Can a book be a friend? On the ethics of reading

The American philosopher and educationist Mortimer Adler seemed to think so. In 1940 he published his How to Read a Book, an instruction manual offering a system of formal techniques

intended to facilitate a fruitful interaction between reader and reading material.

Arguably Adler’s contract with his readership violates its own terms and conditions: it is not a compelling read. This might be in part because his concern was with the reading of

non-fiction, and he thereby avoided discussion of the requirements of imagination which are specific to the reading of a novel.

But I “hat tip” him anyway because he was onto something we are prone to forget: the act of reading is the act of reading, one which – as is true of all actions — imposes certain

responsibilities. There is such a thing as an “ethics of reading”.  Pace the childish subversions of the “deconstructionist” types, whose chief concern is to make the reader feel irrelevant

by placing the meaning of a text beyond an impenetrable veil of obfuscation, we, as readers, have something to bring to the party. And if that means gatecrashing, then so be it. (I sometimes

wonder what a deconstructionist book club would look like. Do people sit in a circle and take turns explaining just how that month’s choice lacks any meaning whatsoever?)

What, then, are these responsibilities of reading and where do they come from? Hemingway’s metaphor is useful here. David Bowie once said that there was a period in the 70s when he rarely

slept, the reason being that he had, at this point in his fame, a lot of friends “and you have to give friends time”.

As with friendship, so with reading: courtship and disciplined attention over time are necessary conditions of success.  And with the investment of time comes a duty of discernment, the

knowing when to just toss the book to one side on the grounds that it is not friendship material.  There must, for example, come a point at which just giving up on David Foster Wallace’s

Infinite Jest isn’t really “giving up” at all, but an act of refined aesthetic judgment (one which in my case was exercised shortly before Chapter Two). To think that you should see things

through to the end with every book you open is not so much open-minded receptiveness as literary promiscuity.

Hemingway’s metaphor only takes us so far, of course. Obviously, a book can be cherished, a relationship of some sort is possible, but this can never amount to a friendship because it will

lack what Aristotle suggested was an essential ingredient of friendship, namely reciprocity. There is too much going on in the fictional worlds of M Bovary or Tom Brown for them to be

concerned about what you think of them. But if we enter those worlds mindful of our responsibilities as readers, then we might find and develop habits of moral and psychological insight

which we can put to good use when we step back out again.

If we can’t be friends with the book, then what sort of relationship can we expect to share with its author? The brilliant Maverick Philosopher, Bill Vallicella, has suggested that he would

prefer to have the company of books over people. Why? Because, he argues, when you read a book, you will be introduced to the author’s best version of himself. But when I read the

Nicomachean Ethics or the Odyssey, on what grounds can I claim that I am “meeting” any version of Aristotle or Homer at all?  We might wish to argue that the ancient authors are relatable

because they understand and describe the contours of the human condition. But doesn’t this reply assume a certain immutability to that condition? Is there such a thing as an “essential human

nature”?

But now we have left the shallow waters of ethics and are treading water in the deeper end of metaphysics: best to swim back.

We can lighten things by turning to Kafka, for whom the pleasure we take in reading needs to be very unpleasant indeed if we are concerned with moral improvement. The purpose of reading is

to take an axe to our petrified soul. (It is telling, incidentally, that Dante conceives of Hell as largely a place of unbearable cold rather than heat.) When we read properly, we are

actively situating ourselves in places of spiritual and moral discomfort, so that catharsis can follow its natural course.

Is there a way of reconciling the apparently contradictory quotes which introduce this piece? Yes, but only if we accept that the best friendships are sometimes those which bring the most

intense demands.

Sir Roger Scruton once remarked that the primary aim of a university education should be to teach the student how to read a difficult book from cover to cover. When she has done this once,

she will have absorbed not merely the contents of that book but also the ethical resources which will help her to go on and read thousands more.

A final point. There is a contemporary moral contagion usually referred to as cognitive dissonance, the most striking symptom of which is a willingness to hold contradictory beliefs. Reading

both exercises and disciplines the human mind. When reading a text, be it a novel, car maintenance manual, or work of philosophy, we rightfully expect a consistency that seems to have been

abandoned in the prosecution of today’s “culture wars”.

It might be an exaggeration to say that the observable decline of the West is intimately connected to the decline of active reading – but it’s not much of one.

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

If an account exists for this email address, you will shortly receive an email from us. You will then need to:

Please note, this link will only be valid for 24 hours. If you do not receive our email, please check your Junk Mail folder and add [email protected] to your safe list.