How to talk about books you haven\u2019t read \u2013 Pierre Bayard<\/p>\n
\u201cLong my imprisoned spirit lay
\nFast bound in sin and nature\u2019s night;
\nThine eye diffused a quickening ray
\nI woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
\nMy chains fell off, my heart was free,
\nI rose, went forth, and read no more!\u201d<\/p>\n
I loved this book, mostly due to its honesty. Apart from novels, which I adore, I am a famous skim reader, contents expert and appendix reviewer. I know many things about many things that I know very little about, but when combined, I know quite a bit \u2013 I think. The opening quote by Oscar Wilde, \u201cI never read a book I must review; it prejudices you so\u201d, is a spectacular antithesis to the claims of the literati.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Many years ago, I attempted to read Tolstoy\u2019s, War and Peace, principally because it is an acclaimed masterpiece of Russian literature. It was incredibly boring. There were no heroes and far too many characters, most of whom I had forgotten within pages of having encountered them. Though I shamefully gave up, I had read enough to get the gist, but I have always been plagued with guilt. I experienced the same effect with Dostoyevsky \u2013 he was undoubtedly a fabulous thinker, but he was hardly a page-turner in print. Thus, my new friend, Pierre, has assuaged my conscience.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Reading French translated to English often feels a little stilted, but from my jottings along the way, three things caught my attention that provided a framework I found helpful:<\/p>\n \u201cIn truth we never talk about a book unto itself; a whole set of books always enters the discussion through the portal of a single title, which serves as a temporary symbol for a complete conception of culture. In every such discussion, our inner libraries \u2014 built within us over the years and housing all our secret books \u2014 come into contact with the inner libraries of others, potentially provoking all manner of friction and conflict.\u201d Having a broad knowledge of previous influences without necessarily knowing the specific details of their writing gives me a frame of reference to check-out and critique my own thinking based on other material I know is out there.<\/li>\n Interestingly, I read an online article a couple of years back titled, \u201cSkim reading is the new normal. The effect on society is profound\u201d[5]<\/a> The article is based on research studying digital technology\u2019s effect on attention span and comprehension. Clinical observations seem to show that those handling paper books comprehend more than those using digital instruments.\u00a0 But more worrying was the modern generations inability to remain focussed while reading. However, I have also read that an equal claim was made in the 18th<\/sup> century about reading had hindered the ability to listen, which was the primary way of learning prior to the development of the printing press in the 16th<\/sup> century.[6]<\/a> Whatever the case, the ability to engage with ever increasing amounts of information, opinion and research is not going to get easier, and Bayer\u2019s cheeky little book is yet another useful step in handling ever-increasing volumes of written material.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Pierre Bayard, How to Talk About Books You Haven\u2019t Read<\/em>, trans. Jeffrey Mehlman (London: Grants Books : Kobo Edition, 2008). Epigraph<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ibid. Chapter 1 p3<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ibid. Chapter 5 p7<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Ibid. Chapter 3<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nFor we are more than simple shelters for our inner libraries; we are the sum of these accumulated books. Little by little, these books have made us who we are, and they cannot be separated from us without causing us suffering.<\/em>\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n