How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read (Written by Pierre Bayard)

One assumes from the outset that this this tiny volume was written ironically given its title. But as you proceed, you realize the author has a little something else in mind. And that he's dead serious. Bayard's book belongs to the reader-response school of criticism where a work is defined by what each audience member brings to the text. A work is not truly completed until it is interpreted by an individual.

Bayard offers a fascinating example of cross cultural interpretation and how it defines a text in the story of the West African Tiv tribe hearing "Hamlet" for the first time. Unfamiliar with this considered to be the paramount of English literature, the Tiv, with their own unique supernatural lore cannot accept the elder Hamlet as a ghost--the dead do not talk--and believe Claudius should have married Gertrude much sooner. Portions of the text are accepted at the point that they conform to and affirm the Tiv's cultural norms.

Bayard believes that we do this with each text and necessarily edit out parts we either forget or choose not to acknowledge. Therefore, this new interpretation is not really the book itself, but the text as we remember it. Due to this act of internal editing, none of us have ever truly read a book because our own editing and experiences change the text we remember.

It's an interesting idea that Bayard hashes out and expands upon through several chapters. I found it to be a worthwhile brain stretching exercise in critical thought until the book's third and final section where Bayard tries to sell the idea that expecting one to read a text before he or she can talk about is redundant and an affront to creativity. Because the act of talking about a book is essentially revealing one's self then talking about the self is the end goal of textual interpretation. Therefore reading a book is superfluous. Also, in an attempt to show familiarity with a text the reader will get a chance to exercise creativity as they try to obfuscate their lack of textual knowledge.

Maybe Bayard's having fun and I'm missing it. He carefully builds his argument and seems to be writing with sincerity. But then again I always thought that while reader-response theory had a great deal to offer, if ascribed to fully then consequently reading a text is unnecessary. A fun little exercise that's easy to read, but its conclusion is lacking.

Last Night at the Lobster (Written by Stewart O'Nan)

So much to admire in this book, but not really enjoyable. O'Nan nails the rhythms and speech of restaurant staff. The Lobster of the book is very real and its staff wholly believable. And yet, the book is a bit of a slog. Maybe if O'Nan had stripped out the run of the mill love affair and focused merely on the work details the book would have been more compelling. The love story is weak as compared to the drama of seating, serving, and satisfying customers which can provide fascinating, anxious drama.

Also, having served in some form of customer service for most of life, including a short stint at a Ruby Tuesday and now serving as a manager of a library, reading about Manny's managerial concerns gave me some anxiety. Service is its own unique drama as you try to serve each customer well but swiftly all while wearing a smile. It can be exhilarating/exhausting and the camaraderie or resentment you develop with those also in the trenches can be, in the moment, very strong. O'Nan gets this and portrays it well. And Ty, the head cook, was dead-on. Loved the Lobster but 86 the romance.