To Read or Not To Read
How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read
Pierre Bayard
A psychoanalyst and a professor of French literature at the University of Paris, Bayard advances several types of non-reading and makes the case, that non-reading is far more common than reading and that in order to talk about a book there is no need of having read it. The latter third of the book proposes strategies for discussing books you haven't read.
The book starts by correctly noting, that in the endless abundance of books in existence, we are destined never to read but an infinitesimal fraction of them, no matter how voracious reads we may be. Furthermore, of the books we do read, we interpret the words, not as the author intended them, but as our personal filters and prisms allow. Therefore, two people reading the same book never actually read the same book and even if we were to read a book twice, we would actually be reading a different book the second time around, because our filters have changed in the meantime. Bayard calls this interpretation an inner book. And even having read it and interpreted it, a little while later we retain but an idea of the book, if that, because of the way our memory works.
Of course, herein lies perhaps the greatest omission of Bayard's argument, for his focus is solely on the result of reading, and even that partially, not on the process of reading. For many people, it is the process of getting a cup of tea, lighting a candle and sitting down with a good book, the physical and mental state of reading, that makes reading worthwhile, not the information content retained. When I say, that even his result orientation is partial, I mean of course that, which was already stated above. Reading a book the second time, we are actually reading a different book, because we have changed. But it is the reading for the first time, that has changed us. This change of the I is never mentioned by Bayard. Of course, he is not trying to make the case, that reading in its entirety is pointless, just that we should not be afraid to discuss books we haven't read.
He then goes on to list categories of non-reading from skimming to simply being able to place the book in its cultural context (or the shared virtual library, as Bayard refers to it), having heard others speak of it or knowing something of the author. The idea of the book taking second stage to the identity and social position of the author is perhaps the hardest for me to agree to, even if I know this to be factually true in many cases.
Having established the various forms of non-reading, he goes on to look at ways that people (with special focus given to critics) talk about books they haven't read. In the final chapter, he arrives at the conclusion, that literary criticism is a separate form of creation or art and no more needs to adhere to the text being criticised than an artist needs to adhere to the landscape being painted. It serves as an inspiration or as an excuse, but no more. Oscar Wilde has said, according to Bayard, that a critic needs but a ten-minute sample of the book to tell how good it is, just like you merely need a sip of wine to tell how good it is, not to drink the entire bottle.
Another aspect of the conclusion is, that speaking of books, we are actually speaking of ourselves. Criticism is an autobiography. And that if we get too deep into the book and the story, we get distanced from ourselves. Of course, for me personally, that is often the very reason for reading.
I found the first half of the book good food for thought and little in there to disagree with. The second half was an interesting intellectual meditation, yet even if true, I found it not too praiseworthy. I will prefer to keep reading books from cover to cover, but then I'm not a critic working under time pressure, but someone who delights in the process of reading. Just as an epicure is not eating for nourishment, a significant part of my reading is not for knowledge, but the enjoyment of reading itself.
However, I do suspect, that one effect of reading this book will be evident the next time I visit a bookstore. I will be much more likely to sample without buying because unlike wine, books are free to sample. Previously, I've always felt I needed to buy if I skimmed and found the book interesting. This sometimes prevented me from skimming, because I had enough unread books at home and did not want to add to them. Another effect is starting to write this very blog.
An interesting detail. Towards the beginning of the book, Bayard takes a chapter where he uses In The Name of The Rose to illustrate his point about non-reading. At the end of the chapter, he claims the library in the abbey was saved. I read and reread and was certain, that it burned down completely. I continued reading Bayard's book, leaving the matter unsolved but kept thinking about it at the back of the brain. Several chapters on, I realized, that this must have been a deliberate mistake and expected a reference to this in the epilogue. Didn't have to wait that long — in the final chapter, Bayard explains the reason for making this and a few other “mistakes” in referencing books by other authors.
For anyone into reading, translating or otherwise working or living with books, Bayard's is an interesting argument to follow.