Reading: Bayard’s How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read (2007)
To side-step the pleasingly tongue-in-cheek, the assuaging and the pragmatic allure of Bayard's proposal, and to cut straight to his thesis and my response, and perhaps to get overly serious--
I can't affirm this provocative argument that "specialists" (that-is-to-say lecturers, advocates of literature) should renounce reading for active non-reading. Bayard's concept is that by skimming “books about books”, perusing catalogues and glancing at back-covers, instead of reading individual books, these specialists develop a "cultural orientation" that speaks to the heart of the matter, in his esteem, which is the "relations between books", demonstrating a "love" of the totality of literature.
It is ironic that these "specialists" cannot come up with much probingly specific content within this frame. Rather, they have an impressive faculty to feign (or hit accurately upon) the specific via a cultural compass that is so finely tuned as to be able to “deeply” place a book on a quick and surface encounter with it. This is disquieting if remarkable: the priming of the mind to become a sort of catalogue. Although it is good to maintain perspective, Bayard’s active non-reading, adopted single-mindedly, appears performative, illusory and sterile. What is there beneath this elegant cultural soliloquising? What new light can the active non-reader shed on a text? Active non-reading is surely hollow, reductive to a bigger and greedier picture, and self-involved.
A valuation of Bayard’s approach depends on the purpose an individual has with regard to books. If theirs is the goal of mastery within the intellectual and literary sphere, or the appearance of this, then I concede that his is appealing. However, the naïve student cannot remain quiet about the glaring lack that is evident in all this. The emphasis on the "system" of ideas is missing all the delicious minutiae. Minutiae are condemned as something that can be "drowned" in, but this drowning does not need to be negative. What about Cavallo and Chartier’s espousal of probingly “through” a text? Surely an academic can devote themselves to pouring over an assortment of the canonical texts within their area, and temper this with some non-reading on the side, and be enriched and stimulated with this combination? Why does Bayard place active non-reading in such a position of replacement and dominance?
Bayard’s active non-reading does not spend the time and effort required to enter into the text in an attitude of open interpretation that, if attempted, yields rich results and may reward the reader with surprise. Bayard does not give due merit to surprise, uniqueness or closeness and infinite possibility of the connection between the interpreter and the text.
I guess I didn't take this reading as seriously as other people seem to have done! I just thought it was kind of amusing. I also thought it really validated anyone who is a professional reader, without necessarily being an academic, and who really is better off having a more objective view on individual books, such as booksellers. But of course, it's an alarming philosophy to take as rote and actively follow.
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether active non-reading is a secret mantra among bookshop staff, whether this forms part of their special training.
ReplyDeleteAs amusing (and slightly alarming) as I found this reading, I have to say I somewhat agree with you. I found his techniques of 'non reading' absolutely fascinating and it changed how I would think of being a consumer and a 'reader' to a 'non reader'. I do find it highly unethical for specialists to talk with authority about books that they have 'non reading'. The connection between the interpreter and the text can be more active, the closer the connection is, and I agree with you that active non-reading can undermine that. I do think it is an interesting theory in so far as illustrating different ways of reading - that is by non reading, and I think taking it down a few degrees makes it a very useful strategy, as long as you say 'I have encountered' rather than 'I have read' especially for 'specialists' when talking about their topic! But that is just me being pedantic!
ReplyDeleteI guess this article makes not reading appear less shameful. There's a lot of embarrassment involved in not having read something you want to refer to, but it may not be significant enough to waste time on. Nobody can read every book they will want to read, or 'should' read. I think this article dispels a bit of the guilt involved in not having read every canonical text and takes the pressure off ever wishing to achieve this.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally ironic is Bayard's extensive use of a fictional character to illustrate his point. Doesn't this contradict his whole approach to 'non reading'? That the intrinsic ideas of the isolated text should be subordinated to the relation of ideas between books? (Although yes I can appreciate he is trying to maintain that he can speak 'authoritatively' on texts he has not read.)
ReplyDelete