How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read

This is slightly off topic I know but it is a wonderfully written review and perhaps should be on the required reading list for this group, if you want to through in a few comments about a book you haven't actually had time to read all the way through (or maybe didn't get past the back cover reviews). Not that I would ever do that of course.

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=24...

That was a pretty interesting - and hilarious - review. Has anyone actually read the book? I don't know if I could pay money for something that attempted to make the point-

Because we can read only a fraction of all the books published, he writes, “all reading is a squandering of energy.”

I imagine that people in this group wouldn't need to fake it because 1.) the analysis of a book on the group posts tends to be in depth and reference specific incidents and details (as opposed to just one sweeping generalization, or if sweeping generalization is made, it's usually well supported) so it would be too difficult to fake it for whatever literary points you'd score and 2.) if someone wanted to get in on a discussion, they can just bring up another book (one they'd actually read) that related in some way to the topic at hand. Sometimes I look at the title of a posting and it bears almost no relation to the most recent post! But it's more fun and interesting that way - you never know where the discussion will lead.

On another note, a good way to avoid the Tolstoy question (and seem very literary in the process without technically lying) is, if anyone asks if you've read/liked his novels: "I'm going to have to agree with Henry James' assessment of Tolstoy - his novels are 'loose, baggy monsters'" and can go on to either say you prefer his shorter stuff (if you've read it) or just say you prefer some other classic author (preferably one you've read)

Caz, can you give us an alternative way to get to this review? The address you gave wasn't working when I tried it. I assume its nymag.com - what book was reviewed?

I'm especially interested, because many books are discussed in this group that I haven't read, either ever or in a very long time, but in such a thought-provoking way that I am constantly being "provoked" to add my own 2 cents to the discussion!

You may have to cut and paste the address into the top of your browser.

It is a nymag.com review by Sam Anderson of How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read by Pierre Bayard. Bloomsbury USA. 208 pages. $19.95

Thanks, everyone! Cutting and pasting worked. I seem to be always a step behind everyone else in my facility with computers.

What an absolutely wonderful review about a deeply ridiculous book. Definitely LOL material. If Bayard has read it, he must be fuming.

Evidently, I have been consistently violating the first principle of talking about books I haven't read (happily in company with Anderson) by saying up front that I haven't read them, if I haven't.

Here's a shorter web address for the review, for people who don't mind the version with all the advertising: http://www.nymag.com/arts/books/reviews/39578

Now someone needs to tell me how to put a web address into a message like this and make it serve as an actual link.

You did it. Except you need to key a return as line break, or use (a href=address)link(/a) tags or something; at the moment the following (br) tag and the "Now" are running into the address.
(For round bracket read angle bracket.)

>5 margad:

Yes. As MyopicBookworm said. Or you can simply copy and paste the address into your message. To have it "function as a link", be sure to have a space before and after it (enter doesn't count as a space). So, since your first space after the link was after the word "Now", the "now" was absorbed into the link. Just put a space after before you do the line-breaks.

Thanks, guys. I copied and pasted, and it just magically appeared as a link. Now I have added a space after the address, and that seems to have helped. But can you spell out what you mean by use (a href=address)link(/a) tags? Is that how I can make a word of my choice act as a link? I've been wanting to know precisely how to do that.

Your patience with me is much appreciated!

>8 margad:

margad,

Yes. To get a link to be a word of your choice:

I'm going to use } for > and { for the "less than" symbol. Just switch to > etc. to get functioning links.

To link to a page that's already in LT, type
{a href=/STUFF-AFTER-THE-LIBRARYTHING.COM}your text{/a}
That means, to link to margad's profile, you would type (doing the > substitutions):
{a href=/profile/margad}margad's profile{/a}

If you want to link to a page that isn't on LT, type
{a href="FULL ADDRESS HERE"}your text{/a}
That means, to link to Amazon, you would type:
{a href="http://www.amazon.com"}Amazon{/a}

This is also reviewed and excerpted in the New York Times for this weekend's book review pages now. What amused me most was the excerpt - reading it was like reading air, if that makes any sense. It just felt like words with no meaning or substance behind them.

The funny thing is that the NY Times review and parts of the excerpt raise really interesting points about the way we read and don't read books - in particular, that certain characteristics of books become part of general knowledge and people can talk about them without having read them. The example he uses is James Joyce's Ulysses, which is allegedly the most commonly owned unread book in all the world. :) He says that most educated people know three things about it - its a riff on Homer's Ulysses (which is going to touchstone to Joyce's now...), its written in a certain style, and its set in Dublin. With those three things, people bluff their way through conversations about the book and that's ok, according to the author, because its more important to know about the universe of books and the relative positions of books within that universe than to have read any one particular book.

The thing that strikes me about this argument is that it seems to reduce all books to trivia. Its like on Jeopardy when they ask a 'question' about some subject that seems hard but isn't really hard because they give you all the clues in the 'question' itself - like the subject will be "Existential Literature" or something and the 'question' is "Jean-Paul Sartre, who penned Troubled Sleep and Saint Genet, lived in what European country?" I HATE those! You don't have to know anything about Sartre or existentialism or even books to answer that.

Trying again: NY Times Review

Yay! Looks like it worked that time. Thanks, christiguc!

This review is less humorous than the NY Mag review, but I found it pretty interesting.

On one point, I actually differ from McInerney - I find it quite easy to believe that, in a country "where books are still regarded as sacred objects and the writer occupies a social position somewhere between the priest and the rock star," people would appreciate a book like this. It must be pretty embarrassing in such a country to have to admit you don't like to read. And some people really don't.

I am equally appalled, though, by the thought that anyone could seriously claim that the purpose of reading books might be to "free" oneself from them so one can write them instead. In a world where there were no sincere readers, why on earth would anyone want to write a book?

I so agree with you fannyprice. Books are not about knowing the key facts and dredging them up at some trivia night - they are about living and discovering new ways to look at the world and so much more.
I certainly don't intend to read the book, the review was quite enough for me and surely the author would have to support my stance on that.

That's the problem with writing a book about how to avoid reading books!

Fanny, this is just my take on it, but I think if you try to bluff someone that you've read Ulysses, and you haven't, saying that "its written in a certain style" would be a dead giveaway.

"Surely it's written in many different styles?", they may say, "and what about the chapter in which he covers the whole stylistic history of English literature?"

By which time you're stuck like a pig on a stick. Not a good result!

I find the best method is to say "You, Sir, are a damn fool", slap them in the face with a glove, and demand satisfaction. Most avid readers do not want to be challenged to a duel, since they have spent their time reading rather than perfecting their duelling skills. This means they will usually back down and accept your point of view.

I like your style, Jargoneer! LOL

>17 Jargoneer: & 18, Me too! Maybe you can look up the author of this book and challenge him to a duel. The thing that I thought was so funny about this book - granted I've only read the NYT First Chapter excerpt that's posted on their website - is that it starts with a detailed description of a character (the librarian) in Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities. And I couldn't help thinking as I read this excerpt that it was pretty funny that Bayard's argument for not reading was based on a character in a book...

LOL, Fanny!

Has anyone noticed that we're talking about a book we haven't read?

Oh the irony! Well, I skimmed the first chapter online, so by the author's philosophy, I should be ok. :)

By the author's philosophy, we're probably all OK - but what do I know? I haven't read the book! ;)