That's all life too | TIME ONLINE

It
begins with a confession: I have the new novel by Michel
Houellebecq
not read, and I will not do it. Nice
his last books were meaningless theses, stylistically
at best mediocre. The strategy, set pieces
unappetizing ideologies
to hint at, then behind fictitious
To hide figures from whose dead eyes the real author constantly
ironically blinking, possessed, if anything, to the
Millennium still a mild irritation potential. The figure of
Provocateurs, whose play with the ugly and the forbidden one
created a comforting horror, has aged badly, it perhaps served
even then, above all, to be safe on the habit
intellectual corruption. This includes the
dreary drastic sad sexuality. At the latest after the third
Repetition makes them look dusty and busy.

Nevertheless
will the new
Houellebecq

sold, read, discussed with depressing reliability –
controversial, but always with the subliminal
Enthusiasm about an author who can create controversy.
It is a case in which the tyranny of the concept
scandal Author
becomes particularly obvious. You read the new novel by this author
not just in the hope of a good book, but above all,
because the reading is a ticket to the conversation with that
Security will be guided through this book. One reads, around
to be able to have a say, and then angry about the loss of energy,
that goes along with it. An example is the controversy around Takis Würgers
novel Stella
,
One could get the impression that behind this debate, those with
grief was over and over again
the wasted living and reading time came to light.

These
Grief belongs to the history of the literary scandal. she is
connected with the anger about it, on one
Attracting Attention Economics Machine –
a machine that is constantly refueled by the social media
and that entices us to an event and not a book too
consume – a trouble that is in regular polemics
against the eventization and scandalisation of literature.
However, these culturally critical interventions are seldom one
effective remedy against the circumstances that criticize them. Therefore
scandals are too seductive as feuilletonistic narratives. in the
Contrast to the textual assessment of a literary work
They reliably generate great attention and give the
Subject (literature) the appearance of relevance. The lawsuit
about the drama of riot a book triggers
more complex, less digestible drama about the literary plot
covered, belongs to the game of feuilletonist complicity.
Even in the sublime gesture of media criticism, one is on the
Involved attention that generates the event.

A completeness fetish

A
The possibility of eluding these mechanisms would be
ostentatious non-reading, an open admission that one is
Book will not read. The provocation that our reading time
claimed, the provocation of non-reading becomes a refusal
opposed to this time. Such a strategic indifference
would be a way to regain control over
which books to read and which to pay attention to
would like to. However, non-reading can be emancipative potential
only unfold when cultural obstacles are removed
become. For though non-reading, cross-reading, half-reading to
Everyday life of every reader and every reader belong, it is still
a kind of social taboo. Even more damaging to the social status
as the reading of the wrong books, the reading of the dough,
why non-reading in most cases with
Crisis occurs, combined with the bashful promise
of read-learning.

So
Normally, in the case of an unread book, one would go over
that is much talked about, resort to a cultural technique that
probably every seasoned reader and every experienced person
Readers learn and master the title of a book of the
French author Pierre Bayard is pointedly accented: As
you talk about books you did not read
,
Bayard's satirical advisor draws his humor mainly from the
The fact that our culture, in terms of reading literature,
suffers from a completeness fetish. The prevailing illusion
is that you have read everything (or at least is about to do it
do).

Reading time is a scarce resource

What
but, if one, instead of talking about unread books, open
would talk about which books you will not read? Everyone
An attempt to conceal non-reading reproduces the claim
to draw attention to the obtrusively visible books.
In the end you only read the books again, about all of them
talk, so as not to embarrass yourself when talking. That's how you stumble
while choosing your own reading from a book event into
next. Open non-reading would be an option
Breaking the mechanism and yet on the well-known
Circumstance to make you aware that reading literature
subject to time constraints. Every book we read,
refers to a book we did not read. It belongs to the
sad findings of every biography reading that you in the course
a life only a fraction of everything that publishes
and what is published, can actually read.

The
open non-reading makes one of time-economic concerns
cultural act. We recognize that reading time is a scarce one
Resource that we have and that we selectively allocate
can. The habitus of the Allbelesenheit is then replaced by a
Habitus of informed non-reading. It is about a
Cultural engineering, about
in the context of the political revision of the canon already –
although often unspoken – practiced
becomes. If
one demands that more books are marginalized by members
To read groups, that necessarily means that one
can read fewer books of white men. Also in this
Correlation would be an open confession that one is wrong
read the work refused reading, more effective than the reference to
wrongly unread works.

,