Whilst paralysed into silence for fear of blogging and expressing my own opinion, Bayard’s “How to Read Books You Haven’t Read” took on a completely different complexion. His critique of the narrow definition of reading in the world of literary criticism (instead advocating that “non – reading” practices can be sufficient for insightful commentary) now seems like an equally restrictive and unimaginative explanation of the purpose and practices of the reader themselves. Bayard’s argument rests established assumptions, as his push for his “collective library” demonstrates:
“For a true reader, one who cares about being able to reflect on literature, it is
not any specific book that counts, but the totality of all books. Paying
exclusive attention to one book causes us to risk losing sight of the totality”
(Bayard 30-31)
Here, Bayard assumes that wide exposure to literary works is what forms an understanding of literature. From Bayard’s explanation of the complicated nature of reading, we may be scandalised by his tongue-in-cheek comments and wholly consolatory remarks on the futility of reading as it is traditionally understood, but it does not seem terribly challenging. Bayard’s concerns about maintaining perspective propagates the belief that wider reading will lead to more informed critical understanding – the parameters for defining reading have simply been adjusted. Even though his expanded definition of reading (including non – reading) classifies more people as wide readers, the value placed on a grand picture of literature by implication suggests that people without this desired scope are less equipped to comment on texts. Is true literary enlightenment (if there is such a thing) about drawing links between books or categorising them in our mental ‘collective library’? The very idealisation of this ‘collective library’ validates and supports the privileged status of the literary canon – it is not just knowledge of books that is important, but it is knowledge of particular books that is prized with this viewpoint. Grouping all books into an entity we can call “literature” is also quite arbitrary and in need of examination and discussion. It is not reasonable to say that texts exist without leeching off other texts to some degree, but too much emphasis is placed on the idea of a greater textual body. With this wider emphasis, it seems that to truly understand a book requires you to look equally well at the books around your studied book as between your said book’s covers.
Bayard’s proposed panoramic vantage point also suggests fear of emotional investment in texts, which is questionable. Bayard never fully explains how individual attention towards a particular book would “risk losing sight of the totality [of literature]” (31). Nor does he explain what he means by getting “lost in the details” (18) when focusing on individual works. If getting lost in the details is getting engrossed in the characters, setting or plot of a book, is that not what reading is about? Such an emotionally distant approach will not adequately engage with a text – emotional engagement cannot be lost in an attempt to be objective.
Like you, I found Bayard's ideas very interesting but am slightly sceptical about how seriously they can be taken.
ReplyDeleteParticularly interesting in your post was the last section about emotional attachment, especially when you began your post with stating your fear of sharing your opinions. As with all things, to be too attached to something risks letting yourself be hurt. This is how I feel about the books that I love.
It might be easier to not get emotionally involved with a book but, like you, I wouldn't give up the opportunity to truly love a book.
Kira here- I agree that Bayard's premise is one that needs to be viewed with a modicum of suspicion but I do feel that his recognition of the varying capital of being able to 'know' a vast spectrum of literary works is entirely accurate. The question is that to truly be aware of a text's value do we really have to be intimate with its linguistic form and matter? Bayard obviously doesn't think so, as the appearance of knowledge seems to be sufficient- but I would heartily disagree.
ReplyDeleteAs readers and students isn't it our duty to explore the depths of a textual odyssey, as surely that is the only way in which we can learn, critique and immerse our understanding of literary study? If we were to follow Bayard's ideology the area of literary scholarship would be gravely lacking in any possibility for further and wider discovery, and we as students would be left to a discourse based on superficial comprehension and social expectation.
There is a fascinating new book out called 'Shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains' by Nicholas Carr, which is of interest in the context of Bayard's thesis (I am ignoring for the time being that this is a blog and therefore part of the internet).
ReplyDeleteCarr's idea is that internet readers swim in the shallows, or skim like a pebble across its surface, jumping from one article to the next, shooting past large chunks of words to find with the Ctrl 'f' command the desired section of the article, discarding the rest. But the old readers, those who I hope we all are, who read critically and deeply and invest something more than a few minutes into any text (novel or article), abandon the shallows for the depth of the ocean. Though Bayard is not totally in the shallows, I still think that he has fear of deep water, or as some of you have mentioned, deep emotional investment.
Bayard's idea that one mustn't look too closely at a text, but merely see it amongst all other texts seems to me a preference for shallows over the deep ocean. For what this is worth, I will remain in the tumultuous sea while Bayard and his followers splash about in the safe end of reading.
I too, have some difficulty investing in Bayard's 'panoramic' approach. Also too with the notion of a complete, intangible canon, and how the earnest practice of 'non-reading' can bring us closer to this imaginary entity. 'Non-reading' might give us a superficial connection with the canon, but surely not an intimate one.
ReplyDeleteI think too much emphasis on a literary totality risks increasing resistance to detail; sometimes it feels like the weight of a whole library's worth of books on your shoulders as you try to tackle just ONE.
I think Bayard's ideas should have some serious consideration. Whilst it was written with a 'tongue in cheek' mode, I don't know why we assume (not that I am saying you have) that due to this his ideas shouldn't seriously be considered. Like Smith said in her musings on Shakespeare's sonnets how her opinion and values change over time, mine have (and continue to do so) change on Bayard. Kira's point of how well we need to know a text to be aware of its value, is a really nice way of conceptualising non-reading. Inflammatory as it was, and sometimes morally wrong in an academic sense, I do believe we can be aware of a texts cultural value (or any other types of value for that matter) and still never read it. In saying that however, I am sceptical of the ability to understand the value of the text in an effective way if we haven't read the text, relying upon other modes of 'learning the texts' I don't think allows a comprehensive and deep understanding, especially if our other modes of learning i.e. specialists have not read the text either! Perpetuating ideas that may not be wholly relevant and provides justice for the text in question.
ReplyDelete