Pierre Bayard in How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read (2007) details in numerous ways to understanding books we may have heard about but have not read. In chapter three, Books You Have Heard, he details based on logical insinuations it is possible to understand a book without reading it. Furthermore, he goes on to explain other logical implications to understanding what we have not read. Have a relative sense of what you are reading, understanding the internal development, and the extrinsic or the reaction it produces. I want to discuss these three logical implications based off the book, Mysterious Skin (1996) by Scott Heim. Mysterious Skin is about two characters, Brian Lackey and Neil McCormick. Brain and Neil went through traumatic experiences …show more content…
Bayard mentions, “A book is not limited to itself, but from the moment of dissemination also encompasses the exchange it inspires. To observes these exchanges, then, is tantamount to gaining access to the book, if not actually reading it. Bayard is explaining the reaction from others and how they feel about the book should give a perception of what the book is discussing and what emotions are being reacted from this perception. When this happens, it is then equivalent to actually reading the book without picking it up. Before I read Mysterious Skin, I did look up some reviews about the book. I can admit I was more enticed to get the book and read it. People were saying how the book changed their life, and they continue to read the book over and over again. Yes, the people comments intrigued me but I wanted to find out for my own on how the book will provoke my own emotions. After reading Mysterious Skin, I will forever be attached to this book because of the emotions it was able to pull out of me. Every-time I look at the cover of this book, I catch a wave of sadness because I know what Neil and Brain have gone