I really enjoyed reading these excerpts, both for the interesting ideas Bayard discusses and for the way he writes. His language is accessible and quite witty in a subtle way, for example: ‘there is more than one way not to read, the most radical of which is not to open a book at all’. In regards to the content of the book, non-reading wasn’t really something I had thought about a lot previously, I suppose in part because it isn’t something that is talked about very much. Bayard refers to non-reading as a ‘forbidden subject’, one of the reasons for which he suggests is that in literary circles particular texts are ‘worshipped’. In this sense, it may be seen as sacrilege to be a non-reader of them. I certainly have experienced (along with lots of other people in the course, judging from class discussions and blogs) some sense of guilt for not having read certain ‘essential’ canonical texts, as well as an awareness of my mortality which means that I will miss out on reading a lot of wonderful books.
Although this idea that ‘even a prodigious reader never has access to more than a infinitesimal fraction of the books that exist’ was not so new to me, I really hadn’t thought very much about the conflict that Bayard goes on to develop in the example of Musil’s librarian. That is, the conflict between reading books and at the same time not losing perspective, rather being able to situate a book within the whole ‘collective library’ that exists. Bayard states that for the ‘true reader’ the totality of books counts, not individual books, and it is a little difficult to know whether he is serious at this point. Although certainly one of his key ideas is that having perspective is important, I don’t think that he is advocating a complete non-reading stance, as can be seen in his satirical approach to Valery’s non-reading. For examples, he writes of a section of Valery’s work that it ‘is devoted to Proust, whom it is difficult to avoid mentioning entirely’, hinting at the ridiculous consequences that may arise from trying to write of topics one doesn’t know in depth. Regardless of what exactly is Bayard’s intention, I think what I have taken away from this work is that perspective is important. But also, from my reaction to the suggestion that books perhaps shouldn’t be read, that I think books are really great, often for very different reasons, and it would be such a pity to have missed out on some of the books that I love.
Lastly, this book challenged my understanding of the process of reading, particularly when Bayard points out that reading a book in its entirety is rare. This made me think, when I read, do I read every word? Do I even read every sentence? I guess this made me realise that the line between reading and not reading is not as clear as I thought before.
Hi Evie- Kira here- After reading your blog I couldn't help but consider my own reading habits-especially in the ideology of exactly how it is we read even the books we are actually reading!I had to ask myself- Do I read every word, sentence, image? And even if I do -am I giving the language, theme, intent as much attention and concentration as I think I am? It is quite a minefield to walk through as we discover that the perception of reading has multiple dimensions and we may be engaging with one, many or none of them as we move through our literary life!
ReplyDeleteEvie, I had the same reaction to Bayard's reading. Reflecting upon my own reading habits, I found that I am more inclined to read books I enjoy closely (i.e. reading every word), than compulsory reading for uni, which I usually skim. I think there's quite an interesting relationship between the professional reading we do for university and Bayard's arguments.
ReplyDeleteI just can't skim! Especially uni books, I am convinced i'm missing something. Which is why I had so many problems with Bayard, noting his witt of course, but still feeling more anxious thinking I would have to lie or skim than I am about not being able to read enough.
ReplyDeletegargh, I mean *wit.
ReplyDeleteI also found myself challenged by Bayard's ideas of reading and how it is rare to read a book entirely. I tend to feel a sense of disappointment in myself when I DON'T read a book cover to cover and can't seem to get behind the ideas of skimming. Perhaps I need a few more Bayard inspired lessons on reading. Good post!
ReplyDeleteI think you are right about the one thing we draw from Bayard, that being that perspective seems to be key. But, for some reason, I'm very unwilling to agree that perspective is as important as he says. I think he's still buying into the need for wide reading to be an educated reader - he's just altered the criteria for what he considers reading. If, for some strange reason, you had only read (in all his defintions of reading) one book in your entire life, I don't know if you necessarily are less equipped to comment about literature
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of these comments and think there is a big difference in reading for pleasure and reading for uni, especially when some of these readings are so difficult to get your head around (for me at least). Whilst Bayard presents and interesting idea about simply placing a text in its place within literature I too would feel like I'm missing out on too much if I never actually read anything properly, or at all.
ReplyDeleteI love that Bayard points out that reading books in their entirety is rare, and some of us agree with what he says, others disagree, but in the end, we've only read two short chapters, and we're already experts on Bayard... and probably won't get around to reading his full book.
ReplyDelete