Daniel Drezner asks his readers to name the book they're most embarrassed not to have read, and the funny thing is, I can't think of any, not a single one. I can think of several books I'd like to take a look at if I ever have the free time, but none at all that I am in the least ashamed of not having read.
Before anyone starts to get the wrong idea, let me explain that this is not so much a matter of philistinism on my part, but rather a consequence of the simple fact that in a single year I get through at least 200 items or so (I'm a very fast reader, and finished Moby Dick in a single sitting), peaking at a volume a day during my college years, and thus worked my way through all the books I'd considered "important" quite a long time ago. Indeed, one reason for my reading volume tailing off over the last few years, quite apart from no longer being an undergraduate with lots of free time, is that I simply couldn't think of very much I really wanted to put on my reading list, and an ever larger share of my reading now consists of old titles I'm revisiting.
Of course, this voracious appetite for reading has had its negative consequences, non-congenital myopia being the most important one, so I wouldn't recommend this kind of behavior if one wants to be a surgeon, a pilot, or make any career choice which relies on good eyesight. Another consequence, naturally enough, is that it imposes severe limitations on how much time one can spend socializing: it helps to be extremely introverted if one wishes to become a book-reading machine. Yet, having mentioned these drawbacks, they pale next to the pleasure of being able to truthfully say, whenever challenged with the old "Have you read Proust?" line, "Yes, from Swann's Way to Time Regained": that always shuts any would-be challengers up!
At any rate, I fear that if I ever were to be invited to an academic soiree, having done my homework a tad too diligently, I shall be destined to lose any games of "humiliation" I am asked to play.
[Via Peter Nolan.]
Recent Comments