To Read or Not To Read…
That is the question at hand in How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read by Pierre Bayard. I suppose I could hone in on the chapter about Groundhog Day, one of the best movies of the last 50 years, but there was a moment in my reading where I had to ask myself, did the author actually watch the movie or was he just talking about something he had not seen. I will explain myself with a video.
Bill Murray on French majors (Groundhog Day)[640×480]
In his discussion on Bill Murray’s character talking to his desired conquest Bayard says “Rita confides to him that her college studies did not initially incline her toward a career in television, and when Phil asks for details, she tell him, ‘I studied nineteenth-century Italian poetry'”[1] If you have watched my clip then you will know this is not what she said. He then goes on to say when Murray’s character does learn Italian (we know that it is French) he attributes a quote to the character which is not even in the film, “he is able to recite, with considerable pathos, excerpts form the libretto of Rigoletto, as the young woman looks on admiringly”[2] This movie is quite possibly my favorite movie, so his butchering of such an important scene calls into question if he has ever seen it. I guess that is the point of the book. Most who read it will never question what he is talking about because they assume he is right. I will let that go for now.
Instead, I want to focus first on chapter three, Books You Have Heard Of. I have not read Umberto Eco’s book The Name of the Rose, but I have seen the movie staring Sean Connery (yes Shawn that is how he spells his name;) and Christian Slater. The chapter focuses on books you may not have read but have heard enough about them to be able to talk about them. The book and movie center on an abbey that has had a questionable death. Connery’s character, William of Baskerville, along with a young monk who comes along with him is tasked with finding out what happened in the strange death. While they are there several more deaths occur and William starts to deduce there have been murders surrounding the existence of a book. The book turns out to be the second volume of Aristotle’s Poetics which has been lost not seen by very many people living at the time of the book. The book was on laughter and humor which an older monk. Jorge de Burgos, has taken upon himself to hide, and kill anyone who tries to access the book. He tells William the reason is because laughter and humor draw people away from God, there should only be solemn contemplation when it comes to God.
The point of the chapter is this, by deducing that the book is from Aristotle, and knowing the first volume was not hidden, William is able to talk with Jorge about the book without ever having read it. It flows, according to Bayard, from logic. First it was an extension of what was already known, and by knowing the subject of volume one he can deduce the subject of volume two. The argument also follows if you know the works of an author, you can guess with a high degree of accuracy how a book not read with flow because authors tend to walk the same path. “All works by the same author present more or less perceptible similarities of structure, and beyond their manifest differences, they secretly share a common way of ordering reality.”[3]
Bayard also discusses a third element that was necessary in this instance, the visceral reaction externally of Jorge. He discusses the changes that happen when we read an author and how it invokes our reactions. This is how William ascertains the subject and probably a great insight into what the books discusses. It had created such fear in Jorge, he decided it was God’s call on him to kill anyone who had read it, and to also dispose of the book so that it may never harm the faith of someone who read it.
The sad part is Bayard points out that neither man would ever be able to read it because one was blind, Jorge, and one could not read it because of the poison put on its pages, William. Thus they only have illusions of what it could be. “To Jorge, Aristotle’s book is a locus for his anxieties about threats to the church, while for Baskerville it provides support for his relativistic reflections on faith.”[4] Bayard ultimately stays on the path that even if we are willing to risk our lives for something it may not even be what we expect it to be.
I was also intrigued by the two chapters, Not Being Ashamed, and Imposing Your Ideas. These two chapters were at polar opposites on not reading a book. In Not Being Ashamed, talks about a character in two books A Small World and Changing Places. The character is named Philip Swallow, and he is the object of anger in both books. In the first the character Robin Dempsey is conversing with what he thinks is a computer AI system that he seems to feel comfort in talking about his anger at Swallow for getting a position he feels is rightly his. He speaks ill of Swallow and then is confronted with the fact that someone is controlling the computer and having the discussion with him, not the computer’s AI. He has stated he has not read his rivals book and never intends to do so because he knows the writer, has contempt for him, and thus feels he knows the book is not worth his time. In the second book, the same man, Philip Swallows, introduces a game called Humiliation, where you win by admitting you have not read some great work, and others have read it. A professor, Howard Ringbaum, is the type of person who cannot lose, but to admit he has not read something kills him on the inside. He loses the first round because he chose a work that was very obscure and no one had read it. He is so angry at losing he chooses to go all in and yells Hamlet, no one believes an english professor has not read it and he reacts violently and they acquiesce in shock. The next thing we know Howard has lost his job as a english professor because, let’s face it, who wants an english professor who has not read Hamlet. His shame in losing cost him everything. The next chapter Imposing Your Ideas, goes just the opposite. A writer and critic finds out it is not what you have read but who you are as you review what you have not read that matters. In fact, reading is seen as below those who review books and the task is given to what seems to be a woman of the night. Both chapters seem to point to being honest with what you read, but not relying on just that. It seems in our quest to be well read, we have to understand who we are reading, why we are reading it and then jump to our own conclusions.
This book was enjoyable and caused me to think about how I would read and then what would be the best way to interact with those who may or may not have read the same thing.
[1] Pierre Bayard. How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read. (New York: Bloomsbury, 2007), 106.
[2] Ibid, 107.
[3] Ibid, 40.
[4] Ibid, 45.
About the Author
Jason Turbeville
A pastor, husband and father who loves to be around others. These are the things that describe me. I was a youth minister for 15 years but God changed the calling on my life. I love to travel and see where God takes me in my life.7 responses to “To Read or Not To Read…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jason,
Your detective skills on Bayard’s Ground Hog buffoonery are keen. I did a little cold-case review myself and found that the poem Bill recites in the pub is from a Belgian songwriter and singer Jacques Brel song – rather than a 19th century French poem. The song was a popular 50’s Belgian pop song! Really! Belgian’s speak Dutch, French, and German. I did not see any translations of the song into Italian, so you may have Bayard there.
Thanks for sharing the section on “deducing” author’s other works. I pulled a Bayard and did not read that chapter, but anticipated that he had applied human nature like you said, by walking the same path, makes most books and authors predictable. As non-readers, anticipating the probable outcome of the books we read helps us focus on the connections, relationships, and ideas that matter the most to our research journey.
How will Bayard’s techniques help you research your dissertation problem?
Stand firm,
M. Webb
http://metro.co.uk/2016/02/02/24-facts-you-never-knew-about-bill-murrays-greatest-movie-groundhog-day-5658114/
https://medium.com/@remiray/the-subtle-brilliance-of-groundhog-day-a98da19a7232
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Brel
Mike,
My guess is I should be able to look over multiple books by the same author without having to read most of them. I could also be able to find more books based on the subject the author tends to write on. I think this book is going to be very useful.
Hi Jason!
You did some thorough evaluation of Bayard! I read your paragraph about A Small World and Changing Places multiple times trying to discern if you pulled your analysis from Bayard, or truly read those two books (I admittedly didn’t read the entire book and implemented the “talking about a book I haven’t read method”.) Either way, you were very convincing that you did read the books in your example. If not, good application of our material this week :). Well done!
Jean,
I will admit I have not read either book but was absolutely intrigued enough to read about them…I tried his methods and I guess did well. I appreciate your feedback. Hope your weekend was great!
His reference to Groundhog Day really got the attention of a few of us and I so appreciated your detailed knowledge of the movie to point out his inaccuracies, which I think is incredibly ironic. Maybe he should have subtitled his book…”and how to talk about movies you haven’t seen” as well. I also love how you focused on the chapter about shame and guilt since I deal with this issue at great length with many of my clients. Great post Jason and let’s hope the groundhog doesn’t see his shadow. 🙂
Jason! This is brilliant. Who knew your many times of watching this movie was actually research you could use for your dissertation.
Seriously though this makes me take up the motto again, Trust No One!
Hi Jason,
I will piggyback on Kyle’s quote to “trust no one” and also Mike’s quote from our ZOOM today about “If their lips are moving, they are lying.”
These have both reminded me, as have you, to check our sources and make sure we are accurate in our research conclusions and quotations. Wise advice indeed and thanks for the reminder…