CC BY
9Copyright © 2016 by Academic Publishing House Researcher
W TT
I
Published in the Russian Federation
International Journal of Media and Information Literacy
Has been issued since 2016.
E-ISSN: 2500-1051
Vol. 1, Is. (2), pp. 128-145, 2016
DOI: 10.13187/ijmil.2016.2.128 www.ejournal46.com
Conflicts with the Reading and their Decisions through the Bibliopsychology
Milena I. Tsvetkova a , *
a Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, Bulgaria
Abstract
A reason for this research is the 70th anniversary from the death of the first theorist of the reading Nicolas A. Roubakine (23th of November 1946), with which expires the period of protection of the copyright on his works and their transition into the public domain. The real aim of the analysis is identification of the actual problems in the field of the mass communication and reading, which can be solved with the method of the bibliopsychology, created by Roubakine at the beginning of XXth century. The methods answers to the requirements of theoretical study with application of the methods deduction and extrapolation in the system „problem - decision", accompanied by a secondary research conducted through selective monographic method, document method, scientific critics of sociological researches, secondary data analysis and overview of scientific publications, available in the libraries worldwide. They are lead fifteen sharply conflict zones in the sphere of the reading, those regulation and management requires bibliopsychological approach. During the process of the study are determined two unpopular contributions of Nicolas Roubakine towards the theory of the communications - he creates the communication formula with "The 5 W" decades before Harold Lasswell and formulates the method of bibliopsychological archeology a half century before the appearance of the discipline media archeology. The possibilities of the bibliopsychology aren't still used, although it is a subject of study of other sciences as library science, bibliography, psycholinguistics, linguistics, psychology. The modern attempts for development of this scientific discipline are insufficient. Very often the attention of the researchers is directed towards other sciences because the examined subject is considerably more complex.
Keywords: bibliopsychology, psychology of the reader, psychology of the book, sociology of reading, Nicolas Roubakine, Nikolaj Aleksandrovic Rubakin.
1. Introduction
If there is no perception, there is no content;
"As they don't understand this, the authors waste in vain 9/10 of their power, labor and time."
(Nicolas Roubakine, 1929)
The formal reason of this text is the 70th anniversary from the death of the first theorist of reading and in many ways a forerunner of the theory of the mass communication
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: milenaic@uni-sofia.bg (M.I. Tsvetkova)
Nicolas A. Roubakine (23th November 1946). The anniversary is not usual, but it is key for the publishing and the library world because of the fact, that the period of protection of the copyright on his works and their transition into the public domain. In this context it is developped the research motive for this text - an expression of concern by the fact, that so far none of the scientific books of the genius Roubakine of book science, bibliopsychology or psychology and sociology of reading is not translated in English, accepted as the most common in the scientific communications.
2. Materials and methods
The methods answers to the requirements of theoretical study with application of the methods deduction and extrapolation in the system „problem - decision", accompanied by a secondary research conducted through selective monographic method, document method, scientific critics of sociological researches, secondary data analysis and overview of scientific publications, available in the libraries worldwide. The initial theoretical basics of the thesis of this research are the views and the scientific results in the books and in the articles of Nicolas Roubakine, who develops the science of reading. To elaborate the secondary resources is used secondary data analysis. The subject of critical analysis are the scientific reception (and its absence) of Nicolas Roubakine as the first scientist, who transforms the reader into an object of scientific researches. In the beginning if XXth century he creates a science of reading, called bibliopsychology (fr. bibliopsychologie) or bibliological psychology (fr. psychologie bibliological). Almost 50 years later, in the 60th of XXth century his son Alexander Roubakine will testify, that this is still the only attempt to be applied a scientific approach to the activity „reading" and to the study of the cohesion between the reader and the book (Rubakin, 1979: 95). Untill that moment the psychologists have studied the psyche of the human in general, but not reagarding the reading, and the bibliologists (the book scientists, the bibliographers) have studied the book regardless of the reader. Roubakine builds slowly his theory of reading and publishes gradually in the period 19101929 - first in the study "Psychology of the book infuence" (Rubakin, 1910) and after that in four fundamental books - "Introduction a la psychologie bibliologique" (Roubakine, 1922), "What is this bibliological psychology?" (Rubakin, 1924), "Bibliological psychology as theory and practice of the bookwork" (Rubakin, 1927), and "Psychology of the reader and the book" (1929) (Rubakin, 1977). This theory is based on the study of the psychic types of readers and on the psychic types of books and it offers a new model of the process reading, with new concepts and regularities. The focus of this new model is on the inner (mental) processes, which occur during the reading by itself and explain the text rather as an incentive, who „calls" previous experience, rather than a coded message, which has to be decoded by the reader. With extensive bibliographic-sociological and test researches Roubakine detects the presence of „psychic symmetry" between book and reader. It lays at the root of the created by him integrated discipline „bibliopsychology", which he defines by himself as „science of the social and the psychological influence on the text".
3. Results
3.1. Contributions in the science of the communications
Nicolas Roubakine long before the well-known reader's theorists forms the basics of a theory of the interpersonal communications and leaves behind of the theory of the mass communication -the scientific field, developped in the 30th-50th in USA, but much later recongized in schools and writing of scientists from France, Germany, Italy, Sweden etc. (Leontiev, 1977: 4). It is not just about the theoretical formulations of the infuence by word and of the effect of this influence in the communication chain "author - text - reader", to which Roubakine reaches by empirical and deductive way and publishes systematically in the period between 1910 and 1929.
3.1.1. The communication formula with "The 5 W" of Roubakine before Lasswell
We have in mind also the communication formula of "The 5 W" of Harold Lasswell - "Who (says) What (to) Whom (in) What Channel (with) What Effect". It is known that Lasswell approbates it in 1936 for the first time in the field of the politics with the four questions "Who gets What, When, and How", and as "the 5 W" he publishes it in 1948 (Lasswell, 1948). But Roubakine proposes his scientific formula for description of the communication with the books in the society by the rule of "The 4 W" 40 years earlier.
When in 1906 he proposes a new type of sytematization of the books „on spheres of life", different from the traditional „on sciences", Roubakine insists for refusal of the single criteria in all the social-communication institutions, working with readers and for acceptation of one complex, multidimensional criterion. His explanation is that every question regarding the books, as a question of the integral and multilateral life, needs versatile examine and it will receive an answer only if it will be lighted by the position of several sciences simultaneously. Roubakine shows how this criterion will be revealed. In order to be sytemazied the books by „sphere of life", we have to work by the formula of "The 5 W": „Which book, at Which reader, by Which conditions, in What moment, How acts?" (Rubakin, 1906: Х). This formula he accepted as the main question of the book science and with it he put at psychological and sociological basis the eternally unresolved problem for the evaluation of the books. We note with a regret, that so far nor the science of the communications, neither the bibliology, neither the mediology, have succeed to develop the productivity of the bibliopsychological approach of study of the relationship "reader - book".
3.1.2. Bibliopsychological archeology before the media archeology
Roubakine attached high proactive value to his method of typology of readers, because he was convinced, that through it can not only forecast the development of the book science and books, but he gives a chance for restavration of the social-psychological profile of a deceased writer. This chance is called "bibliopsychological archeology". He proposes it for the first time in an article in 1910: "To be defined the psychic features of the dead authors by the psychic features of their modern admirers is not only theoretically, but also practically possible and beneficial in terms of the history of literature" (Rubakin, 1910). In 1929 he proposes a definition of the bibliopsychological archeology as detection of correlation between the psychological experiences, abilities, interests, tastes beween the deceased writer and his admirers with purpose reproduction of his psychic characteristics and type of exeperiences. In other words - the psychological type of some author can be restored only by the totality of its generic nature of alive readers. If his texts influence on a group of readers by roughly the same way, it happens, because, by the "law of Hennequin", between his modern admirers and himself there is a psychological analogy. "The study of the alive readers will allow to be restored the gaps of the pure document research, and the different characteristics of the dead authors, lead only by written sources, will be able to translate to the language of the contemporarty human his mnema." (Rubakin, 1977: 222-224).
Till the present moment are known only ersatz uses of the bibliopsychological archeology in its material part - as biblioarcheology, for instance for the purposes of historical researches of publishers and printers in material sources and instruments (books and catalogues) (Pavlova, 1993), which is however a manifestation of vulgar bookscientific fetishism, against which Roubakine sharply objected. There is still no information about its application in the history of the litterature, despite its apparent productivity of interdisciplinary combinations with the biographic, bibliographic, historiographic and anthropological methods. And the innovation of the bibliopsychological archeology as a method from today's perspective is indisputable.
Only 50-60 years later in the wolrd science appears the scientific discipline „media archeology" (C. W. Ceram "Archaeology of Cinema", 1965; Friedrich Kittler "Discourse Networks 1800/1900", 1990; Erkki Huhtamo "Notes Towards an Archaeology of the Media", 1993; Siegfried Zielinski "Mediearchaeologie", 1994, etc). But its contributions are still only in the sector of the artifacts.
3.2. The book as a human extension
The theory of Nikolas Roubakine is particularly relevant for the explanations of a number of problems, arising in the research field "the book as media". It can be useful in the revealing of the genealogy of the book from anthropological perspective - as a human extension and as organically derivative, but alienated from nervous system media (the so-called concept of the organoprojection). The key formulation in the bibliopsychological approach gives the most accurate explanation of the book as lasting interpersonal and social media. And namely: the book as an extension, extracorporeal extention of second signal system of the author and acts as a reagent, as an external stimulus towards second signal system of the reader. According to this methodological formulation the book is neither a channel, nor a translator, nor a transmitter, but an exciter of individual psychic experiences. In the act of the reading occurs specific reaction of the nervous system, but at the level of second signal system, from where follow informational, emotional, mental and physiological consequences. The key unit, the filter in the reflector
apparatus, where is made the projection of the book, is the so-called "mnema" (the memory or the set of the individual psychic characteristics of each person). Nikolas Roubakine proves empirically (with bibliopsychological tests), that because the "mnema" of every person is individual, the projection of every foreign text in his conscience is subjective. Moreover - the content of the text (the book) and its reader are in functional dependence: the content is not constant (an unchanging constant is only the code system, the writing and the grammar), it is not a physical, but a mental phenomenon. The content acts as a reagent to the recipient and by an original psycho-chemical way transforms into subjective projection of content. The "book content" is an exciter of the "mental content" of the reader - his mental correlate. Said with the words of Roubakine, the more are the readers of the book, the more are its contents. And as far as every reader builds his projection of the read book, namely it is his idea of the book (Rubakin, 1924; Rubakin, 1977). This is a circumstance, which justifies and even legitimates the dissonance in the reader's perceptions of the same book.
When Roubakine explains the knowledge of the world (mainly through the reading) by the second signal system of the human, using the first intermediary tool - the word, the language, with this are put the basics of the complex study of the book co-subject in the knowledge and as an irreplaceable mediator between the authors' and the reader's psyche, between co-creative mentalities and individualities.
3.3. New model of the process reading
Through the bibliopsychological theory of the reading Nikolas Roubakine actually reveals a new model of the process reading, explained with new concepts and ideas, focused on the inner (mental) processes, that occur during the reading by itself. This theory is developed in a best way in his book "Psychology of the reader and the book" (1929). Since the release of this book the questions of the reading are already examined by two methodological systems. The first is not formed in scientific direction, though it refers to the cybernetic theory of the communication, because it explores "the transition" of the information from the book in the memory of the reader. The main idea is, that the text is perceived differently by the different readers. The other system is seen as a special case of the theory of the knowledge and more accurate - of the knowledge through the second signal system (according to academician Ivan Pavlov). According to it occurs another process - the reading is a specific reaction of the nervous system of external irritants (the word and the book).
The new model of the reading refers to the text as towards a stimulus, which „calls" a previous experience of the reading, but not as towards a coded message, which has to be decoded by the reader. The text can be seen as offering more or smaller possibility for creative participation. In her analysis of the model Sylva Simsova assumes, that the combination between the potential of the reader for participation in the perception of the text, from one side, and the potential of the reader for involvement in the text, from other side, leads to a unique reader's „experience" (understanding). This „experience" from the reading is measured according to two scales: abstractly-operative and emotional reaction (or lack of emotional reaction). Thus „the experience" of each reader can be localised and defined in which area it falls. The readers, those positions are closed, could have more in common between them, from these ones, those positions stray significantly one from another. But to measure (determinate) „our experience" from the reading, we turn to the already accumulated personal experience, in which consists the difficulty for its examination from neutral perspective. (Simsova, 2008)
The new bibliopsychological model of the reading reverses the conventions in the pedagogy, the sociology and the psychology of the reader and the reading. The turnaround can be summarized as follows: a) a book without a reader doesn't exist - every book is dead until the man ascribes it meaning; b) the words aren't a „container" for transportation of meaning and experiences - they are only a stimulus-irritant for stimulation of the own experiences of the reader; c) in every book there is as much content, as it has in the reader; because the "book content" is the initiator of the „mental content" of the reader, the more are the readers of the book, the more are its contents; d) every reader is a bearer of an unique "mnema" (aggregate genetic, social and personal memory) and therefore it has an own scale for good and bad books; therefore every reader finds by himself his books. And because each reader builds his unique projection of the read book, namely it is his idea for "the quality of the book". A circumstance, which justifies the dissonance in
the reader's perceptions of the same book and which relativises the universal and unified school readings.
3.4. Chance for the marketing in publishing - a method for predicting of the reader's choice
When we talk about an approach of the book to the reader, usually we are seeking its objective and general signs. Nikolas Roubakine is the first, who created a ranking of the books according to their intelligibility, according to the difficulty of the exhibition and their perception and according to their potential range of readers. But he revealed one more side of the knowledge of the book, the book publishing and the distribution of books, which today turns out to be the most important, the most crucial, but also the most neglected in the researches.
Nikolas Roubakine showed how can be implemented the principle "at each reder - his book". In his monograph "Among the books" (Rubakin, 1906) he demonstrates the rules of the possible acquaintance, prognosis and management of the reader's choice through this theory for the symmetry between the individualty of the reader and the individuality of the book. In other words, he proposes an empirical method for recognition of the favorite books and of the favorite authors through detection of mental proportionality of the book and the reader.
The modern theories of media reception and specifically of the reading sufficiently categorically explain the reader as an individual - his personal qualities, unique for himself, his personal abilities, his interests and moods, besides constantly changing, different in every new moment and every changed situation of reading, including the "reading" audiovisual media texts and films (Fedorov, 2015: 7, 161; Tsvetkova, 1999). But still in the beginning of XXth century Nikolas Roubakine warned to keep in mind, that all these conditionally called "caprices" (Tsvetkova, 2007) have a huge influence on the choice of the books, and on the power of the book influence (Rubakin, 1906: 134-136).
In order to succed in the choice of book for publishing, and for self education, and for gift or for recommendation of another reader, in order to put the distributon, and moreover, the production of books at the right foundation, we must tranfer obligatory our researches in the field of the individual psychology, and not so much on the social psychology and the empirical socology. The reason, according to the bibliopsychology of Roubakine, is as follows.
Between the reader and the book, that he likes, there is always if not identity, at least resemblance or analogy. Sometimes this correlation may be transient or accident, but is is a fact the presence of communication cohesion, caused by the between-subject analogy or identity. The more serious manifestation of the coincidence, of the "recognition" is the fact, that each reader has his favorite authors and his favorite books, his favorite fields of knowledge and all of them to the greatest extent correspond to his individual and unique view of life (Detailed analysis and proofs: Rubakin, 1911; Also in the essay: Rubakin, 1910). To answer to the question which are the favorite books of the different types of readers we can do it, of course, by the conventional way - through experiments or through statistics, surveys, polls and other sociological methods. But it can be undertaken a more bold move: with the help of systematic observations can be studied the psychological and social characteristics first, of the readers (in libraries, schools, book stores) and second, of the readers and of those their works, that rank among the most favorite or the most sought after by the readers.
Every publisher, every editor, every bookseller, every librarian, pedagogue etc, if he dig into his memory, could also find evidences for undeniable correlation between the type reader and the type his favorite books. This correlation has the following experession: on the reader the most of all influence those chacteristics of the author, which are typical, in one or another quantity, for the reader himself. The biggest impression exercises on the reader this book, those author possesses mental characteristics, analogical to the mental qualities of the particual reader. This formulation stems from the so-called "law of Hennequin", valid for the education and the self education, and for the system of the book turn to be with primary importance. With his law Emile Hennequin in the late XlXth century succeeds to discover the secret of the influence of the book on the reader. Definitely not every book can exercise any influence, not every book can influence on two people in an equally strong way. In order to obtain contact, cohesion, voltage it is necessary psychic kinship, symmetry between the author and the reader (Hennequin, 1889).
This is like the recognition of kindred spirits. Some quality in the author surely will give a reflection on his text. The same quality, present in the reader, make him the most sensitive towards
a perception of the identical quality, sealed in the published book, as he would noticed this in other people. We know from the psychology, that about the mentality of the others we judge by our own psyche - there is no other possible way. And the harmony between two human psyche, set on the same ton, occurs in the way, by which the tuning fork with a certain tone inevitably forces every other tuning fork to sounds with the same tone. The German psychologist Alexander Pfender called this property "sympathetic experience" (Pfender, 1909: 26).
It is fact, that on the different readers "the reaction of the particular book" (under the influence of its reading) may not be equally strong. Influence on the reaction exercices as the time, when the book is read, as also the different accidental circumstances at the moment as a condition (mood, physical condition), what is happening outside etc. Influence on the strength of the reaction of a particular book exercise the implicit circumstances of a general nature - the level of the education, the conditions in the social and professional environment, the peculiarities of the local life etc. But namely in such cases „the law of Hennequin" acts more clearly and the conclusions, that can be drawn through it, allow the production and the distribution of books to be put on reliable scientific bases.
What is even more important. Standing on the "law of Hannequin", Nikolas Roubakine proves the presence of "psyche of the book", because every book is a reflection of the psyche of its author and of all the features of this psyche. Therefore, in order to be obtained successful conclusions for the moment of the reader's choice, it must be studied the relationship "psyche of the reader - psyche of the book".
This is the fundamental principle of the bibliopsychology (the bibliological psychology). Roubakine proposes the acquaintance of the reader, to whom we want to recommend books or for whom we plan to publish books, to be focused on those sides of the psyche of the human, that can be covered with the "psyche of the book". For this purpose he creates an expert program or questionnaire for the psychological assessment of particular art book with a view of its receptive requirements (its maximum assimilation and understanding) (Rubakin, 1906: 140-141; Tsvetkova, 2013). Although the procedure for individual examination of every book with this questionnaire is very slow and laborious, there is hard to find more reliable tool for studying the factors, who approach the reader towards „his" bibliopsychologically relevant book.
3.5. Psychological typology of books
The composed by Roubakine program for recognition of kindred spirits in the relationship "reader - book - author" is one of the proofs, that also in the psychology of the book, as in the human psychology, can be distinguished three areas: intellectual (reasoning), emotional (sensual) and volitional (effective). These three areas correspond to the three major content categories of books: scientific-philosophical, emotional-aesthetic and practical.
By the strength of the bibliopsychological proportionality between psyche and content, all the books could be distributed in the three areas and thus to be formed three pchychological types of books:
I. Intellectual (reasoning, scientific-philosophical) book.
II. Emotional (sensual, aesthetic, art) book.
III. Volitional (effective, practical) book.
We can easily recognize which are the books from the last type - these are the books for business and practical occupations, technical, applied science, self help books etc. Such kind of book seeks and provokes actions, volitional efforts and ovecoming of external obstacles.
It is important the clarification, that not only every book can be studied in a bibliopsychological way. It depends on the area, to which it belongs, to its shape, to its means of expression. It is impossible to seek a coincidence in the assessment of the sociological, historical or the technical book, as it is impossible to unify the term "reader" in view of the personal reader's "mnema" and its intellectual and emotional upgrade over the time.
3.6. Statistics of reader's reactions
Another bibliopsychological method for typologization of the books, invented by Roubakine, besides the described program-questionnaire for psychological assessment of the content, is the bibliopsychological statistics (Rubakin, 1977: 141). It is based on the postulate, that the word is an „exciter" and reagent of an experience or on a whole accord of psychic experiences in the reader. The statistics is performed by means of eight bibliopsychological categories, called psychic experiences:
I - image C - concept E - emotion Or - organic feeling F - feeling A - aspiraton M - movement I - instinct
The verification of this method is made by highly effective text, positioned in the special statistical card (see Figure 1), which consists in one sentence-slogan: „Long live the book, a powerful weapon in the fight for truth and justice(It is well-known, that his is the personal motto of Roubakine, with which he identifies him self at two more iconic places - at his personal Exlibris and on the stone book, on which is placed the urn with his ashes).
c 1 F E Or 1 A M f s s TOTAL POINTS BIBLIOPSYCHOLOGICAL COEFFICIENTS (IN %)
6 2 1 7 1 1 7 5 20,0 6,6 3,3 23,3 3,3 3,3 23,3 16,9
: I * v 1
/ \ / / /
/1 \ / /1
A f/l \ \ / /1 \
/ / /1 [/ /1 \ /
1/ / / / ] (
i , 1
LONG LIVE THE BOOK, A POWERFUL WEAPON IN THE FIGHT FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE 30 100,00
NUMBER OF WORDS 10 NUMBER OF POINTS 30 PERSONAL INDICATOR 30:10=3
Fig. 1. Statistics of the reader's reactions
The psychic experiences, which we are feeling when reading every separate word, we mark with „point" in the coordinate system. One word can „excite" more than one experience. Than our reactions of this word we mark with more points in the coordinate system. After we finish the reading we count each of the eight psychic experiences and we obtain the so-called statistics of the reader's reactions. After we finish with the reporting of the experiences, we relate with a curve all the points from the beginning till the end of the sentence. We obtain something like cardiogram of the broadcast content.
The tested in this case reader reacted to the ten words of the phrase with psychic experiences in the following order:
C = 6, I = 2, F = 1, E = 7, Or = 1, I = 1, A = 7, M = 5
The first two or three letters indicate what type is the reader and therefore what type according to his „mnema" is the text. The bibliopsychological types of readers, respectively the bibliopsychological type of texts are three:
I. Intelelctual (reasoning) - faster and more frequent excitement of C, I, F
II. Emotional (sensual) - faster and more frequent excitement of E and I
III. Volitional (effective) - faster and more frequent excitement of A and M
As a result of the conducted test we have the following subjective statistics. The largest percentage (63.6%) tested phrase collects from three types readers reactions - emotional and volitional, and after them is the intellectual, because during its reading is registered fastest and
frequent excitemet of E (emotion), A (aspiration) and C (concept). We can make a formal-logical, even hasty conclusion. If a book can be composed only by one phrase (according to the view of Oswald Ducrot and Tsvetan Todorov one phrase is also a „text", but a medium, containing only one sentence, can be called book (Ducrot & Todorov, 1972: 375)), so a book containing the above text is from the bibliopsychological type „emotional-volitional" (sensual-effective).
The results of the reading are different in the different readers. There is a difference at the particular reader by ontogenetic and phylogenetic reasons - depending on his mental and his physical condition and his age during the reading of the test. The condicting of such kind of tests in all media fields could prove the validity of the basis axiom of the bibliopsychological method: every recipient (reader, listener, viewer) builds his unique projection of the foreign word - printed, handwritten, oral.
In summary we can say that the bibliopsychology turns out to be that area of knowledge, which stands at the foundation of the science of written communications. If in his practise the professional learns to compare the properties of the text with the analogical properties of the readers, by the formula of "The 5 W" will foresee at what works, at which reader, under what conditions and in which moment obligatory will operate the "law of Hennequin".
The described bibliopsychological method doesn't exhaust the palette of mental relations in the triad "reader - text - author". But it is enough, to cultivate in the specialists in the communication sector awareness of the existence of correspondence between the sychic type of reader and the psychic type of text. It is enough in order to alert the producers in the industries of content, that the psychology of the text and the psychology of the reader are symmetrical. It is enough in order to remind to the scientists, that the whole knowledge of the media, accumulated through the general scientific methods can be corrected through the special method of the bibliopsychology and that with it all receptive problems and conflicts in the written communications can be studied objectively and corrected wih maximum accuracy (Rubakin, 1977:
137-138).
4. Discussion
Fifteen conflicts with the reading
The actual collisions and conflicts in the research field of the reading instead of decrease, they increase. Is it possible their decision to be hidden in the bibliopsychological theory of Nikolas Roubakine? I will present a synthesized program of fifteen conflict zones of the reader and the reading, awaiting settlement.
4.1. Collision between "face" and "image" of one publication (book). The resonance, the reflections of particular book, both in politics and show business, shape the "public image" or the "image" of this book. Regarding the image of the book, however, the situation is more different, comparing with the PR-image of the people. We have already explained that according to the bibliopsychological theory the book is only reagent towards the psyche of the reader, and its content (essentially the object of the feedback in the process of reading) is a projection of the reactions of the reader. And because every reader forms his projection of the read book, the total reflection of the readers can never be objective - it is objectified, personalized, grouped or prevailing social, but always subjective. Said with the Roubakine's terminology, the unread book is only artifact, the read book is only halo. Therefore if the author can have two faces - real (anthropological) and represented (image), the book as medium doesn't have a "real" face - it has only image, and it is always subjective.
4.2. The collisions "good - bad text" and "good - bad book". The discrepancy in the assessments of the readers about "the quality" of the text and the discrepancy in the minds of the readers for the "content" of the book don't have yet experimentally confirmed reason. But the Roubakine's bibliopsychological method has a potential to reveal why there can be objective criteria for "good text" and universal category for "good book". First, because "the good", besides moral, is also mental category. And second, because the book as communication medium is a studio for objects of art - the stay in its laboratory sculpts totally different readers and mismatching readings. The reader arranges the work (and its author) on that place on the scale of his values, which he has assigned to it by himself, but at the same times in the scale of the time changes his individuality as a reader. So every reader reads the same work in some way in a particular period and in a completely different way 2 or 20 years later. The result of reading - the
memory of the content of the book in the reader's mind - is filtred by his personal psychosocial matrix, schematised by his personal memory, ideologized by his personal idols and edited by his personal oblivion. In summary - every reader has his scale for good and bad books. This is a natural effect according to the bibliopsychology. We can give an example with the English writer Geoffrey Chaucer, who kept only 60 books in his personal library, but hese were the most necessary and the most valuable for himself. In the same bibliopsychological sense is the maxim of the Russian dramaturgist and journalist Isaac Babel: "Every intelligent person has to read during his life 8-10 books. But in order to understand which ones, he sould read 15 000."
4.3. The collision "useful — harmful book". The relation "usefulness - harm" in the contect of the reading and books is heavily exploited for the purposes of speculations or propaganda. In aggressive media environment the accusement of one book for "harmful" or "dangerous" is usually a deliberate insult and malicious generalization of personal opinion. Every book as content can be conditionally harmful. But the "harm" is exclusively reader's feature. The harm of the content is predetermined by the "mnema" of the reader and by the power of this bibliopsychological law the harm in reading is always subjective and variable quantity.
4.4. The collapse between the expert evaluation of the literature and the ordinary reader's opinion. This collapse isn't new, but it seems unaware or rather deliberately neglected. Probably many of us have been affected - as authors or readers, of evaluation stamps and clishes, transformed into fetishes among the literature criticism. Today, in a comfort environment for freedom of the expression and of the thought, become the more and more apparent the discrepancies between the expert assessments of the official readers (including the professional and scientific reviewers) and the opinions of the natural real readers. Too obvious become the discrepancies in the perceptions for the "quality" of particular book, for its "high" or for its "low" value. It happens like this, because more often has to be repeated the important warning of the bibliopsychologist Nikolas Roubakine - that the book is not a channel, but an exciter of unique psychic reactions; that the projection of every foreign text in the mind of the reader is subjective and the more are the readers of a book, the more are its contents. A study of Harvard Business School, completed in 2012, shows, that the reviews in Amazon, taken together, are just as powerful and reliable, as those of the professional critics, but there are systematic differences in the objectivity (Dobrescu, Luca & Motta, 2012). These differences are a negative for the expert readers. First, as regards the assessment about the quality of the books - the ratings of the experts and the ordinary readers correlate too little with each other (the difference bring systematic character), which could mean, that the readers are self-sufficient, they orientate without mediators. Second, as regards the debut authors - the scientist of Harvard are, according to the reasearches, with a little closed thinking and "learn slowly about new and unknown books", while the ordinary readers immediately pay attention to the new and unknown books and encourage them with positive evaluations. Moreover the category paid critics is influenced by the conjuncture - they are more likely to write positive reviews for nominated and award-winning authors. Empirically it is confirmed the rule that the so-called crowd is wiser than the appointed experts. (This is the thesis in the book of James Surowiecki "The Wisdom of Crowds" (Surowiecki, 2004). Surowiecki finds an unusual paradox: the intellectual potential of the big groups of people in total turns out higher, than of the elite, composed of competent experts - it is valid the so-called cognitive heterogeneity. As many people participate in the guessing (remembering), as bigger is the possibility to find the right answer. Namely thanks to this strange phenomenon the democracy -particularly in America - can be effective.).
4.5. The phenomenon "cognitive dissonance" in scientific communications. In explanation of the cases of cognitive dissonace and conflicts between author and reader of scientific text the philosophers ofeten resort to the words of Nietzsche: "Consider with yourself how different are the feelings, how dissimilar are the opinions even among the most closest acquaintances; how even seemingly identical opinions occupy completely different place or have different affect in the head of your friends, than in yours, how many are the reasons to misunderstanding and mutual reasonings in the different countries." (qtd. in: Gak, 1967: 65). In this statement implicitly exists the problem of „the collision of mnemes" according to the bibliopsychology. From bibliopsychological perspective the actual conflicts between author and reader of scientific text most often are a result of the collision between the mass connotation of a particular word and its close-scientific meaning. For the theory and the practise of the scientific
communications and the interdisciplinary discourses is especially important the question about the conflict-free interaction between different scientific paradigms and in particilar - to increase the general scientific lexical competence of every scientist. It is well-known, that every act of reading is a complex transaction between three levels of competence - between the competentions of the reader and the competentions of the author, in search of similarities with the type competentions, which postulates particular text. In this is expressed the meta-information nature of reading and the added value, which it gives to the text through „triple coding". Like this functions the bibliopsychological mechanism of the reading, according to the theory of Roubakine - every read text is psychologically different at every reader, because the content is psychical, but not physical category. And only in this bibliopsychological context two very serious risks of the text communication become predictable. The one risk stems from the widespread situation of the „semantic scissors", where occurs semantic „vacuum", caused by the mismatching between the „mnemas" and the competencies for textual activity of the reading partners in the written communication. Some „various reading" appear, which for instance developing and decisionmaking of any kind lead to extremely negative socially significant consequences." (Dridze, 1996: 149). The second risk is expected, when reader, who doesn't possess the competences neither of the autor, nor of the text, can represent its own private sense, limited, incorrect and invalid. This situation is also particularly dangerous for the team work, for the delegated management and for the decision-making. Therefore the knowledge of the bibliopsychological laws is very necessary of the readers scientists. Knowing yourself and your colleagues as readers, could balance their generally scientific lexical and written competence and its scientific „mnema" as a whole and and to behave coolly and with reserve towards the random and irrelevant of the scientific discourse readers.
4.6. The misunderstanding in reading. According to the bibliopsychology the understanding of the read text is determined by the "mneme" of the concrete reader, but it can't fully coincide with the author's "mneme". Therefore even between people of the same linguistic environment is important the convention. As it says the Roman law: before we dispute, first to clarify the concepts. For the relatively complete understanding in the reading of scientific text it is important in the "mnemes" of the co-subjects to have the same levels of "background knowledge" and "silent knowledge". The "background knowledges" form a wide area of unconditionally known of the whole society information, present by presumption in each reading mneme. With the term „background knowledge" the specialists in communications define every unobjectified, innate, uncounscious or intuitive knowledge, contrary to the verbalized, but immanent for every social communication (Gubanova, 2010). The "silent" knowledge is a phenomenon of the scientific knowledge. It is also unverbalized, it is not given in the textbooks, it can't be found in the scientific monographs and articles can not be summarized in encyclopedias. It is transferred by intuitive way, so to say, electromagnetic way, it is acquired in terms of transmission in the three formats of the practical experience - through direct personal contacts between the scientists, through project cooperation and team experimental studies or through common reader's horizon, as a result of reading of approximately equal or strictly canonical writings. The "silent" knowledge can't be objectified, as the apparent, and can be communicated, understood and used only at "knowledge of the subject" in context and only in mutual cooperation and trust (Polanyi, 1966). This resource of the reading "mneme" is an excellent turnsole for identification of the marginal, unauthorized by the society subjects in the science. The imitating scientific character reader is recognizable by his irrelevant reactions in contact with text, based on tacit knowledge. Compared to this absorbed "between the lines", considered as a priori among "the initiated", coordinated and incorporated in the "mneme" of the actual scientists in the field, the non-scientist doesn't have reflex. The absence of tacit knowledge in the reading "mneme" can't be concealed (Mihaleva, 2011).
4.7. The communication paradoxes. The first paradox is, when the expressed by the author thought or the written concept causes unexpected opposite reaction in the reader (most often from disapproval through aggression till counter-attack). According to the bibliopsychological theory, the reasons for this effect are two - either the author coded uncorrectly the speech, i.e. doesn't send quality "irritant" to the readers, or the written is sent (or accidently fallen) to a reader with a completely opposite „mneme". The second communication paradox is known as "syllepsis", called like this by the French structuralist and semiotician Michael Riffaterre with contributions to the theories of the reader's response (Hristov, 2009). The syllepsis consists in
understanding of the same word in two ways simultaneously - in its contextual significance and in its intertextual significance. The syllepsis functions in three varieties, corresponding to three directions of intertextuality: mediating - as hidden reference to an external text; innertextual -when a foreign text is "built" in the reading text; and complementary - when it starts to play with contradictory connotations and valorisations (Riffaterre, 1979; Riffaterre, 1980). The bibliopsychology can explain this paradox with the wealth and the energetics of the reader's mneme. The third paradox is the so-called exception from the "gold rule" in the information science - at the exit to be received more information, than it was received at the entrance. In the relation "text - reader" the effect is expressed in "reading between the lines" or knowing of things, which the author concealed or he didn't know. But the conditions are two: to start with the same level of "common knowledge" and of tacit knowledge and the reader has reacher than the author "mneme". In this case only the bibliopsychological approach may explain why one reader receives more from the text, than any other reader.
4.8. The phenomenon "phylogenetic reading". The fact, that the same readers with the age progress change their partialities towards the characters, for instance, from the novel by Alexandre Dumas "The Three Musketeers", is explained with the information methodological system of the bibliopsychology, reporting the "transition" of the information from the book in the memory of the changing reader. The "phylogenetic reading" is observed at the same reader, who changes his attitude towards the same written work in parallel with the change of his age. The explanation of the bibliopsychology, that although the text is the same, the change in the attitude is due to the change in the "mneme" of the reader. This change in the attitude towards a particular work can be in positive, but it can be in negative direction.
4.9. The mechanism of the co-creativity in the communication with the text (the book). Another question, raised by the bibliopsychology, is whether the reading by itself is a creative process. According to Roubakine, as far we are from the verbal, the more freedom of the creativity it has for the reader. However at neurophysiological level in reading is observed an emergence of new temporary connections between the cells in the brain - the core of the innovation activity. Every new text is a bearer of "remindings" towards second signal system of the human and acts as catalyst to put into motion the intuition as superverbal impulse, after who in the reader's consciousness appear new, non-existing by then logical formations.
4.10. Recognition of the reading as automanipulation. According to the postulate, that the content of the text is not physical, but psychological category, because the content acts as a reagent towards the receptive apparatus of the individual reader, readers should build their own unique version of this content. The filters of the automanipulation of the reading are several and all of them have personal, neurophysically predetermined checkpoint: the eye, the nervous system, the sex of the brain, the hormonal and the emotional condition, the linguistic competence, the semiotic competence, the social matrix (habits, prejustices and stereotypes), the professional affiliation (type of education, level of professionalism) and actuality of knowledge (depending on the setting for continuous learning or refusal of learning). Thanks to the property of "selectivity" the human perception filters out the subjectively important signals from the general information background, passes them through "the filter of apperception" and transforms them into information "only for himself". Even if there exist so-called intertextual mechanisms, managing the reader's reception, proven by textological methods, the circumstance neurophysical "automanipulative filters" leads to this, that every reader sees into the sentencies what he wants or what he succeeds to extract.
4.11. Recognition of the reading as manipulation. Today in the social networks we can recognise the uniques types of readers, shaped in the practise of the manipulative reading: uncritical reading (over-reliance of the written word), short-sighted reading (poor sight of the lexical content of the words, misunderstanding of the meanings of the words and the meaning of the sentences), over-interpreting reading (incorporation of a non-existing meaning in the content), symptomatic reading (seeking to identify the faults of the text), speculative reading (deliberate search only of the imperfections, only of the factological, print and spelling errors), solipsistic reading, hater reading. This manipulativity of the reader is determined by two fundamentally important formulations in the bibliopsychological theory. First, to what extent the reader will succumb to the suggestions and manipulations of the author, depends on the similarity in the composition of their "mnemes". And second, because the reader is set for reading but not so much
based on the specific characteristics of his environment of affiliation (profession, occupation, age, sex, ethnicity etc), as through accord of his individual experiences - reflexes towards the words in the read text, namely at this basis are manipulated or formed as manipulators the described above types of readers.
4.12. Recognition of snobbery towards reading and the books. The social-psychological approach defines the snobbery in the reading as explicit deviant behaviour, different from the implicit reader's interest. Regarding the book the snobbery exsists, since the books exists. Still in II century Lucian reacts to this problem in foreshortening, which is very actual and today. The main problem, treated in his essay "The uneducated book buyer", is the fact, that people were buying not books, that they would like to read and that they would like, but books that are modern. In this antique work we have a description of 5 characteristics of the "mneme" of the reader-snob, reached on an abstract-logical way of the philosophers. As first sign of snobbery Lucianus recognizes the manipulation of the buyer-reader: "My dear, you do just the opposite of what you want. You count on to pass for educated; you don't miss to buy the best books, but everything goes upside down and becomes a testament for your illiteracy. Moreover, you actually don't buy the best books, but you mislead by the opinion of those people, who praise what they get, you become a gift of God for all the pseudo-worshipers of the books, a real treasure for the book sellers" (Lucianus, 1986: 84). Second sign of snobbery is the reading with misunderstanding: "although you are always with book in your hand, always deep in reading, you understand from the read as much as donkey from the lyre, as it moves its ears in tact with the music." (Lucianus, 1986: 86). Third sign of snobbery, according to Lucian, is inability for critical reading and rationalization: "You look at the books with wide open eyes, a little more, Zeus is my witness, your eyes will jump out of your head, and you read something aloud so fast, that your look leaves behind your tongue. But this in not enough. You must comprehend as the dignity, as also the disadvantage of the written and to enter as into the meaning of the whole, as into the charm of the individual expressions, to recognize which one of them are composed by writer by the established rules and which one of them are suspicious, another's or counterfeit." (Lucianus, 1986: 85). At fourth place Lucian reveals the snobbery as distorted reading: "Don't you see, that you fall into the same situation, when you hold in your hand a wonderful scroll, in a leather purple box and gold tip of the wand, but you read it as a true barbarian, crippling and distorting the written, among the mockeries of the educated people and the praises of the surrounding you flatters, who suddenly turn aways to each other to laugh?" (Lucianus, 1986: 87). Lucian distinguishes the anti-reading as fifth sign of the snobbery, which predetermines the nonfunctionality of the owned book. The explanation is made by observation on the main incentive for the buying of books - not the desire to read, but the ostentation, the use of the book as an instrument for the personal ambition of the owner to be seen with a book in his hand: "Cause you will buy them to do not use them for anything and you will be ridiculed by the educated people, who seek to benefit not by the beauty or by the high prices of the books, but by the speech and the thought of their authors." (Lucianus, 1986: 95). Today, thousand of years later, the snobbery towards the books is repeadetly more actual. But for its research, for its in-debt explanation and for its correct prognosis it is not enough the Lucian's speculative method, but it is necessary the Roubakine's empirical bibliopsychological method.
4.13. Recognition of the anti-creative activity in the media ecosystem. The phenomenons "censorship", "reading control", "recomendatory bibliography", "lists for compulsory reading", "bestseller charts" and the phenomenons to the massmedia influence from the second half of ХХ century - standardization of thinking, concealing or distortion of particular perspectives, propaganda of false authorities, unification of the human consumer and the human audience - all this, according to the bibliopsychology, are mutually intensified information noises, that play the role of anticreative factors in the system of the social communications.
4.14. The subordination "reader — author". One of the current conflicts in the scientific and of the expert definition of the book, which the bibliopsychological approach, can solve, is by the topic of the subordination between the source (the author) and the recipient (the reader) in the text communication. Who is the dominant factor in the book - the author or the reader? The bibliopsychological answer reads as follows: not the author, but the reader has leading place in the fuctionning of the book as a medium. The bibliopsychology accepts that not the author, but the reader is the engine of the communication. As the bibliopsychology is a theory of the
reception of text with accent on the personal aspects of the reader, the communication vector is with opposite direction: "reader - text - author". The author is the end user in the chain, in case that will be achieved the effect of the „bibliopsychological archeology" and will be restored (relatively, of course) his psychological type.
What are the reasons to invest efforts for correction in the one-way model of communication and to give priority to the function of the reader?
First, before to be private property and merchandise, the book is a universal value - for general use. It is proven by the media archeology with established enlightner's phenomenos from before minimum 3000 years.
Second, the book is a mediator for exchange of knowledge in 100 % of the cases in the history, but only sometimes is a literary work, polygraphic product, commodity and library volume.
Third, the author is not always known, and he is not always a human. The author's problematic is derivative of the proven mystifications such as: "anonymous author", "fictitious author" (dummy or nonexisting name), "author by default" (fake memoirs), "developed brandauthor" (name, behind of which is writing a group of people in variable composition, such as detective and fantasy publishing projects), "rent-an-author" (rent-a-writer, "writer in shadow", "hired feather", "literary slave"), "speculative authorship" ("bought" authorship), "falso co-authorship" (by the scientifical ethic codes), "forced co-authorship", "contrafact" authorship and plagiarist. And when I say, that the author may even not be a human, I mean the mashine generated texts, among which the first book in the world, written by computer - "The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed" (The Policeman's, 1984), novels and articles, written by computer with software as PC Writer 1.0 or by robot technologies from the type of "Narrative Science", etc.
Fourth, the book is a product of an avalanche reader-author chain, but not a standard product of material production. The reading (the consumption) has always been before the writing (the production). The author, before he grows as such, has also been only reader. He is a reader while he is writing. The content he wrote could not be entirely his own product. Before he ends it he was reading, he was listening, he was drawing ideas, he was imitating, he copied by others. It is analogical the statement of the Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski in the preface of his stoty "Tandaradei!": "And if any writer claims that he doesn't draw most of his ideas from reading, I will call him liar. For clarity I will add that towards the reading I add not only the newspapers, but also the cinema and the television." (Sapkowski, 2011: 114). The author subsequently is a reader of his own work. Otherwise the revised or enlarged editions wouldn't exist.
Fifth, the consumer objects do not change in isolation. The industry was able to produce digital books 20 years ago, but the transition is happening only now, because only now the readers opened to the change and finally have devices and accessible platforms for content, that can be easily bought and easily found. The readers can or can't relate sentimentally to the printed books, but the facts today are, that they turn to the digital reading in droves.
Sixth, the unread book is only a message, but not information. The information in some occasions requires active, conscious search, and in others is obtained by chance, suddenly and leads to surprise (than we call it "discovery"). Such is the case with the ancient treasures - they are not information, until they are not found, until they become archaeology "finds". In the fund of the Russian State Library in Moscow (formerly „V. I. Lenin") during the Perestroika were registered around 50% never unordered books, which we call "messages, frozen in anticipation", and the knowledges, fixed in them, will become an information when they will be found regardless by random or motivated reader. Similar is the situation with the so-called „time capsules", among which is the message of Todor Jivkov, sealed beneath a marble slab in the lobby of the memorial „Pleven epopee", accompanied by an inscription: for the future generations - to be opened in 100 years. The message in this capsule will be information for the envisaged generations, only when it will be printed again, after the 100 years have passed.
Seventh, according to the receptive aesthetics the term „book" is a unity of written and read text. Such is the definition of the modern book, given by the researcher of ancient literature prof. Bogdan Bogdanov. Apostrophizing the famous definitions, where to the reading is not paied any attention, he claims that this term for book is not even contemporary - in fact the book as unity of writing and reading appeared in Alexandria, where meet the Egyptian jealousy towards the written text and the democratic universality of the Athenian classical culture (Bogdanov, 1989).
Eighth, the destiny of the book depends on the reader. „Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli", reads the maxim of Terentianus Maurus (I-II century AD): „Depending on the reader the books have different destiny".
Ninth, the notion „media" refers not to the message or its bearer, but the service of the recipient. This is confirmed by each International Book Fair in Frankfurt, where hundreds of stalls offer not so texts, but ways of reading of them (at the end of 2011 the readers for digital books dropped down so much, that they already became a product with mass search).
The media chain seen like this really confirms the non-standard sequence, set in the bibliopsychological paradigm: „reader - author - publisher". The logic is like this. Without the reading the author's and the publisher's activities are losing meaning. Even before he learned to write, everybody was and until he has eyes he will be a reader. Authors, translators, editors, reviewers, publishers and advisers in bookstores currently are using physical and digital libraries, archives and websites with books, encyclopedias and dictionnaries, in order to help themselves with reference, citation, comparison, to economize time and efforts, which can reduce the cost price of the book. The author, the scientist, the publisher, the translator, the editor, the reviewer, all of them before they grow up as such, have been obligatory readers. And they continue to be readers. The reader is the one, who is flowing life into the book. If there are no eyes to read it, the books doesn't exist. [Full citation: „The book is composed of characters, who are speaking of other characters, and they on their part are speaking of the things. If there is no eye to read it, the book remains a bearer of characters, that don't give concepts, and therefore it doesn't exist (Eco, 1985: 465)]. In „A History of Reading" Alberto Manguel supports the same point of view: „in any case the reader is the one, who unveils the meaning; the reader is the one, who gives or reveals in some object or event definite probable meaning; the reader is the one, who must give meaning of the system of signs, and after that to unveil it." (Manguel, 2004: 14-15). All the units in the production cycle of the book exist only because of the reader. Without him authors, editors, translators, publishers, dealers, librarians, all of them are unfunctional and unnecessary.
4.15. The failures of economic characters in the book sector. The bibliopsychological approach would reveal that they are due to ignorance and shortsightedness regarding the role of the reader in the modern media ecosystem. In the market economy conditions not other, but the reader is the sovereign of the success or of the failure of a particular publishing project - he has the freedom not only to not read and to not like what is offered to him but the right to speak publicly about it. The negligence of the reader- sovereign and of his power to revenge - right here continue to be the weakness in the world system of the book. Only the educated entrepreneur can survrive as a publisher, because in the new ecological paradigm of the global publishing the chance favours the publisher creator and businessman, the publisher producer, the publisher, who disciplined his ego and became aware as „lawyer of the reader". Because mostly the global network helped us to understand, that the freedom of the reading is higher than the freedom of expression (writing) and the freedom of the publishing.
5. Summary
Supposed causes for the indifference towards the Roubakine's theory of reading
In the summary of the Roubakine's bibliopsychological approaches contain assumptions of the modern apathy towards his works as from the part of the scientists, as from the part of the publishers. These assumptions have three directions.
The first suggestion for the today's unpopularuty of the Roubakine's science is that the bibliopsychology is incomprehensible, because it doesn't use the usual empirical tools of the sociology or of the mass psychology. It is like this because it is too difficult, but because of this - a true science. Why this is an unusual and difficult science? Because it proves, that the sociological criteria such as gender, age, education, social status do not provide adequate assessment in the relationship „reader - text", because it is dependent on other factors (biological, neurophysiological, cognitive), concerning the real process of reading. It is like this because it proves that the empirical sociology is helpless against the methods of the individual psychology, when it is speaking of prognosis in the field of the mass communications, marketing or the media production. Because it doesn't allows being speeking about the readers in average categories. Because it doesn't allow being speeking for mass reader, for mass reading, for reader's audience, and even more - for reader's mass. It disproves the usefulness of the mass plans ans programs for
reading. Ir disproves the collective lists for obligatory reading. It exposes the validity of the unified readings. It relativises the universality of the textbook readings and the generalization of the assessments of the official critics and academic readers. It dismisses the mass character of the reader's perceptions, of the reader's tastes and of the reader's interests. The Roubakine's theory of reading is a science of personalized attention towards the individual reader. The bibliopsychology reveals the reader's unit as a unique receptive personality. In fact it can't exist correct and uncorrect readings, postulates Roubakine - if the man reads as everyone else, if the result from his reading is identical to the result of everyone else, this is not normal. The bibliopsychological type reader is uncontrollable, because it is dynamic. His reader's interest is unpredictable, because it can be felt neither with the intuition, nor with the rigid senses of the external observer, nor with the mechanics of the marketing tools, but it requires personal testing of each individual reader. The reader's unit by Roubakine's is a microworld, that any from the known general scientific methods can't explan in fullness.
The second assumption for the indifference towards the Roubakine's theory of reading is his postulate about the reading person. It is this postulate that Roubakine offers to the Bulgarian in one already textbook letter from 1939 to Rusin Philipov, lecturer in „Psychology of the reader and the book" in the Plovdiv National Library. It is written: „...the working people in the literary work must not only to know and to love the reader, but also to consider the book as the most powerful, invincible weapon in the fight for truth and justice." [The text of the letter is available for the Bulgarian readers at two places - in an article by the director of the National library „Ivan Vazov" in Plovdiv Prof. Radka Koleva and in the dissertation of the library scientist Prof. Maria Mladenova (Koleva, 1989; Mladenova, 2007: 185-186)]. However, Roubakine insists to put this definition for book on three of the emblems for himself - he used it in the published form for conducting of bibliopsychological test of the readers (by the so-called scale of reader's experiences), he wrotes it on his personal Exlibris and he wanted to be engraved as a title on the stone book, on which to be placed the urn with his ashes of Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow. If it is read not as a cliche, but as an offer from some smarter person, today this sentence enters in collision with the priorities of the market competitions and the socio-spiritual poverty. These priorities highly marginalize the Roubakine's theory of reading, because they impose converse imperatives: the book shoud not be considered as mean to colossal goal of determined reader, but for end in itself of business or profession; the reader shouldn't be known, but to be followed, he shouldn't be loved, but to be reported.
The third assumption for the negligence of the Roubakine's bibliopsychology and for the refusal to be learned and developed is in his hardly acceptible for many people opinion about the book as social media. First, because Roubakine by himself was not living „about the books", nor yet „amont the books", but for gis millions of readers through the books, like many book scientists, library scientists, bibliographers, bibliophiles in the world history, for which the bywords are „life with the books", „life for the books", „life among the books" and others book-centered definitions. In 1906 when with his enormous work „Among the books" he sharply criticizes the bookmen, the bibliographers, the bibliophiles, the lovers of the printed paper, the covers and the bindings, the in love with the books as in fetishes and in the book work as manipulation with these fetishes, he calls them directly „gravediggers of the book". His message to them is to realize that „as the Saturday exists for the man, but not vice versa, as the book exists for the man, and not vice versa. Love towards the book because of the book shouldn't exist" (Rubakin, 1906: 7). The impeccable bibliophile and book scientist Roubakine is categorical, that the material treatment of the books is asocial and that the book must be not only means, but an aim in life. His motto till the end of his days was: „Book for life, but not life of book" (Rubakin, 1979: 37). The second reason for the disapproval and even the acts of hostility towards Roubakine is rooted in the defended by him firm position, that the books don't have place in the commodity-money relations. „He possessed a confidence that the book shouldn't be an object of sale-trade, but only an object of distribution and reading", recalls his son Alexander Roubakine (Rubakin, 1979: 68). This counter-market position then and now can not be estimated as eccentric, but its rightness in the developing digital epoch emerges as increasingly natural and valid.
6. Conclusion
The possibilities of the bibliopsychology aren't still used, although it is a subject of reasearch of many other sciences as library science, bibliography, psycholinguistics, linguistics, psychology. To this
day the testings on this scientific discipline are insufficient. Very often the attention of the researchers is directed to other sciences, because the object which it considers is condiserably more complex.
The thin scientists, which are trying to develop and to update the Roubakine's theoretical views, have their unshakable conviction. And it is that "people of the book" are only those who are aware of its unique behaviour in the social-communication process, which personally "served" it as a reagent, as a bearer of energy potential of the human reactions. In the qualitative new „knowledge economy" the chance favours those authors, publishers, editors, bibliographers, librarians, booksellers, who have managed to discipline their ego and recognize their role for derivative of the reader.
The Roubakine's science of reading contains one more lesson. Before the intuition about the important book and before the reader's horizon of the determined educated person soundn't stand barriers of scruples, ignorance and fear of the unknown. This defended and this special line built Roubakine for himself as with his authorship of more than 280 book in the encyclopaedic spectrum, as also with his personal library of 75 000 priceless volumes, that before his death bequeath to the State Library of the USSR „V.I. Lenin" (today is The Russian State Library in Moscow). It is known, for instance, that Roubakine is the last owner of the dangerous occult book „Enochian Keys", which at the moment is in his personal fund. This so-called "black book" in leather-bound the last time was in the hands of the Russian Prime Minister Piotr Stolipin until his assassination in 1911 and by testimony of his adjutant, the reader always paied with his life for the learned secrets of the ancient text (Sileckij, 2016).
Almost in the style of the urban legends, already several generations librarians are convinced, that the Nikolas Roubakine's spirit still inhabits the builing of the Moscow library. People are telling stories, that he "moved" there from Lausanne, together with his book fund. On the famous 15th "Roubakine's" floor, who has entirely been released from this donation, by unknown reasons the urn with his ashes stayed not a few time next to his portrait on the books. Since then the night guards hear steps and a waft from a passing person. They admit, that Roubakine by himself thoroughly review his collection and guards his personal copy of the "black book". But during the day the librarians testify for an invisible presence in the reading-rooms - the good "Roubakine's ghost" watches over the order at the shelves and the attitude towards the books, recognizes the lazy and helps to the persistent readers. The consultants don't omit to advise the embarassed reader, in case he doesn't find his needed book, to pray silently to Nikolas Roubakine and before long this book will be in his hands (Fochkin, 2013; Fochkin, 2015: 310-314). It isn't known another world scientist with such an aura - of overlord of the reading and of guardian angel of the reader.
References
Bogdanov, 1989 - Bogdanov, Bogdan (1989). Antichnoto chetene i osobenostite na starogruckata kultura [The ancient reading and peculiarities of starogruckata culture]. Istorija na starogruckata kultura. Sofia, p. 245.
Dobrescu, Luca & Motta, 2012 - Dobrescu, Loretti, Michael Luca and Alberto Motta (2012). What Makes a Critic Tick? Connected Authors and the Determinants of Book Reviews: Working Paper. Harvard Business School, 12-080. 25 p.
Dridze, 1996 - Dridze, Tamara (1996). Social'naja kommunikacija kak tekstovaja dejatel'nost' v semiosociopsihologii [The social communication as a text activity in semiosocialpsychology]. Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. №3, pp. 145-152.
Ducrot & Todorov, 1972 - Ducrot, Oswald et Tzvetan Todorov (1972). Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. 470 p.
Eco, 1985 - Eco, Umberto (1985). The Name of the Rose. Sofia: Narodna kultura. 607 p.
Fedorov, 2015 - Fedorov, Alexander (2015). Media literacy education. Moscow: ICO Information for all. 577 p. Retrieved from: http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/_ld/9Z995_Book_ 2015_Fedor.pdf (accessed 25.07.2016)
Fochkin, 2013 - Fochkin, Oleg (2013). Prizrak Nikolaya Rubakina [The ghost of Nicholas Rubakin]. Vechernjaja Moskva. 9th December. Retrieved from: http://vm.ru/news/2013/12/09/prizrak-nikolaya-rubakina-226445.html (accessed 25.07.2016)
Fochkin, 2015 - Fochkin, Oleg (2015). Prizrak Nikolaya Rubakina [The ghost of Nicholas Rubakin] (Rossijskaja gosudarstvennaja biblioteka). In Fochkin, Oleg. Gorodskie legendy. Moskva: Ripol klassik. 628 p.
Gak, 1967 - Gak, Grigorij M. (1967). Dialektika kolektivnosti i individual'nosti [The dialectic of colectively and individuality]. Moskva: Mysl'. 167 p.
Gubanova, 2010 - Gubanova, Elizaveta (2010). Nejavnoe znanie: sushhnost' i vidy [The implicit knowledge: essence and types]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. №4, pp. 253-256.
Hennequin, 1889 - Hennequin, Emile (1889). Etudes de critique scientifique. Ecrivains francisés: Dickens. Heine. Tourguénef. Fo ë. Dostoïewski. Tolstoï. Paris: Perrin. vi, 305 p.
Hristov, 2009 - Hristov, T. (2009). Majkal Rifater. In Literaturnostta. Sofia: Altera, pp. 140-146.
Koleva, 1989 - Koleva, Radka (1989). Rusin Filipov i Narodnata biblioteka „Ivan Vazov" [Rusin Filipov and national library "Ivan Vazov".]. Bibliotekar, №4, p. 36-37.
Lasswell, 1948 - Lasswell, Harold (1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In The Communication of Ideas. Ed. by L. Bryson. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies, p. 37.
Leontiev, 1977 - Leontiev, A.A. (1977). O N.A. Rubakine. In Rubakin, Nikolaj A. (1977). Psichologija citatelja i knigi: kratkoe vvedenie v bibliologi ceskuju psichologiju [The psychology of the reader and the book: a brief introduction to the bibliological psychology]. Moskva: Kniga, pp. 3-5.
Lucianus, 1986 - Lucianus (1986). Satiri i parodii [Satire and parody]. Luciani Samosatensis opera. Sofia: Narodna kultura. 271 p.
Manguel, 2004 - Manguel, Alberto (2004). History of Reading. Sofia: Prozoretz. 349 p.
Mihaleva, 2011 - Mihaleva, Nikoleta (2011). Za sushhnostta i njakoi formi na nejavnoto znanie [About the essence and forms of the tacit knowledge]. Filosofski alternativi, №5, pp. 56-62.
Mladenova, 2007 - Mladenova, Maria (2007). Bibliotekoznanieto v Bulgarija ot Osvobozhdenieto do sredata na 40-te godini na XX vek: Istorija, teorija, praktika [The librarianship in Bulgari from the liberation to the middle of 40s of the twentieth century: history, theory, practice]. Sofija: Za bukvite - O pismeneh. 316 p. [in Bulgarian]
Pavlova, 1993 - Pavlova, A. (1993). Opyt biblioarheologii [The experience of biblio-archaeology]. Sovremennye problemy knigovedenija, knizhnoj torgovli i propagandy knigi. Vol. 9, pp. 4-29.
Pfender, 1909 - Pfender, A. (1909). Vvedenie v psihologiju [The introduction to the psychology]. Per. s nem. G.A.Davydova. Sankt-Peterburg: Provincija. 368 p.
Polanyi, 1966 - Polanyi, Michael (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Chapter 1: Tacit Knowing. Garden City: Doubleday & Co. xi, 108 p.
Riffaterre, 1979 - Riffaterre, Michael (1979). La syllepse intertextuelle. Poétique, №40,
pp. 496-501.
Riffaterre, 1980 - Riffaterre, Michel (1980). Syllepsis. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 6, №4, pp. 625-638.
Roubakine, 1922 - Roubakine, Nicolas (1922). Introduction la Psychologie Bibliologique: La Psychologie de la Création des Livres, de leur Distribution et Circulation, de leur Utilisation par les Lecteurs, les Écoles, les Bibliothèques, les Librairies, etc. Théorie et Pratique. 2 T. Paris: J. Povolozky. 604 p.
Rubakin, 1906 - Rubakin, Nikolaj A. (1906). Sredi knig: Opyt obzora russkih knizhnyh bogatstv v svjazi s istoriej nauchno-filosofskih i obshhestvennyh idej [Among the books: the experience review of Russian book treasures in connection with the history of scientific and philosophical and social ideas]. Moskva: Nauka. xv, 930 p.
Rubakin, 1910 - Rubakin, Nikolaj A. (1910). Psihologija knizhnogo vlijanija [The psychology of book influence]. Novaja zhizn', №1, pp. 172-209.
Rubakin, 1911 - Rubakin, Nikolaj A. (1911). Jetjudy po psihologii chitatel'stva: Vneklassnoe chtenie i ego organizacija [Studies on the psychology of reading: extra reading and its organization]. Mariinsk. 84 p.
Rubakin, 1924 - Rubakin, Nikolaj A. (1924). What is this bibliological psychology? Leningrad: Kolos. 61 p.
Rubakin, 1927 - Rubakin, Nikolaj A. (1927). Bibliological psychology as theory and practice of the bookwork. Prague. 44 p.
Rubakin, 1977 - Rubakin, Nikolaj A. (1977). Psihologija chitatelja i knigi: Kratkoe vvedenie v bibliologicheskuju psihologiju. [The psychology of the reader and the book: a brief introduction to the bibliological psychology]. Moskva: Kniga, [1.ed. 1929]. 264 p.
Rubakin, 1979 - Rubakin, Aleksandr N. (1979). Rubakin (Locman knizhnogo morja). Moskva: Molodaja gvardija, [1.ed. 1967]. 204 p.
Rubakin, 1998 - Rubakin, Nicola (1998). Introduction a la psychologie bibliologique: T. 1-2. Pref. Robert Estivals; Avant-propos Elena Savova. Sofia: Association internationale de bibliologie. Т. 1: 276 p. T. 2: 277-604, xii p.
Rubakin, 2006 - Rubakin, Nikolaj A. (2006). Bibliologicheskaja psihologija [Bibliological psychology]. Moskva: Akademicheskij proekt i dr. 800 p.
Sapkowski, 2011 - Sapkowski, Andrzej (2011). Wiedzmin: Co s si ç ko nczy, co s si ç zaczyna. Sofia: InfoDar, [1.ed. 2000]. 396 p.
Sileckij, 2016 - Sileckij, Igor (2016). Chernaja kniga premiera Stolypina [The Black Book of Premier Stolypin]. Dni.ru. 13th May. Retrieved from:
http://dni.ru/bloggers/201675/13/336273.html (accessed 25.07.2016)
Simsová, 1966 - Simsová, Sylva (1966). Nicholas Rubakin and Bibliopsychology. Libri, Vol. 16, №2, pp. 118-129. doi: 10.1515/libr.1966.16.2.118.
Simsová, 2008 - Simsová, Sylva (2008). Reading and Librarians [Report]. In Metlib Conference. Retrieved from: http://metlib.mlp.cz/files/16_Reading_and_Libraries_Sylva_ Simsova_ full_paper.doc (accessed 25.07.2016)
Sorokin, 1968 - Sorokin, Ju. A. (1968) Bibliopsihologicheskaja teorija N. A. Rubakina i smezhnye nauki [La théorie bibliopsychologique de N. Roubakine et les sciences contigües (La question ainsi posée)]. In Kniga: Issledovanija i materialy. T. 17. Moskva, pp. 55-68.
Surowiecki, 2004 - Surowiecki, James (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. New York: Doubleday. xxi, 296 p.
The Policeman's, 1984 - The Policeman's beard is half-constructed: computer prose and poetry: The first book ever wrritten by a computer (1984). By Racter; ill. Joan Hall; intr. William Chamberlain. New York: Warner Software/Warner Books. 120 p.
Tsvetkova, 1999 - Tsvetkova, Milena (1999). Reading - anti-manipulation filter: Individuality and audiovisual manipulation. Dissertation [in Bulgarian]. Sofia. 269 p.
Tsvetkova, 2007 - Tsvetkova, Milena (2007). Caprices of the young generation of readers [in Bulgarian]. Kultura, №20, pp. 10-11. Retrieved from: http://www.kultura.bg/article.php? id=13007 (accessed 25.07.2016)
Tsvetkova, 2013 - Tsvetkova, Milena (2013). The reader's choice wanted: Bibliopsychological factors in the selection of books In Annual of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski". Faculty of journalism and mass communication. Vol. 18. Sofia, pp. 55-75. [in Bulgarian]
