Bad Books
I’ve been reading many bad and/or badly written books of late. One by choice, the rest by necessity. I think it was three or four birthdays ago that I vowed I would never do that again.
Speaking of which, I always took it as a mark of a great book—not the only or a necessary mark, but a mark—that it contains certain passages that, because of the vividness of an image, power of an argument, or stylishness of the prose, you remember years later. Read them once, they’re with you forever.
Foucault’s opening description of the execution of Damiens the regicide; Arendt’s meditation on the 1957 launching of Sputnik and how it was greeted not as a celebration of human power or the wonder of adventure but as a welcome relief, an opportunity for men and women to at last get off the earth; Lukács’s remarks on how, in contrast to Frederick the Great, who fought his wars in such a way that no one would notice them, the French Revolution turned warfare, and thus consciousness and history, into a mass experience; Sartre’s analysis of the waiter and bad faith; Janet Malcolm’s description of the psychoanalytic encounter as a kind of shadow boxing (she doesn’t use that exact phrase) or her wintry description of her last sessions with Aaron Green (and his claim that what he is doing in psychoanalysis is brain surgery, where the patient one day wakes up with a new mind)—these will always be with me.
So why then do I remember so many bad books? Actually, what I remember about them is less their contents than my reaction to them. Which I guess is the point.