A few days ago I came across Pierre Bayard's How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read via my feed subscription to the complete review's Literary Saloon. This book just begs to be talked/written about without having read it. So, suspending my usual practice, here I go.
My gut reaction, when I first saw the title, was rather negative. But as usual, the negative first impression was followed by curiosity. When something disturbs me, I like to dig in and find out for myself what argument is being made and what lies behind it. As readers of Wordwork|play would quickly find out, it is a matter of principle for me to read a book, particularly a book about which I am going to speak or write, with the exception of some reference materials (dictionaries, thesauri, etc.), from front to back, including the preface, introduction, postscript, appendices and addenda. Behind this principle is the idea that a cursory or incomplete reading can easily result in things being taken out of context, leading to incorrect assumptions, reactions, and conclusions.
The complete review provides not only its own review of the book, but also a good overview of other reviewers' reactions. Most seem to think the book has some valid points and is presented well. Some seem to agree with his general argument, some disagree, though they find it entertaining, while others feel the argument makes more or less sense depending on the culture (esp. its relationship to reading and literature) to which it is applied.
Not having read the book, my reaction is probably closest to that of Anthony Daniels of the New Criterion:
His book is a vindication of ignorance. It is, however, extremely amusing and clever -- though I must add that I use the word "clever" at least partially in its English sense, that is to say meretriciously and ostentatiously intelligent rather than deeply so; it is more a search for applause than truth. (...) It is not easy to guess how far the author is being tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, there is a serious point behind the book, and it is wrong.But then I'm basing my reaction on an incomplete context.
Now if someone would like to send me a free copy of the book--I don't feel like actually spending money on it at this time--I'll read it for myself and form a more sound and studied opinion. Who knows, I may read something that will modify my reaction. I do agree on one point he is said to make in the book--just because we haven't read a book does not mean we can't begin discussion of the ideas contained therein. But judgment of the book and its arguments have to be suspended until it has been read in its entirety.
