True or false

Matthew Pearl

If Matthew Pearl's 2015 novel The Last Bookaneer disappoints as an adventure story (see my review, "Book pirates," Feb. 9), it succeeds with its commentary, through its characters, on books, authors and all things literary. For some of us anyway, one could strip away the plot in its entirety and still be left with a book worth having in one's library. I don't necessarily agree with everything Pearl's characters say about the literary world, but each statement is worth some thought.

So let's give some of these statements some thought and turn them into a true/false test. I will answer in my way; you are free to do the same.

You are always better off to read a book ... than to meet the person behind it.

True. In person, authors are often uninspiring, no matter how inspiring their books are, and dull, no matter how exciting their books are. There are exceptions, of course, and some authors are at least as easy to like as their books are. In my own case, I am thinking of Alexander McCall Smith and Ann Patchett, both extremely engaging. Book festivals, book signings and so forth give fans opportunities to meet favorite authors. Attend enough of these and you are bound to meet authors you don't like. If that experience sours your appreciation of their books, it is something you may always regret. Better to have stayed home with the books.

It is always in the parts that we cannot fully understand -- the holes in story, the piece missing -- where the real truth of the thing lurks.

True. In fiction, as in most forms of art, truth lies in ambiguity. Each reader finds his or her own truth, often something very different from what the author had in mind. The meaning of stories, whether we are talking about the parable of the Good Samaritan or Moby-Dick, can change not just from person to person but from one century to the next.

There is nothing as lovely as a borrowed book.

False. It is a book pirate who makes that statement, and perhaps for pirates or anyone else who borrows books with no intention of ever returning them it is true. I, however, hate to borrow another person's book, even the public library's, almost as much as I hate someone borrowing one of mine. Borrowing a book means an obligation to read it, and the sooner the better. It also means an obligation to return it promptly and in good condition. That's more obligation than I like. I want to read a book at my own pace, and if I like a book, I want to keep it, not give it back.

When you begin to read them, you feel like a boy again, and when you close the book you've turned into a better man.

True. The authors under discussion here are Walter Scott and Robert Louis Stevenson, whose books, especially Ivanhoe and Treasure Island, have often been regarded as children's literature. It has been decades since I've read anything by either author, but I do sometimes read books intended for children, such as the Winnie the Pooh stories I reread a couple of years ago. The advantages to reading such books as an adult are those mentioned in the above statement: They remind you of your youth and, because you read them differently than you may once have done, they teach you something new, ideally making you a better adult.

I find I am still just in the first chapter of The Last Bookaneer. So I will have to continue this next time.