I had been hearing a lot about Pierre Bayard's book How To Talk About Books You Haven't Read, so when I saw a copy at the library, I snatched it up. As a librarian, I get asked about books all the time. Have you read this? What's this about? Is this book any good? Most of the time I haven't read the book. It's not that I don't read-far from it. But I read random titles; I don't really follow a certain author or genre. Even though I know about many books, I thought this would give me the secret on how to talk about books I haven't read. Not so much.
Bayard claims that time spent reading a book is a "squandering of energy." Because there are so many books in existence, it is impossible to read them all, therefore our time would be better served in "non-reading." He explains that in the absence of reading, a person does not wish to read the book, or to understand the book. In "non-reading," the person actively chooses not to read the book, but grasps the essence of the book and its place in the "collective library." We can be culturally literate and able to discuss a book as long as we know about the book, and we understand its connections and correlations with other books. The rest of Bayard's book is really just a reiteration of this point. I understand what he's saying, but I don't agree. For instance, I have never read The Great Gatsby (shocking, I know). I know the basic story and its importance in literature, but could I have a serious discussion with someone about the book and not sound like a complete fool? Absolutely not. Bayard seems to feel that reading serves only one purpose: to attain cultural literacy. But most of the people that come into the library want to read books because they enjoy reading. This book doesn't really pertain to them (which I think is the majority of people). He does pose one interesting question though: is a book you have read and forgotten still a book that you have read? There are quite a few books I read in college, like The Invisible Man, that I have absolutely no recollection of. Couldn't tell you one thing about it. Yet I still tell people I have read it. Does it count if I can't remember it?
Although this book gave me a few things to think about, I don't really feel any more prepared to talk about books I haven't read. I was hoping for some more tangible tips or tricks, but no. My advice: squander your energy reading something else.
1 comment:
Thank you! I picked up this book from my home library for the same reasons you mentioned-- I thought it would make me a better reader's advisor, conversationalist, etc. No such luck.I stopped reading it because my interest had been captured by another book, and I had been meaning to to back to it. Your advice was most helpful and whatever semblance of guilt I might have felt is gone--I won't go back to it, and will gladly squander my time elsewhered. BUt I do have one question--if he does not want us to read, what position does that place his book in? And what about books that are not great works of literature, but that still fill volumes and shelves of space? I doubt whether you could relate a non-fiction work like The Emperor of Scent (which was fascinating, by the way) to major works that a lot of people have read. Does that mean that it is not worth reading or even knowing about? And what of the many people who read solely non-fiction? Does he prais them or ignore them? It would seem that the author's consideration of what is and is not literature or a good book to read is sorely lacking.
Post a Comment