From Pierre Bayard's How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read (or The French Way):
The notion of skimming or flipping through books can be understood in at least two different senses. In the first case, the skimming is linear. The reader begins the text at the beginning, then starts skipping lines or pages as, successfully or not, he makes his way toward the end. In the second case, the skimming is circuitous: rather than read in an orderly fashion, the reader takes a stroll through the work, sometimes beginning at the end. The second implies no more will on the part of the reader than does the first. It simply constitutes one of our habitual ways of relating to books.
But the fertility of this mode of discovery markedly unsettles the difference between reading and non-reading, or even the idea of reading at all. In which category do we place the behavior of those who have spent a certain amount of time on a book - hours, even - without reading it completely? Should they be inclined to discuss it, is it fair to say of them that they are talking about a book they haven't read? The same question may be raised with regard to those who, like Musil's librarian, remain in the margins of the book. Who, we may wonder, is the better reader - the person who reads a work in depth without being able to situate it, or the person who enters no book in depth, but circulates through them all?
From John Sutherland's How to Read a Novel (or The English Way):
Judges of fiction prizes are routinely asked if the 'read them all', and are as routinely misreported on the topic. It is hard to reply, accurately, because 'read' is such a blunt term. Is studying Emma for A-level the same reading act as skimming the latest Jeffrey Archer in the airport departure lounge with the aim of finishing the thing before boarding in forty minutes? 'I've read the newspaper,' we say, meaning, 'I've glanced at the headlines, scanned the letters page, decided not to bother with the editorials, looked up the soccer results and taken in my favorite columnist'. You can gut novels the same way - but it is hardly 'reading'.
Upping the reading speed helps. Silent reading is, although no one is quite sure, a relatively late arrival historically. The Venerable Bede was regarded as prodigious in the seventh century in that he could read without moving his lips and was therefore faster than he could speak. What Bede has worked out, evidently, was the amazing buffering capacity of the brain: that it can take in verbiage fast and play it back to the mind's ear at the right, slowed-down speed. Larger 'eyebites' and various other 'speed reading' gimmicks were promulgated in the speed reading mania of the 1960s - when information overload first became a worry. Unfortunately, there are absolute physical limits to the rate at which one can read. Few will reach them, but no human eye will exceed them, any more than any athlete - however well trained and drugged - will run 100 meters in three seconds.
Nowadays, it seems to me, something like the 'surf and zap' approach is required. As with satelite TV and its hundreds of channels, one has to skim through, stop where it seems interesting, zap the commercials and other impertinent material, concentrate from time to time where the offering seems genuinely interesting.
I had a speed reading class in 1960. I hated every minute of it. The rationale always was that certain writings (newspapers, e.g.) could be surfed over, and parts even zapped. Save your real reading time for worthy prose. But that's nonsense. Something is either worth reading or not. I love words.
Posted by: John Shannon | September 10, 2007 at 08:56 AM
mark -- love the site, and all the resources. my buddy in denver did me a big favor turning me on to it. but two small quibbles: please stop promoting bloomsbury books, and running links to your own articles. the first just looks bad, even if your intentions are clear, and the second puts you in camp with a lot of amateurs. you're better than that dude.
Posted by: Rodney | September 10, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Rodney, dude, thanks for the kind words and constructive criticism. My own stance on your points, however, is (1) I have no intention of ignoring an entire house of books simply because they've published one of mine and (2) most of my readers do, in fact, like to know where my byline is appearing. Anyway, as for this link, I imagine the interest in the contrast is pretty clear, and scarcely represents Bloomsbury logrolling, especially since both books are presented without comment. But - am genuinely glad you love the site, even with its minor defects.
Posted by: TEV | September 10, 2007 at 07:48 PM
Surf and Zap?! Perhaps for certain writers who nestle rewards in yards of effluvium and puffery, or whom you couldn't care less about but need to stay current with--boring, important guests at a cocktail party where there are also beloved, funny guests you can see out of the corners of your eyes--but with many books, it's just when they seem most mundane that they get the most exciting. Maybe I'm indulgent and like my suspension in someone else's mind too much to be trusted.
Posted by: Ann Wendland | September 11, 2007 at 07:59 AM
Re: "speed reading": I tend to think that's where the "blogger" (or gifted online amateur) can easily best the print professional, if the Art really matters, especially when it comes to reviewing heftier books: *in not having to resort to this awful practise*.
There's no way a professional "print" reviewer, up against a deadline and juggling several assignments in order to pay the bills...can soak up/in an important book in a day or two and deliver a critique evincing a layered understanding of the material.
I've read quite a few well-written and extremely entertaining critiques of certain "big" books that, nevertheless, made it obvious that the reviewer hadn't mastered the text before pronouncing on it.
I haven't read "Against the Day" yet (I'm saving it for that long dark Berlin winter), but I skimmed the reviews of it when they first came out because they *had* to be the results of skimming and bluffing.
I'll be ready to read an adequate examination of that book *next year*, perhaps...but the most valuable critiques will no doubt come even later, and I doubt they'll pop up anywhere other than online by then.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | September 11, 2007 at 10:29 AM
I don't understand Rodney's objection. Isn't a blog a series of articles written by you? So what's wrong with linking to other articles written by you? How are you "better than that"? He makes it sound as if you're shoplifting chapstick, not writing reviews for the New York Times. I am also curious about these "amateurs" who apparently write for magazines and newspapers. What's that other word for them? Oh yes, professionals. What I'm saying is, you are on the high end of what a blog can be! I believe Rodney is trying to get your goat.
Posted by: Jack Pendarvis | September 13, 2007 at 06:59 AM
What's so bad about shoplifting chapstick?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | September 13, 2007 at 03:38 PM
Exactly.
Posted by: Jack Pendarvis | September 14, 2007 at 08:55 AM