Why reading is not fundamental
I must admit that I hadn鈥檛 read more than a few sentences of Pierre Bayard鈥檚 How to Talk About Books You Haven鈥檛 Read before I found myself thinking, 鈥淭here鈥檚 no way he really believes this.鈥� After all, how likely is it that a French intellectual (psychoanalyst and professor of French literature at the Sorbonne) is going to publicly suggest that too much reading may not be good for you?
And that there is a certain virtue to nonreading? And yet that鈥檚 exactly the way that Bayard begins his trim little treatise (which is, by the way, laced with references to literature).
And so I certainly felt wary as I inched into the preface. 鈥淲e still live in a society, on the decline though it may be,鈥� notes Bayard, 鈥渨here reading remains the object of a kind of worship.鈥� It is to break through this mind set, Bayard explains, that 鈥渢hroughout this book, I will insist on the risks of reading 鈥� so frequently underestimated 鈥� for anyone who intends to talk about books, and even more so for those who plan to review them.鈥�
Okay, so he鈥檚 being clever, I figured. He鈥檚 French after all, and probably very comfortable with irony. And he has certainly read Shakespeare鈥檚 鈥�Julius Caesar鈥� in which the wily Mark Anthony announces, 鈥淚 come to bury Caesar, not to praise him,鈥� and then does quite the opposite.
But no, long before I reached the epilogue I realized that Bayard is quite serious. (And if he鈥檚 ever read 鈥淛ulius Caesar鈥� he鈥檚 certainly not going to brag about it.)
Too much reading 鈥� and too untempered a respect for the literary canon 鈥� is neither a good nor a necessary thing, Bayard insists, and he quotes some impressive literary sources in defense of this thesis. Among the reasons for not reading: there are too many books and serious readers tend to lose the forest for the trees (a notion suggested by Austrian novelist Robert Musil), there鈥檚 no reason you can鈥檛 comment on a book you鈥檝e simply skimmed (from French poet Paul Val茅ry), and even if you have read a book you may well have forgotten most of it (French essayist Montaigne).
Bayard also offers some practical tips of his own (鈥淭here is only one sensible piece of advice to give to those who find themselves having to talk to an author about one of his books without having read it: praise it without going into detail鈥�) and wrings a bit of wisdom from pop culture along the way (the film 鈥淕roundhog Day鈥� is examined as 鈥渢he ideal way to seduce someone by speaking about books he or she loves without having read them yourself鈥�.)
But it was only in the epilogue that Bayard finally convinced me of the serious nature of his intentions. It鈥檚 all about creativity, he explains. Readers who worship too intensely at the altar of other people鈥檚 books will probably never write their own 鈥� or even have a truly original reaction to someone else鈥檚 work. 鈥淭he paradox of reading is that the path toward ourselves passes through books, but that this must remain a passage,鈥� he explains. 鈥淚t is a traversal of books that a good reader engages in 鈥� a reader who knows that every book is the bearer of some part of himself and can give him access to it, if only he has the wisdom not to end his journey there.鈥�
Now only a man who truly loves to read could have written something like that.
