Last weekend I picked up a copy of How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read by Pierre Bayard from the library. It’s a slim book and I thought, if nothing else, it might make for good blog fodder. I made it through thirty pages before I decided I just couldn’t go on with it any longer. And so, I am about to talk about a book I technically haven’t read.
I have nothing against talking about books one hasn’t read. I am studying to be a librarian after all and I will not have read everything in the library. My husband is also a bookstore manager and he talks about books he hasn’t read all the time. The trick, he says, is to know enough about the book by reading the description, the blurbs, maybe the first page, and listening to what other people say about it in order to get a good sense of what it is about and who might like it. That way if someone comes into the store and says I have read all the books by such-and-such author and want to read a book by someone else who is similar, you know what books are likely to fit into that category. There are a lot of books in a bookstore. My Bookman can’t read every one of them nor does he want to. But he has to know enough about them in order to meet his customer’s needs.
Bayard is and isn’t talking about that kind of nonreading. Bayard’s nonreading goes deeper to the point of teaching and reviewing books one has not read. Valery is his shining example of how this can be done. Valéry said much about Proust without ever reading him. He did the same with Anatole France. But while he framed his nonreading of Proust as a good thing, he used his nonreading of France as a sort of statement about what was bland and unoriginal about French literature. Bayard is all approval of such an approach.
The funny thing about this book is that I began reading it very carefully so as not to miss the argument. Then I started reading a little less carefully. Before I knew it, I was skimming. And then I stopped reading. I stopped reading not because the writing was bad or because I was offended by Bayard’s argument. I stopped reading because I realized I didn’t agree with Bayard’s belief of what the point of knowing about literature is. Bayard’s argument of nonreading rests on a theory that
cultural literacy involves the dual capacity to situate books in the collective library and to situate yourself within each book
There is more to it, but that is the gist. I personally don’t have a theory of cultural literacy but if I did it wouldn’t be Bayard’s. I don’t read books in order to become culturally literate. I read books mainly for pleasure, to escape, to learn, for comfort, to fill time while waiting for an appointment, and probably a few other reasons.
When I read a book I situate it within my own personal collective library first and the bigger collective library of literature second. But when I situate something into the collective library of literature I generally don’t think “this book is a prime example of early 20th century literature that is showing signs of moving toward modernism” or whatever. I think more like “this book was written prior to World War One by an American expat, who else was writing at that time? What does it say about class? The human condition? Its historical context? Gender?” Sometimes I don’t even do that. Sometimes I just think, “wow, that was a ripping good read!”
Since I don’t agree with Bayard’s theory of cultural literacy and since his argument is based on it, continuing to read the book seemed rather pointless. And since my next quarter for school started up on Monday (was that ever a short break!), I didn’t want to spend my last weekend of freedom reading something I didn’t care about.
Interesting review!
I’ve been interested in this book myself, but decided NOT to read it because I’d read enough about it to “get the gist ” of it (or so I think), and also because the title invites us to not read it, but talk about it anyway.
LikeLike
I am a firm believer in abandoning books that you aren’t getting much out of (although I still find it hard to do!). Sounds like an interesting concept, although I’ll just follow the title advice and “not read the book”
In a more useful vein, my book club (which I never talk about, I wonder why?) has a policy that all members are welcome to come to every meeting, even if you haven’t read the book, and everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion, even if you haven’t read the book. This is the chief reason why I am still a member! But, it’s a good illustration that you can talk about/around a book without having read it.
LikeLike
I probably would have stopped reading this one, too. I read for many of the reasons you stated, not in order to become culturally literate (though maybe that’s a nice by-product of my reading). And I definitely situate the book in my personal collective library first, too. I may categorize it in many ways, but not necessarily as a piece of the collective library of literature. And now, as the commenter above points out, a bunch of us have not read the book and are talking about it anyway–I wonder what the author would think?
LikeLike
I agree with your opening remarks about the value of talking about books you haven’t read. I haven’t read this book either, but can’t resist joining in the conversation about it. I can’t say I’ve ever read a book to be culturally literate – there is a snob value in that surely? I read for many of the same reasons as you, but reading a book just for the sake of saying you’ve read it is pointless.
And I agree completely with the Quote of the Moment from Jules Renard – do you know where it’s from?
LikeLike
I gave this to my husband to read and he did manage to get to the end but there was a lot of skimming. He found it a bit too academic and when I just read this comment out to him he said you were ‘spot on’. He says Bayard ignores reading for pleasure, which seems unreasonable to say the least. But he also says that he was happy to have intellectual grounding for his own practices, given that he knows about a lot of books via me that he has never read……
LikeLike
There’s something a bit weird to this argument. It’s as though reading the book isn’t what’s important, but rather knowing about it. I agree with your second-to-last paragraph, about not necessarily thinking of the literary aspects of certain novels. Well-phrased.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t have the nerve to discuss a book I hadn’t read. I’d fall flat on my face. Was it Twain who said, “Better to remain silent and be thought the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” That would be me.
LikeLike
I’m curious about this book and may try it someday, so it’s interesting to hear your thoughts. It does seem that Bayard’s theory is a bit limited. I might agree with him in part, but would want to broaden what he says. But this does seem like the perfect book to abandon mid-way — he’s just asking for it, isn’t he?
LikeLike
The minute you start connecting reading to something called “cultural literacy,” you lose me. Thank you for giving me the heads up on a book that I can now talk about comfortably without having read (and without having the desire to read, because, you know, half the time I talk about a book I haven’t read, it’s to talk about how I want to read it and what I think I’ll get out of it when I finally do).
LikeLike
Somehow the book seems to have done its job if you can talk about it without having actually read it. I have enough trouble talking about the books I Have read, so I’d better stick to those! As for his “situating something into the collective library of literature”, I think it would be hard and maybe a little unfair to do so with books you really have not read. I read books for pleasure too, any “becoming culturally literate” would be a byproduct (a good one) of the process for me, I think. Interesting post.
LikeLike
I read this book the same way you did; first carefully, then skimming, then skipping, and then just giving up. I couldn’t articulate why quite so well as you have, but now I can just agree with your reasoning! His theory of cultural literacy just wasn’t doing it for me.
LikeLike
Suko, you are so right that the book’s title begs that it not be read! There has been enough about the book in reviews and what not that I am sure you have gotten the gist and don’t need to read it.
Daphne, I didn’t know you were in a book club! That is interesting that even if you haven’t read the book you are still allowed to offer up opinions. I’ve been in groups when you were welcome to attend but if you hadn’t read the book you weren’t allowed to say anything about it.
Gentle Reader, no doubt the author of the books would be delighted that so many who have not read the book are talking about it! 🙂
BooksPlease, I am with you on the pointlessness of reading a book just so you could say you read it. The Renard quote, glad you like it, is from The Journals of Jules Renard.
Litlove, your husband is right, the book is rather academic. Kudos to him for finishing though I thought it funny that he did a lot of skimming. The book cries out for it.
Biblibio, thanks! And yes, you are right about the argument. For Bayard it is more important to know about the book rather than read it.
Grad, heh, you and me both! I would give away the fact I hadn’t read the book so fast I would too ashamed to show my face again.
Dorothy, oh yes, he is asking for the book to be abandoned. I bet you would find the book interesting since you teach literature. If you read it, I would love to hear what you think of it.
Emily, connecting reading and cultural literacy is a tricky thing. In the U.S. I think cultural literacy gets translated to literary canon but that is not what Bayard means. Still, I balk at the idea of reading to be culturally literate.
Danielle, you are right and I find the irony humorous. I’m with you, cultural literacy is a nice byproduct but it does not drive my reading.
Melanie, I am glad to hear you had a similar reading experience! When I started skipping all but a few sentences on the page I knew I wasn’t going to make it to the end of the book.
LikeLike