هذه الروايات بشكل جعلني أتساءل هل قرأها فعلا ..المختصر الكتاب يقول إن هناك أربع أنواع من الكتب:
كتب نجهلها.
كتب نمر على صفحاتها ..
كتب نسيانها.
كتب سمعنا عنها. .
و بعد ذلك يضع أهم أربع مواقف قد تدفعنا للحديث عن الكتب التي لم نقرأها فعلا و هي الأربع أصناف السابقة:
في الوسط الثقافي المتكلف
أمام أستاذ
أمام كاتب
أمام شخص نحبه
بعدها ينصحك بأربع أشياء قد تساعدك:
لا تخجل
افرض آرائك
اخترع كتبا ليست موجودة
تحدث عن نفسك
هذا هو الكتاب لهذا ليس عليكم قراءته من الممكن جدا أن تكتفوا بما قلته و اعتبروه قراءة حسب موضة بيار..السؤال الآن. .أليس من السهل و ببساطة أن نقرأ الكتاب عوض هذه الاستراتيجية الغبية المطروحة،يحسب للكتاب انه فضح بعض التوجهات خصوصا لدى النقاد ..
أحدهم حين بدأت الحديث عز هذا الكتاب هاجمني على أساس أنه ساخر و اني اعطيته أهمية لا يستحقها،كونه ساخر فهذا خطأ و كوني أعطيته أهمية لا يستحقها فهذا خطأ أيضا لأن هدفي احتفظت به للآخر و حتى لو أقنعت شخصا واحدا فقط بعدم قراءة هذا الكتاب سأكون قد حققت هدفي من قراءتي له و حديثي عنه..الكتاب ببساطة يقول يمكننا بكل بساطة أن نتحدث عن كتب لم نقرأها و أن نتحدث بجدية و باهتمام يصل أن نفرض اراءنا بل قد تصل بنا الجرأة أن نتحدث عن كتب غير موجودة أصلا هذا يعتبره بيار إبداعا. .في معرض عرض فكرته هذه استعان بكتاب ليس لهم ولع القراءة كاوسكار وايلد و فاليري و استعان بشخصيات روائية في عدد من الأعمال كروية اسم الوردة و رواية رجل بلا ملامح و كان يفصل أحداث هذه الروايات بشكل جعلني أتساءل هل قرأها فعلا ..المختصر الكتاب يقول إن هناك أربع أنواع من الكتب:
كتب نجهلها.
كتب نمر على صفحاتها ..
كتب نسيانها.
كتب سمعنا عنها. .
و بعد ذلك يضع أهم أربع مواقف قد تدفعنا للحديث عن الكتب التي لم نقرأها فعلا و هي الأربع أصناف السابقة:
في الوسط الثقافي المتكلف
أمام أستاذ
أمام كاتب
أمام شخص نحبه
بعدها ينصحك بأربع أشياء قد تساعدك:
لا تخجل
افرض آرائك
اخترع كتبا ليست موجودة
تحدث عن نفسك
هذا هو الكتاب لهذا ليس عليكم قراءته من الممكن جدا أن تكتفوا بما قلته و اعتبروه قراءة حسب موضة بيار..السؤال الآن. .أليس من السهل و ببساطة أن نقرأ الكتاب عوض هذه الاستراتيجية الغبية المطروحة،يحسب للكتاب انه فضح بعض التوجهات خصوصا لدى النقاد ..
May 14, 2020
ovo je bilo zabavno štivo. kontra onome što ljudi uglavnom zagovaraju: čitanje, čitanje, čitanje - u ovom eseju glorificira se nečitanje i kroz tri poglavlja ("načini ne-čitanja", "situacije rasprave" i "načini ponašanja") pierre bayard pokušava te pridobiti na svoju stranu - već u prologu objašnjava kako i zašto je odlučio nečitati. kad otvoriš knjigu, već si na prvim stranicama uvučen u problematiku kroz upoznavanje s kraticama koje će se u eseju koristiti: NK=nepoznata knjiga, PK=prelistana knjiga, EK=evocirana knjiga i ZK=zaboravljena knjiga; uz to, autor ima i svoja mišljenja o tim knjigama koje izražava kroz -slično kao i mi na gr-u- zvjezdice, od jako pozitivnog (dvije zvjezdice) do jako negativnog (dva minusa). da pierre bayard nema logična, realna i zdravorazumska objašnjenja, čovjek bi mislio da se šali.
kroz esej upoznaje te i s drugim zagovornicima nečitanja - paul valéryjem, oscar wildeom i dr., sve u svrhu doživljavanja knjige radije u smislu "literature", nego pojedinačnih komada, ali i inzistirajući na važnosti zadržavanja sebe, radije nego gubljenja sebe u knjigama.
preporučam kao susret s drugačijim načinom razmišljanja vezano za čitanje generalno i kao potencijalno pretumbavanje vlastitih čitalačkih navika.
"jer, kako to dobro pokazuje wilde, između čitanja i stvaranja postoji neka vrsta proturječja i svaki se čitatelj koji je izgubljen u tuđoj knjizi izlaže riziku da se udalji od svog vlastitog svemira. i ako je komentar o nepročitanim knjigama jedan vid stvaralaštva, stvaralaštvo, zauzvrat, podrazumijeva da se na knjigama ne zadržavamo previše."
kroz esej upoznaje te i s drugim zagovornicima nečitanja - paul valéryjem, oscar wildeom i dr., sve u svrhu doživljavanja knjige radije u smislu "literature", nego pojedinačnih komada, ali i inzistirajući na važnosti zadržavanja sebe, radije nego gubljenja sebe u knjigama.
preporučam kao susret s drugačijim načinom razmišljanja vezano za čitanje generalno i kao potencijalno pretumbavanje vlastitih čitalačkih navika.
"jer, kako to dobro pokazuje wilde, između čitanja i stvaranja postoji neka vrsta proturječja i svaki se čitatelj koji je izgubljen u tuđoj knjizi izlaže riziku da se udalji od svog vlastitog svemira. i ako je komentar o nepročitanim knjigama jedan vid stvaralaštva, stvaralaštvo, zauzvrat, podrazumijeva da se na knjigama ne zadržavamo previše."
February 20, 2021
Why would you want to talk about books you haven't read? There are myriads of reasons. Maybe you're just discussing life and literature in general with a friend. It's nice to discuss a book that they've enjoyed even if you haven't. Maybe you need to sound knowledgeable during a course or to not let your book club know that you never got around to this month's book. (There's a book club example of a woman trying to fake it, unsuccessfully, early in The Southern Book Club's Guide to Slaying Vampires).
I am a retired library cataloguer and have needed to determine the subject matter of many a book that I have only skimmed. There's no time for detailed reading. I would study the dust jacket, the table of contents, the introduction or first paragraphs, and the conclusion. Maybe an index if present. From those elements I could generally make a good estimate of the book's innards. Sometimes I felt like a priestess, trying to divine the future from some unfortunate animal's liver, but it seemed to work. And of course there's always Google and Wikipedia, if you need more input. (How did we catalogue before the internet?)
I've recently been debating with myself the question of whether I can count as “read" a book which is so far in my past that I can't remember a single detail. Books that I read in my teens and early twenties, for example. I can recall enjoying some of them, but no details come to mind. If I can't discuss the book, can I truly say that I have read it? I think this author would say ‘yes.’
Then there are those books that I do remember, but when talking with someone else they start rhapsodizing about an aspect that doesn't ring ANY bells with me. Did we read the same book? Sometimes I'm driven to re-read a book, just to compare their emphasis versus mine. The explanation according to this author is that we each interpret a book through the lens of our inner libraries. Just like eye witness accounts, what you see depends on your angle, your previous knowledge and experience, and how much you identify with what's going on.
I must confess that I don't subscribe to the idea that not having read some “classic" book is somehow shameful. With about 130,000,000 books published, we will each have read only a tiny fraction of what's available. I've never read Moby Dick, but I know what someone is talking about when they refer to a particular pursuit as someone's “white whale.” Maybe someday I will attempt this huge whaling epic, but I don't think its completion measures my worth as a reader or as a person. Of course, things are different if you have a reputation as an academic or a critic to protect. Then it might be necessary to muddy the waters about what you have or haven't read.
Authors who get overly involved in reviews of their books should definitely read the penultimate chapter of this book about the role of the critic. Criticism is its own art form according to this author via Oscar Wilde. Wilde states that the critic should refrain from reading the work in question. I can see where he's coming from since my own reviews are more about me than the book. They are about my thoughts, feelings, and reactions more than they are about the book itself.
For those of us who are just ordinary readers, with no particular position to defend, we can just enjoy reading what suits us.
Cross posted at my blog:
https://wanda-thenextfifty.blogspot.c...
I am a retired library cataloguer and have needed to determine the subject matter of many a book that I have only skimmed. There's no time for detailed reading. I would study the dust jacket, the table of contents, the introduction or first paragraphs, and the conclusion. Maybe an index if present. From those elements I could generally make a good estimate of the book's innards. Sometimes I felt like a priestess, trying to divine the future from some unfortunate animal's liver, but it seemed to work. And of course there's always Google and Wikipedia, if you need more input. (How did we catalogue before the internet?)
I've recently been debating with myself the question of whether I can count as “read" a book which is so far in my past that I can't remember a single detail. Books that I read in my teens and early twenties, for example. I can recall enjoying some of them, but no details come to mind. If I can't discuss the book, can I truly say that I have read it? I think this author would say ‘yes.’
Then there are those books that I do remember, but when talking with someone else they start rhapsodizing about an aspect that doesn't ring ANY bells with me. Did we read the same book? Sometimes I'm driven to re-read a book, just to compare their emphasis versus mine. The explanation according to this author is that we each interpret a book through the lens of our inner libraries. Just like eye witness accounts, what you see depends on your angle, your previous knowledge and experience, and how much you identify with what's going on.
I must confess that I don't subscribe to the idea that not having read some “classic" book is somehow shameful. With about 130,000,000 books published, we will each have read only a tiny fraction of what's available. I've never read Moby Dick, but I know what someone is talking about when they refer to a particular pursuit as someone's “white whale.” Maybe someday I will attempt this huge whaling epic, but I don't think its completion measures my worth as a reader or as a person. Of course, things are different if you have a reputation as an academic or a critic to protect. Then it might be necessary to muddy the waters about what you have or haven't read.
Authors who get overly involved in reviews of their books should definitely read the penultimate chapter of this book about the role of the critic. Criticism is its own art form according to this author via Oscar Wilde. Wilde states that the critic should refrain from reading the work in question. I can see where he's coming from since my own reviews are more about me than the book. They are about my thoughts, feelings, and reactions more than they are about the book itself.
For those of us who are just ordinary readers, with no particular position to defend, we can just enjoy reading what suits us.
Cross posted at my blog:
https://wanda-thenextfifty.blogspot.c...
May 18, 2015
To read or not to read
“Intessuto di fantasmi che appartengono a ciascun individuo e delle nostre private leggende, il libro interiore individuale è attivo nel nostro desiderio di lettura, e cioè nel modo in cui cerchiamo e poi leggiamo dei libri. E' questo l'oggetto fantasmatico in cerca del quale vive ogni lettore, del quale i libri migliori che incontrerà nel corso della sua vita non saranno che dei frammenti imperfetti, stimolandolo con ciò a proseguire la lettura”.
Il saggio di Bayard, un testo di teoria della lettura a vocazione critica, si pone l'obiettivo di alleviare l'angoscia originata dalla non lettura, fonte di un senso di colpa inconscio, e di indagare e descrivere le modalità di frequentazione dei libri e le forme di incontro con i testi, che stanno a metà strada tra il leggere e il non leggere. Il luogo astratto dove hanno luogo queste situazioni è la biblioteca nelle sue diverse forme (collettiva, interiore, virtuale) e l'oggetto che attiva la nostra partecipazione è il libro (di copertura, interiore, fantasma). Tra Valéry e Il terzo uomo, Umberto Eco e Amleto, lo studioso francese ricorda che la nostra relazione con i libri non è una dimensione dove convivono armonia e conoscenza, ma uno spazio oscuro infestato di ricordi e abitato da fantasmi, una pratica di mediazione dove noi ricostruiamo e in qualche modo inventiamo i libri, sia quelli che leggiamo che quelli che non abbiamo nemmeno sfogliato. La lettura viene descritta quindi come possibilità creativa, ma insieme come una minaccia all'espressione del soggetto che vuole parlare di libri. Convinto che la letteratura sia un mondo di immaginazione, che ha uno statuto indipendente e si ricrea incessantemente dentro di noi, Bayard vuole persuaderci che parlare di sé attraverso i libri sia il solo modo di parlarne bene e per ciò ci invita entusiasticamente alla non lettura e alla scrittura, nel nome del celebre paradosso di Oscar Wilde: “Non leggo mai libri che voglio recensire: non vorrei rimanerne influenzato”.
“Intessuto di fantasmi che appartengono a ciascun individuo e delle nostre private leggende, il libro interiore individuale è attivo nel nostro desiderio di lettura, e cioè nel modo in cui cerchiamo e poi leggiamo dei libri. E' questo l'oggetto fantasmatico in cerca del quale vive ogni lettore, del quale i libri migliori che incontrerà nel corso della sua vita non saranno che dei frammenti imperfetti, stimolandolo con ciò a proseguire la lettura”.
Il saggio di Bayard, un testo di teoria della lettura a vocazione critica, si pone l'obiettivo di alleviare l'angoscia originata dalla non lettura, fonte di un senso di colpa inconscio, e di indagare e descrivere le modalità di frequentazione dei libri e le forme di incontro con i testi, che stanno a metà strada tra il leggere e il non leggere. Il luogo astratto dove hanno luogo queste situazioni è la biblioteca nelle sue diverse forme (collettiva, interiore, virtuale) e l'oggetto che attiva la nostra partecipazione è il libro (di copertura, interiore, fantasma). Tra Valéry e Il terzo uomo, Umberto Eco e Amleto, lo studioso francese ricorda che la nostra relazione con i libri non è una dimensione dove convivono armonia e conoscenza, ma uno spazio oscuro infestato di ricordi e abitato da fantasmi, una pratica di mediazione dove noi ricostruiamo e in qualche modo inventiamo i libri, sia quelli che leggiamo che quelli che non abbiamo nemmeno sfogliato. La lettura viene descritta quindi come possibilità creativa, ma insieme come una minaccia all'espressione del soggetto che vuole parlare di libri. Convinto che la letteratura sia un mondo di immaginazione, che ha uno statuto indipendente e si ricrea incessantemente dentro di noi, Bayard vuole persuaderci che parlare di sé attraverso i libri sia il solo modo di parlarne bene e per ciò ci invita entusiasticamente alla non lettura e alla scrittura, nel nome del celebre paradosso di Oscar Wilde: “Non leggo mai libri che voglio recensire: non vorrei rimanerne influenzato”.
January 29, 2022
اولای کتاب برای من جالب بود. ولی بعد کمکم خستهکننده و بیهوده شد. کتاب داره میگه کتاب نخواندن چیه و چطوری درباره کتابهایی که نخوندیم حرف بزنیم. برای من این نکته رو داشت که نگران همه کتابهایی که ممکنه هیچوقت نخونم نباشم ولی بعد وقتی درباره روشهای حرف زدن درباره کتابی که خونده نشده میگفت دیگه به نظرم حرفها برای کتاب نخوندن اغراقآمیز شد. ضمن اینکه تمام نکات رو در غالب روایتها و داستانهایی از افراد مختلف بیان میکرد که به نظرم باعث میشد اگرم نکتهای هست گم بشه توی داستان. خلاصه که به عنوان خود کتاب میتونید اقتدا کنید و نخونیدش، بعد هم دربارهش صحبت کنید.
February 27, 2019
The most boring book ever I gave up on after wasting so much time on the half of it forcing myself to keep reading!
May 22, 2018
لم يقدم لي الكتاب، بصفحاته المائتين وستين، أى جديد، كل ما قيل أعرفه بالفعل، بل وأطبقّه في أحيان كثيرة.
لولا بعض الحكايات المسلية عن الكتب لما منحته تقييمًا على الإطلاق.
لولا بعض الحكايات المسلية عن الكتب لما منحته تقييمًا على الإطلاق.
November 18, 2016
"أي القارئين أفضل، من يقرأ كتاباً قراءة معمقة ولا يستطيع أن يحدد موقعه أم من لا يدخل إلى أي كتاب ولكنه يتجول في كل الكتب؟"
يقدم بايار رؤية مختلفة حول مفهوم القراءة ومفهوم اللاقراءة عبر وجهة نظر سوسيولوجية ونفسية.
كما يطرح نظريته الخاصة حول القراءة والتي تتلخص في اللاقراءة !
" ان علاقتنا بالكتب ليست تلك العملية المستمرة والمتجانسة التي يحاول بعض النقاد أن يوهمونا بها، وليست الحيّز الذي نعرف فيه أنفسنا معرفة شفافة، لكنها حيّز غامض مظلم تتسلط عليه شظايا الذكريات، وترتبط قيمته، بجميع أشكالها بما في ذلك الإبداعية، بالأشباح الغامضة الهائمة فيه
كيفيات القراءة التي تطرق لها بايار وطرائقها:
*الكتب التي لا نعرفها
ودار هذا الباب حول مفهوم موزيل عن القراءة والذي يتلخص في "النظرة الشمولية" التي تقوم على منهجية المكتبي" أمين المكتبة "الذي يختزل الكتاب أو فعل القراءة في الاطلاع على فهرس الكتاب والعناوين .
وتتكئ هذه المنهجية على تكوين" المكتبة الجماعية" وتقوم فكرتها على- الإمساك ب- جوهر الكتاب وهو موقعه من الكتب الأخرى؛ ففهم العلاقة الوثيقة بين مضمون الكتاب وموقعه " سياسي-أدبي-اجتماعي،.... " هو ما يعد كافياً لتقديم قراءة عنه دون قراءته بشكل فعلي .
*الكتب التي تصفحناها
وتتلخص في استيراتيجية القراءة السريعة ممثلة ب-فاليري.
إن فاليري مثل موزيل يحثنا كما يذكر على أن نفكر بمنطق المكتبة الجماعية لا بمنطق الكتاب المفرد.
كما أن كل كتاب يخضع لمنطق معين، وهو مافهمه فاليري جيداً، فلم يلتفت إلا لهذا المنطق وحده في تقديم قراءة عن كتاب لم يقرأه. فمن المهم لديه هو أن تلتفت وتنتبه جيداً وأنت تتصفح الكتاب دون أن تقرأه فعلاً، للصور/ الشكل، والاستراتيجيات التي يتبعها المؤلف لتمسك بالخيط الذي يفسر ويقدم رؤية المؤلف / الكاتب .
*الكتب التي سمعنا بها
وتتلخص هذه الاستيراتيحية في منظور أمبرتو إيكو الذي يشترط على القارئ أن يحسن الإصغاء لكل ما يقوله أو يكتب عنه غيرنا من القراء عن كتاب ما والذي يعد كافياً لتقديم قراءة دقيقة عن مضمونه. وبالاستناد كذلك على فن ومهارة المقاربة بين كتاب وآخر.
" الثقافة هي قدرتنا على تحديد مواقع الكتب في المكتبة المشتركة وعلى تحديد موقعنا داخل كل كتاب."
*الكتب التي نسيناها
" السؤال هنا عن كتاب قرأناه ونسيناه تماماً بل نسينا أننا قرأناه، هل يبقى كتاباً قرأناه؟"
وتتجسد هذه الطريقة بأساليب مونتين الذي يعاني من مشكلة النسيان. وهي بتدوين الملاحظات والحواشي في آخر الكتاب للتغلب على هذه المشكلة التي واجهته كثيراً مع القراءة . اذ لا يعود يميز حقاً بين الكتب التي قرأها فعلاً والتي لم يقرأها. وهذه الطريقة كفيلة بحفظ رأي القارئ الذي كونه عن الكتاب والكاتب معاً، وهي تسهل على القارئ الاسترشاد في فترات النسيان وتمنحه الاطمئنان في العودة اليسيرة للكتاب.
تطرق بايار في الفصول اللاحقة إلى كيفية ابتداع وخلق القارئ لكتاب لم يقرأه، وذلك وفق حالات قياسية مختلفة . كما تطرق أيضاً لكيفية التعامل مع الظروف والمواقف التي تجعلك تحت مجهر المساءلة حول موضوع كتابٍ ما. جميعها ميكنزمات تساعدك على النجاة من فخ السؤال والنقد، وفضح ضحالة معرفتك .
" أنا لا أقرأ أبداً الكتب التي يطلب مني أن أكتب عنها: إن فعلت فلن أسلم من تأثيرها." أوسكار وايلد.
محنة اختفاء الذات أكثر ما شغل فكر بايار في قراءة الكتاب. فكيف تحافظ على ذاتك وتفصل وعيك الخاص عن المؤلف؟ وهو أكثر ما يخشاه بايار.
أن تقدم شكلك الخاص" كتابك الداخلي" دون الذوبان في الآخر " المؤلف" كان مدعى كبير للقلق والتوتر لديه، بل هو أسوء ما يمكن أن يحدث للقارئ.
ومن وجهة نظره "الثقافة كلها تنفتح أمام من يظهرون القدرة على قطع الصِّلة بين الكلام وموضوعه وعلى الحديث عن أنفسهم ."
ان كل ما يحث ويدعو له بايار في هذا الكتاب هو أن تخرج من التصنيفات الرائجة للقراءة وأن تبتكر طرقك الخاصة بك "أن تخلق كتاباً" وأن تتحرر من ثقل الثقافة والإملاءات المملة لشكل القراءة المثالية. فلا بأس إن لم تكمل قراءة كتاب ما بالكامل، أو حتى إن لم تقرأه?!
الكتاب قدم تجارب وقصص مجنونة جديرة بالقراءة والاهتمام والإصغاء.
April 29, 2022
“Mecburiyetler ve yasaklarla insanı zora sokan bu sistemin sonucu, gerçekten okunmuş olan kitaplar konusunda yaygın bir riyakarlığın ortaya çıkması olmuştur. Ben özel hayatta para ve cinsellik hariç, insanlardan güvenilir bilgi edinmenin kitap okuma konusundaki kadar zor olduğu başka bir alan tanımıyorum.”
Öncelikli olarak söylemeliyim ki ben bu kitabı bitiremedim. 167. sayfaya kadar dayandım -ki aslında sona da çok az kalmıştı- daha fazla dirayet gösteremeyip uzun zaman sonra ilk defa bir kitabı yarım bıraktım. Alejandro Zambra’nın Okumamak kitabında adının geçtiğini görüp raftan indirmiştim. Keşke Zambra’nın ben bu kitabı okumadım uyarısını dikkate alsaydım da hiç dokunmasaydım.
Kitabın ismi büyün içeriği özetliyor zaten. Okumamanın yolları bölümü, daha çok temel edebiyat taşı kitaplar üzerine özet niteliğinde gibi. Diğer iki bölüm -en azından benim açımdan- asıl denemelerin bulunduğu dikkate değer kısımlar. Benim kitaptaki en beğendiğim kısı. “yazar karşısında” başlığıydı açıkcası.
Genel itibari ile edebiyat ve kitaplar üzerine dönen küçük-ayaküstü sohbetlerde ya da okumasanız da o kitaba değinmeniz gereken durumlarda kendinizi nasıl kurtarabileceğinize dair fikirler. Özünde -en azından bazı- kitapların tek tek değil de, edebiyat kanonu içinde birbiriyle bağlamları göz önüne alınarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğine dair denemelerden oluşuyor. Ancak kitabın ilk bölümündeki Okumamanın Yolları kısmındaki kitap özetleri beni o kadar yordu ki devamındaki denemelere sabrım kalmadı. Kitaptan içimde “bir ara Niteliksiz Adam’ı tekrar okuyayım” isteği dışında nötr bir şekilde ayrılıyorum.
Bir de bizim toplumumuzda “akademik okumalarda kitabın tamamını okumak zorunda değilsiniz” açıklamasını “aa kitabın tamamını okumaya gerek yok atlaya atlaya okumak da gayet kitabı okuduğunuz anlamına gelir” şeklinde yorumlayan bir çoğunluk olduğu için, bu kitap bizde çok tehlikeli maalesef.
Öncelikli olarak söylemeliyim ki ben bu kitabı bitiremedim. 167. sayfaya kadar dayandım -ki aslında sona da çok az kalmıştı- daha fazla dirayet gösteremeyip uzun zaman sonra ilk defa bir kitabı yarım bıraktım. Alejandro Zambra’nın Okumamak kitabında adının geçtiğini görüp raftan indirmiştim. Keşke Zambra’nın ben bu kitabı okumadım uyarısını dikkate alsaydım da hiç dokunmasaydım.
Kitabın ismi büyün içeriği özetliyor zaten. Okumamanın yolları bölümü, daha çok temel edebiyat taşı kitaplar üzerine özet niteliğinde gibi. Diğer iki bölüm -en azından benim açımdan- asıl denemelerin bulunduğu dikkate değer kısımlar. Benim kitaptaki en beğendiğim kısı. “yazar karşısında” başlığıydı açıkcası.
Genel itibari ile edebiyat ve kitaplar üzerine dönen küçük-ayaküstü sohbetlerde ya da okumasanız da o kitaba değinmeniz gereken durumlarda kendinizi nasıl kurtarabileceğinize dair fikirler. Özünde -en azından bazı- kitapların tek tek değil de, edebiyat kanonu içinde birbiriyle bağlamları göz önüne alınarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğine dair denemelerden oluşuyor. Ancak kitabın ilk bölümündeki Okumamanın Yolları kısmındaki kitap özetleri beni o kadar yordu ki devamındaki denemelere sabrım kalmadı. Kitaptan içimde “bir ara Niteliksiz Adam’ı tekrar okuyayım” isteği dışında nötr bir şekilde ayrılıyorum.
Bir de bizim toplumumuzda “akademik okumalarda kitabın tamamını okumak zorunda değilsiniz” açıklamasını “aa kitabın tamamını okumaya gerek yok atlaya atlaya okumak da gayet kitabı okuduğunuz anlamına gelir” şeklinde yorumlayan bir çoğunluk olduğu için, bu kitap bizde çok tehlikeli maalesef.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,090 reviews