How NOT to talk about books you haven’t read…
How to NOT talk about books you haven’t read…
A little over a year ago a megachurch pstor was brought in to guest lecture as part of my Biblical Interpretation class that I was teaching (I did not have a say in the matter, although I was excited to share a small platform with him). It seems that the administration thought that as a pastor of one of the largest churches in America, he was automatically qualified to “teach” the art and science of hermeneutics. By the time this pastor was scheduled to show up and give his talks at this class, it was already halfway through the semester. As the pastor began teaching the class and describing how he goes about finding the meaning in scripture, some of the students began realizing that this pastor was saying things very different from what they had been reading in the Textbook Grasping God’s Word. One of my students who was very new to Christianity and church altogether (she had just been saved just a year prior) and was completely unaware (or didn’t care) of the status of this pastor, came out and point blank asked him as she held up her text book, “ummmm… have you read this book?” The pastor responded, “No. But I’ve read this book!” as he held up the Bible high into the air.
And this is what makes me most nervous about the book How to Talk About Books you Haven’t Read. That some would take these ideas and use it as a pass to have a lack of intellectual integrity in what you were teaching. Perhaps the prime difference here is that there is a distinction between talking about books you haven’t read, and teaching from books you haven’t read. Also, the post and attitude one holds as they talk about any subject can obviously make an vast difference.
But Pierre Bayard does not seem to be promoting a lack of integrity for academics, or anyone in anyway being hypocritical. Bayard’s major claim is that just because you haven’t ever read “such and such book” doesn’t mean you don’t know anything about it. You actually might, depending on the book, know quite a lot about it! You might even know more than someone else who has seen the book. I struggled with this book for a few weeks as the ideas rolled around in my head. But what helped me finally be won over to Bayard’s premise is by applying this same concept to many of the movies I haven’t seen. As of this writing, so far in all of my adult life I have never seen, The Godfather (any of them), Silence of the Lambs, Mean Girls, Gone with The Wind, Moana, Apocalypse Now, most of the Harry Potters, 12 Angry Men, Schindler’s List, or Psycho, just to name a few. But I honestly think I could hold an intellectual conversation about each of these movies because of how they and their ideas have been added into our culture. Many of these movies have references and idioms that are commonplace in our culture, that originate from these movies. This cultural injection us familiar with the ideas from the movies, without us actually having seen them. On the flipside, I know some people who have watched these movies, but have done so without any critical thinking and really have nothing to say about what that presentation was actually about.
And so now it’s easy to apply that same logic to the universe of books. There are many books I am familiar with, thanks to all of my others studies, as well as culture and even just regular conversation, which has enabled me to engage in meaningful conversation about it. Bayard is challenging his reader to respect their own intelligence enough to engage with these books, even if they have not submitted to their entire process the author decided they should take by publishing their book. In the end, this book was a book with one of the most unorthodox ideas I have been exposed it. In that sense, it was one of the more challenging and impactful books I have ever read. Impactful because I think it continues to adjust the way I read and learn for the rest of life.
Still though, one does risk the over speaking when it comes to attempting to talk about books you haven’t read. Perhaps this cliché is actually a valuable reminder to us, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.” Or perhaps the Biblical wisdom from Proverbs 17:28 “Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.”
Works Cited
Bayard, Pierre. How to Talk about Books You Haven’t Read. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2009.
7 responses to “How NOT to talk about books you haven’t read…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well said Kyle. I felt very cautious as well while reading this book because of the danger of endorsing the idea of misleading people possibly unintentionally. I liked your movie example and agree that many people talk about movies they have never seen, me being one of them, and they can have an intelligent conversation just the same. I’m still not sure how much I will venture into the world of talking about books I haven’t read, especially after your quoting of Prov. 17. Oh and also, if you are going to watch any of those movies, I would recommend Silence of the Lambs.
Great post Kyle! Though I completely see your perspective, I must admit, Bayard hasn’t won me over yet. I must say though, he has provoked my thinking substantially, and has been the source of a few conversations with others as a result of that provocation. I suppose that my views lie more closely with your final comments that those that are displayed by Bayard. I can carry on a conversation regarding a movie, book, or even a political viewpoint that I know very little about, but I believe sooner or later my ignorance will be found out. At that point in the conversation, I risk losing all credibility for the future, and that it is a huge thing to risk.
I have a daughter that has had a great life, filled with many exciting things, and yet, she is prone to extreme exaggeration. As a result, I can tell you the exact moment in her story telling that her story goes from fact to fiction, and thus, I start tuning out. Though I love my daughter more than words can express, I have found myself waiting for that intersection in the story; it is actually disappointing to me. As I read Bayard’s retelling of stories, I could not help but wonder if he had actually read any of the stories he was sharing as illustrations; after all, was the point of the book to show that he could fabricate knowledge that he did not actually have? How do I get back the trust of the people I am sharing with the moment they feel that I am blowing smoke? Furthermore, as a minister, what happens if your congregation catches you doing something like this with a bible study; wouldn’t the risk of what you might lose just be too great?
It is not that I did not understand the point or even the purpose of what Bayard was trying to make, it was just that I was not won over by his methodology or reasoning.
I am sure there have been a few times I should have held my tongue too.
Bang on! Kyle, I really like how you came to your conclusions.
The story of the megachurch pastor was tragicomical… in other words, I’m laughing but I’m crying.
I’m trying to figure out where that mentality comes from, appealing to the Bible as the only way one would hear from God. It’s a rather anti-intellectual approach to faith, where we can’t seem to trust our minds (even though they are God-given).
What do you think?
Kyle,
Great insight on this book. I really enjoyed your take and how you compared Bayard’s premise to movies you have not seen. It is very easy, if you put in some work, to be able to have an intelligent discussion without seeing said movie or reading the book. I was a little leery going in as well but found Bayard was not suggesting we don’t read, just being able to speak intelligently about things that are seen as shared.
Hey Kyle, thanks for your post. Really interesting comparison about films that you know about well that you haven’t seen. I started to do the same thing, thinking about all the movies that I haven’t seen that I could fairly easily talk about–although, I probably couldn’t give you details of scenes and nuances of characters. I still struggle with Bayard’s premise and wonder if he does not address the issue of integrity as he should. Still, I was interested and found it helpful for the purpose of the number of books we are going to need to know well enough to talk about, without the time to actually read them. So there is the ideal, and there is the reality, I guess…
The connection with film is well put. I still wonder about Bayard though. If I haven’t seen the films or read the books but still feel I am in some position to speak about them does that let me off the hook from ever watching the films or reading the books. I hope not. You have rightly listed some very influential films and no doubt there would be other important films you could add to the list, not to mention books. For myself though, in spite of Bayard’s premise I feel like something is missing if I have not at least attempted to view or read these important works. Literature, like film, connects with a different part of culture than the one I think Bayard’s argument is addressing. Though he mentions influential literature, I think much of his argument is centered on more academic reading.
Hi Kyle,
My favorite quote from your writing was, “Perhaps the prime difference here is that there is a distinction between talking about books you haven’t read, and teaching from books you haven’t read.” Spot on my Brother!
And I appreciated your thought that followed, “Also, the post and attitude one holds as they talk about any subject can obviously make an vast difference.” Attitude matters!
Good to see you online today!