- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostPlanning for the Lord's Day
- Next Post »A La Carte (5/10)
How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read
- 05/09/10
- 29
How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read is a book by Pierre Bayard, a professor of French literature at the University of Paris. In what is a bit of a provocative book and one that relies on more than a small measure of wit, Bayard argues that not having read a book does not need to serve as an impediment in having an interesting and intelligent discussion about it. He goes so far as to argue that in some cases the worst thing you can do, the thing that would most dishonor a book, is to read it.
“Reading is first and foremost non-reading,” he says. “Even in the case of the most passionate lifelong readers, the act of picking up and opening a book masks the countergesture that occurs at the same time: the involuntary act of not picking up and not opening all the other books in the universe.” Therefore even the most prolific reader does far more non-reading than he does reading and makes far more decisions not to read than to read. Non-reading is a genuine activity as much as reading is a genuine activity. It is not just the mere absence of reading; it is a choice not to read particular works. And yet, he argues, non-reading should not prohibit us from having intelligent and guilt-free discussion about books we have chosen not to read.
So tell me. What do you think of his book?
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (29)
I’m guessing this book won’t sell very well. If it does, it seems to defeat the basic premise of the book.
It strikes me as a book that one ought not to dishonor in the least, especially in the manner he cautions against.
I wonder if he would likewise consider it dishonoring to a book if one purchases it.
It sounds quite interesting, and I have no intention of reading it!
I haven’t read it, so I’m pretty sure it’s awful.
If I were a gambling man, I’d put ten bucks down that says he objects to the first reviewer who “misrepresents his position” by opining that the reviewer should’ve paid better attention to what he was saying.
waitaminute…is “Pierre Bayard” a pseudonym for N.T. Wright????
He’s right, of course. One reason we have book reviews is so that we can choose what books we are NOT going to read and know why we are not going to read them.
Thanks to many many people (like Phil Johnson) I don’t have to read every book of shaky or bad theology ever produced to know that I don’t agree with them and why.
I’m probably going to choose to leave this one on the shop shelf, and pick up something different.
This perhaps gives proof to his point?
Best book I’ve never read. Going by this review, I would probably like it.
It sounds like he has a point, but I hadn’t thought of it in that light. In particular, I hadn’t thought of not letting not reading be an impediment to engaging in intelligent discussion about the book.
It sounds like it might be a worthwhile read — there are many times in my professional career when discussions come up about books I haven’t read for some reason or another. Being able to engage in meaningful discussion on them without deceptively trying to fake it is a desirable skill.
It sounds like what people do with the Bible. They state, “Of course I have read the Bible and know what is in it! That is how I can argue against it. Now, what page did you say that scripture was?”
Thanks for pointing to this Tim. I have added it to my growing list of books in my Amazon wish list. So many books, so little time. Maybe this book will help with that problem.
He sounds cracked to me.
I feel profoundly more enlightened for having not read this book.
I think the quotation you gave from book has caused me to read far more of the book than necessary to form a non-opionion from non-reading than I can legitimately do, sir!
Hilarious!
I’m pretty sure I tried that identical reasoning (in different language, of course) with some of my teachers in Jr. High. Apparently they weren’t smart enough to be persuaded by it. That may have something to do with why I failed 7th grade literature class. [JK]
Well, his book is ok, but the book by that Challies guy is really something!!
Sound like an intellectualized excuse for laziness and that ignorance deserves an equal seat at the table of otherwise informed discussion.
The principle is interesting, but I don’t agree with his methodology.
I can’t tell you what I think about it because I haven’t read it yet… oh wait a second.
For several years I did a weekly call-in program for the Family Life Network based in Bath, NY. Often I’d interview an author (taped)…and I can’t remember the number of times the author (usually very well-known and thus often interviewed) would say, after we went off-mike, “Yo, jack, you really read my book, huh?” Which amazed me…since I only interviewed authors of books I’d recommend…oh well
Its a rubbish book. The author is to be commended for writing a book on the subject of why we shouldn’t read books. In Europe he’d get a subsidy for that. In short, it’s a tremendous book.
So many serious commentators.
LOL! Brilliant!
Although I’m a prolific reader (relatively, probably not in comparison with Tim), I have never had an interest in literature as a subject of study PRECISELY because you do not need to read a book to fake your way through a conversation (or in my case, a French lit exam).
Don’t believe me? On my second-year exam, the ONLY question for which I got a perfect mark was the one about the ONLY book I didn’t read AT ALL. Clearly my biggest mistake in that class was to read some of the other ones!
I don’t think you can have an intelligent, in-depth discussion about a book without having read it. If he really is serious about that, he’s crazy. But I have a feeling he’s not serious.
But I DO think there’s merit to the idea that you can at least form an opinion on a book based on reliable people’s accounts of it. Do we refrain form having opinions on our political leaders because we haven’t spoken to them and spent hours with them? No, we base our opinions based on others’ description of them, and a limited number of things they’ve said (such as you’d find a limited portion of a book’s content in a review.) I think the idea that you can’t have ANY idea about a book if you haven’t read it is silly. If what you’re saying about the book accurately describes its content, why should cogent objections or commendations based on that accurately described content be ruled out?
Having made the conscious decision to not read this book, I think it probably would have been semi-interesting.
This could radically revamp the process of book reviews on this site. Maybe it already has. I think I’m going to begin commenting on your book reviews without reading them. If we both follow this discussion, we’ll have a wonderful example of irrational conversation. No one will read anything but everyone will know everything. Kind of like an Anglican Bible study.
I think will choose not to read Bayard’s book. I presume the book is a toungue in cheek handling of the subject. Frankly, if this is not a tongue in cheek handling of the subject, I believe we have just discovered the souorce thinking for the preponderance of all blogs, Tim’s blog excluded.
I’m reminded of all the Christians who told me to just read “The Shack” and that I couldn’t really discuss it’s contents if I had not read the book (even though I could discuss specific aspects of the author, his worldview, and many of the specific topics from the book, thanks to many good reviews of the book from Tim and others).
Yet, all they kept pointing to was how it changed their view of their relationship with God (and the rest of the Godhead) and their view of suffering (even though both of the views from the book were NOT biblical, which I was unable to get them to understand or even ponder).
I thought the book is established on an intriguing premise. The author belabored a few points, and the middle chapters were a bit overlong. Some may find his writing style a bit pretentious. But all in all, I believe it is well worth not reading.
Why, no, I haven’t read it. Why do you ask?
:-)