I was bordering on alarm when I read this. As a University student, I have a high regard for academia; in fact, I look upon University Professors as omnipotent. They are the all-knowing person who has had no social life but has contributed to the world of academia. Their place within this ‘serious’ occupation is set. They relish in what they know, despair at what they do not know and constantly work towards being the best in their field. So imagine my disappointment when it appears through this framework, they are not. Firstly, they do not read the cannons within their units of study, and secondly dishonestly claim to have read them. Seriously, how can a UNIVERSITY Professor claim to read books with authority, yet have not looked beyond the cover. I do however understand that not only is this representation of university academics incredibly unfair, it is also highly unrealistic.
Through Bayard’s framework, it is possible to evaluate a book, without having read it, ‘after all, no reason for me to refrain from passing judgement on whatever works I come across, even if I have not heard of them before.’ (xix). His discussion on ‘non reading’ techniques, demonstrates how little we actually read, compared with how much we are meant to have read, claim to have read and/or desire to have read. Repositioning readers, Bayard states our primary way of relating to books is constituted by ‘the most radical’ non reading, ‘not to open the book at all’ (3). Whilst initially shocking, my resistance faded as I thought of the many volumes within Fisher Library. Whilst I never have intended, pretended, or even had the desire to read them all, it nevertheless demonstrated how futile my ideal of the ‘Professor’ was.
Bayard tries to abolish the read/non read binary by introducing new ways of reading, or rather ‘non-reading’ and bring the ideal of reading back to a social reality. Doing this, he believes will ‘significantly modify how we talk about books, even the specific words we use to describe them’ (xvii). His work is more of a social commentary on western society’s requirements for being an academic, a social comment rather than a true ‘reading’ of non-reading (excuse the pun). He is not successful in this particular quest, as non-reading still resonates negative labelling. And why should it not? Non-reading is a social reality that we must come to terms with. It is impossible, even for the ideal academic to have read everything about their chosen unit of study. It becomes problematic when academics speak on authority of what they have not read. It gives a false authority, which is unethical. Having said this however, there is a significant tension, stigma and anxiety about not reading and it is even more profound for academics. This should change, yet it is doubtful it will, especially within such an economic rationalist social environment. Productivity from academics must be maximised and that includes reading all there is, as futile as this quest may be. For this quandary, there is no simple solution.
The ‘trick’ to talking about books you have not read according to Bayard, is to locate the book in relation to others, which not only allows you to talk about books you have not read; it also increases your cultural capital. Whilst ‘trick’ brings imagery of the Artful Dodger in Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, that negatively frames this practice, there is no escaping that it is still blatantly dishonest. Yet, in this instance dishonestly is not something that requires forgiveness. In fact, I just proved Bayard right. I myself have not read nor seen the movie (or rather movies) of Oliver Twist yet I have no hesitation of bringing it up in conversation, not only socially but also in an academic discourse. I have just bowed down to the hypocrisy I despise, and it seems I do it often (though I am comforted to know I am not alone).
So where does a discussion of Bayard’s shocking admission that academics among other ‘lay’ people (including students such as myself) dishonestly provide false authority about books they have not read, other than claiming ignorance at the knowledge that Pandora’s box has been opened (again, never read the book but will casually drop it into conversation!)? I have no idea. Whilst Bayard’s use of hyperbole can relegate his work to almost ridiculous proportions, he nevertheless illustrates through his librarian whose ‘love of books – of all books – that incites him to remain prudently on their periphery, for fear that too pronounced an interest in one of them might cause him to neglect the others’ (8) the difficulty of dismantling the read/non read binary.
Retrospectively, there is something to be said about reading the books you are talking about; it does give a more authorative knowing. Although this completely negates what Bayard says about knowing, and continues to conform to current understandings of read/non read binary, it is valid. Beyond the questions of ethics and authority, understanding allows you to exhaust more value of a book. The Secret History, as much as I enjoyed the twisted, dark and meaningless world of the protagonists, I am not familiar with the classics and Greek mythology beyond what I have gained from popular culture. By only having this type of ‘knowing’ of the works within Tart’s novel, I was often disorientated and missed out on the deeper understanding/deeper layers present within the book. Now whilst, I enjoyed it just the same, I cannot help feel that I have missed out on some enjoyment by only knowing the classics through Bayard’s ‘location’ method, locating them within the cannon. There is the snub of non-reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment