What do you claim to have read, and why?

PJ
PJS
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:05 pm
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: Upstate New York

Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:40 pm Post

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE5244MG20090305

"Most Britons have lied about the books they read," according to a Reuters headline. Not surprising, maybe, but it's interesting to look at just which books they lied about. Top five on the list

    1. 1984 - George Orwell (42 percent)
    2. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy (31)
    3. Ulysses - James Joyce (25)
    4. The Bible (24)
    5. Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert (16)

I'm sure the same is true on the West Bank of the Atlantic, although I suspect the lied-about list would read differently. My guess is that Moby-Dick would be at the top.

One other thing: The chief reason given for lying about books read was to impress someone. Fits in with one of the winners of a recent Washington Post word game. Readers were to take any word and, by changing only one letter, create a new word (with definition). My favorite was "Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid."

ps
You can't conquer stupid — or cure it — with more stupid.

User avatar
vic-k
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:23 am
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: Protesting in the nude, outside ex Red Lion TESCO Store

Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:42 pm Post

PJS wrote:"Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid."

you`re obsexed! :shock:
As a professional, you, are your one and only asset. Without integrity you are worthless, but with it, you are priceless.

User avatar
Sean Coffee
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:10 pm

Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:08 pm Post

1. Foreploy is hilarious.

2. I wrote a line in a script a few years ago -- a writer says: I wrote the book the whole country pretends to have read.

At the time, I was thinking about A Staggering Work Of Heartbreaking Genius, which kept coming up in conversation, usually followed by something like "I'm only halfway through, so..."

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 23638
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:48 pm Post

How surprising that 1984 is at the top of that list. It is such a short book, compellingly written and easy to read. I completely understand #2 and #3 as both of those take a significant investment of both time and patience, and have significant cultural bonus points.

The only person I've ever heard of who actually read the entire Bible was David Koresh.

I read about fifteen pages of A Staggering Work... and got tired of it.

Could 2666 be this year's Staggering Work? I've only halfway through it, so we'll see. :)
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

User avatar
Sean Coffee
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:10 pm

Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:01 pm Post

Amber:

Not to be off topic, but have you read 2666 yet? It's on my list, but I'm working my way through some Neal Stephenson right now, and I'm bogged down by a man who apparently writes faster than I read.

Wondering if it's as amazing as those who (pretend to) have read it claim.

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 23638
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:29 pm Post

I wasn't joking when I said I was half-way through it. I'm roughly in the middle of the fourth part (second book). So far my opinion of it is quite high. I strikes me in a similar way as Calvino and some of Borges work in that it is witty and not afraid to document the kinds of things that other authors might skip over. The premise of the fourth part, for example, is to define the scale of murder that has been mysteriously alluded to in the beginning portions of the novel. Where most authors might describe a murder or two and then try to impress us with numbers, "over the summer another 30 women were killed...", Bolaño goes into detail on each and every case, like a reporter or even a detective. The scale of 100+ murders is not simply described, but fully expressed across several hundred pages, with only a very loose narrative gradually increasing and transforming between the isolated incidences.

Being only halfway through, I cannot yet say if it is "amazing" or not, but it is my favourite new book thus far this year, and potentially the year before. The one thing that has struck me thus far is Bolaño's incredible patience. He builds underlying themes beneath the running narrative at a staggeringly slow pace. It is like sitting in a rotating restaurant with an interesting dinner companion. You look up an hour later and realise the scenery has changed, but at no point could you have noticed it happening. A good example is the subtle increase in darkness and tension throughout the first part.

I'm not sure if I would call it brilliant (so far), but as an author reading another author's work, I do find it very fascinating if not just in examination of some seldom used techniques. In this sense, it is a bit like a literary Pulp Fiction was to cinema buffs, in that anyone with an interest in literature will probably enjoy it to some degree---if not just for its technique and cultural cross-referencing.

To go back on topic: I don't actually claim to have fully read Finnegans Wake, even though it is on my profile as a favourite book. I've read large portions of it (and not all together), but have yet to read every word. I suppose that is the closest I've come to fibbing. Given its circular and fractal nature, I've never felt guilty saying it is a favourite book, even though it is still a work in progress for me.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

User avatar
KB
Site Admin
Posts: 20716
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:23 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Truro, Cornwall
Contact:

Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:08 am Post

I saw this reported the other day. It amuses me that people feel they have to lie about the books they read; it's also a bit of an odd top ten in many ways - Barack Obama being there is clearly overly topical, for instance. I love that the "real" top ten is full of Grisham and Jilly Cooper (I've read none of that lot; which sounds awfully snobby, I know, but they just don't appeal - there are some mighty fine romance and crime writers out there that I have read, I hasten to add... hmm, well, maybe not romance, but that's just 'cos I'm not very romantic). I also love the fact that Dawkins' The Selfish Gene competes with The Bible in the top ten - that gives me hope for humanity at least.

For myself, I've part-read much of the top ten: I've read quite a lot of the Bible (I'd be a pretty moronic atheist if I rejected belief without having explored it), but as Amber points out, who has really read all of it? I love Leviticus (it expels me from heaven on so many levels); and Genesis, with Moses claiming that the mountain God (clearly a volcano) is going to follow them, but now it will be "invisible" (heh, I'm oversimplifying), and Noah getting hammered on wine after settling following the flood... (I hasten to add that I am in no way trying to offend anyone here; I just read the Bible as I do other works of fiction and great literature.) Likewise, I never quite finished The Selfish Gene (it all seemed so simple and then I was completely thrown by game theory). Brief History of Time, too - I read most of it, then found myself gawping like a moron.

I forgive myself for not having read the entirety of the Bible, the Selfish Gene or A Brief History of Time. I forgive myself for not having read all of Midnight's Children for another reason - Salman Rushdie is an unbearable bore. Or rather, he's an intelligent, talented writer, but one who cannot stand to write anything without drawing your attention to the fact that he is an intelligent, talented writer. He is the Bono of writers (and thus how apt that U2 turned some of the turgid lyrics from one of his books into some even more turgid "songs"). I remember well the point at which I threw Midnight's Children to the floor. In the opening section, we see a doctor get called out to a girl by her father time and time again. But because he is not allowed to see her, he can only treat her individual parts by viewing them through a hole in a sheet. And thus he falls in love with her body part at a time. Later, the doctor's daughter or grand-daughter, or something (it's been a long time since I threw the book down) marries some ugly oaf and isn't exactly happy in her marriage. So she decides to train herself to love him. She does this by staring at each of his individual features, his body parts; she examines them and tries to love them. At this point, the reader starts to feel rather clever - A-ha! the reader thinks. How clever! This is just like the doctor and the girl he fell in love with through the blanket. Except Salman Rushdie is too desperate to prove how brilliant he is. He isn't going to leave it up to chance that the moronic reader will figure this out for him- or herself, oh no! So at this point, just as you're seeing this connection yourself, Rushdie interjects: "This was just like the doctor, and the how he had fallen in love with the girl through the blanket." This was the point at which I said, "Yes, you're very clever, good for you. Bye then." And I haven't read a word by him since.

As for the others... As Amber says, 1984 is a short book. Ruined for me by the "Shadowy DMJ". I remember it well. It was in one of my university holidays or just afterwards, so I was 20 or so. Reading 1984. David came around to my Mom's house, where I was staying in the holidays or before I moved to London (David and I lived next door to each other since I was born, L&L fact fans). He snatched the book from me and turned to the last page. I said, "Don't you dare." He said: "Don't be a twat, the last line never gives anything away." And then he read the last line of the book. I was on chapter 3. If you've read 1984, you'll know that the last line of the book tells you exactly what happens to Winston Smith. Ask David. I have never forgiven him.

I've never read War and Peace. I keep meaning to. I love Anna Karenina.

I probably have no intention of reading Ulysses. Yes yes yes etc.

Remembrance of Things Past... Hmm, not really interested. Sorry, Proust.

Madame Bovary - oddly enough, I just last week finished reading the Geoffrey Wall translation. I think it is now my favourite book ever. I don't know... My favourite books embrace Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Franny and Zooey, Unbearable Lightness of Being, Slaughterhouse 5, Brothers Karamazov and Anna Karenina... I think Madame Bovary just slaughtered them all. How can anyone not love Emma Bovary?

Of course, all of this has been a pretence. I have read none of the above. I only read John Grisham.

All the best,
Keith

ma
matt
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:35 am

Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:20 am Post

I really can't understand why people would lie about books they have read.

I would be too scared that the person I was lying to was one of the few who weren't actually lying about reading it... and they might start asking questions.

User avatar
Siren
Posts: 758
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:29 am
Platform: Mac + iOS
Location: U.K.

Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:35 am Post

I don't claim to have read books that I haven't read. Can't see the point. On the other hand, I sometimes claim *not* to have read books, then buy them and read them, only to find that they seem horribly familiar and that I have read them before. I hate it when that happens.

One book I have been meaning to read for ages is "How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read", by Pierre Bayard, originally published in French as "Comment parler des livres que l'on n'a pas lus?". Given that I haven't actually read it, I'm not really in a position to describe it! But about a year ago, I read an extract in the newspaper (or maybe it was an interview with the author, who is a French university literature chappy). Bayard described how reading is surrounded by obligations -- we are expected to read a proscribed canon, to read it thoroughly, and to discuss it in a particular way. His argument is that we ought to challenge the rules confining how we think about and talk about books. I want to read his book, not because I want to talk about books I have not read, but because this interview/extract gave me the impression that it is actually an accessible opinion-piece on aesthetics in literary criticism, which sounds interesting. Has anyone here read it?

A question for anyone who pretends to have read books that they haven't: Do you get extra kudos for pretending to have read a book in its original language? :)
Literature & Latte support team

Hu
Hugh
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:05 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: UK

Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:43 pm Post

Siren wrote:One book I have been meaning to read for ages is "How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read", by Pierre Bayard, originally published in French as "Comment parler des livres que l'on n'a pas lus?". Given that I haven't actually read it, I'm not really in a position to describe it! But about a year ago, I read an extract in the newspaper (or maybe it was an interview with the author, who is a French university literature chappy). Bayard described how reading is surrounded by obligations -- we are expected to read a proscribed canon, to read it thoroughly, and to discuss it in a particular way. His argument is that we ought to challenge the rules confining how we think about and talk about books. I want to read his book, not because I want to talk about books I have not read, but because this interview/extract gave me the impression that it is actually an accessible opinion-piece on aesthetics in literary criticism, which sounds interesting. Has anyone here read it?


No - it's on my someday list. (But isn't there something peculiarly apt about discussing it without reading it?) I used to know someone who learned several foreign languages simply to read their authors. (Good for him, but he did always tell you...) And isn't it one of the purposes of book reviews to enable readers to discuss books they haven't read? I've always thought so. :wink:

One could probably add The Corrections to the master-list of literary snobbery, and just possibly Middlesex by Eugenides, and on this side of the Atlantic at least, virtually all Saul Bellow's (unfortunately). I suspect The Kindly Ones by Jonathan Littell is due to suffer the same fate.

Of course, the flipside of all this is denying reading books that you have read. I think that for many readers that often used to be the destiny of anything by Stephen King, but less so now. And of course stuff once considered to be pulp by some is now seen as classical, such as Chandler.

So in a spirit of truthfulness, Keith, early Grisham isn't too bad :wink: .

H
Last edited by Hugh on Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'Listen, some quiet night, when you've shirked your work that day. Do you hear
that distant, almost inaudible clicking sound? That's one of your
competitors, working away in the night in
Paris or London or Erie, PA.'

User avatar
Jaysen
Posts: 6155
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:00 am
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: East-Be-Jesus-Nowhere SC, USA

Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:49 pm Post

Siren wrote:I don't claim to have read books that I haven't read. Can't see the point. On the other hand, I sometimes claim *not* to have read books, then buy them and read them, only to find that they seem horribly familiar and that I have read them before. I hate it when that happens.

Or worse, half way through you find a well worn copy on the shelf. On opening the cover you find that is was presented to you as a gift by someone important. Like say, your wife. Does it sound like I speak from experience on this?
Jaysen

I have a wife and 2 kids that I can only attribute to a wiggle, a giggle, and the realization that she was out of my league so I might as well be happy with her as a friend. 26 years marriage later, I can't imagine life without her. -Me 10/7/09

Image

User avatar
KB
Site Admin
Posts: 20716
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:23 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Truro, Cornwall
Contact:

Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:50 pm Post

Bayard's book is interesting, but I'm not sure if I agree with it in spirit - encouraging us to talk about books we haven't read as though we have read them.

Actually, I haven't read Bayard's book at all. Given his subject, I figured it would be best not to read it but just to talk about as though I had. I meant to bring Bayard up myself - like Siren, I read a lot about it when it was published last year.

Hugh - your point about the flipside is interesting, denying reading certain books. I envy people who can read a lot of "trash" (can't think of a better term - "lightweight books"?) along with everything else; I'm such a slow reader that I just don't have time to read anything that I feel I'm not going to get a lot out of. I did read Is It Just Me Or Is Everything Shit? the other year though. Toilet-reading at its best; it was hilarious. My other half is very lucky in that she is a very fast reader - so she gets to read more quality books than I do in a year, and she can consume Valley of the Dolls and various others too. I now feel really boring. Maybe I'll read that Da Vinci Code sitting on the shelves just so I'm not such a snob any more...

PJ
PJS
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:05 pm
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: Upstate New York

Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:11 pm Post

Jaysen wrote:Or worse, half way through you find a well worn copy on the shelf. On opening the cover you find that is was presented to you as a gift by someone important.


Lady Of The House and her daughters and my daughters all regard books as proper gifts for the Patriarch. Were I to read nothing except books inscribed in a feminine hand, I would never reach the bottom of the pile. My only alibi may be to pretend the onset of senescent dyslexic syndrome.

Notwithstanding the odds that it is not pretense.

Fortunately, the sons favor Jameson and tools.

ps
You can't conquer stupid — or cure it — with more stupid.

re
refusion
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:14 am
Location: Shanghai, China
Contact:

Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:58 pm Post

I've read so many books, I have to be careful just talking about books as I might get them get mixed up! But no, I wouldn't lie and say I had read something when I haven't. That's just plain ridiculous.

Another thing I find a bit weird are people who join in book discussions when they haven't read the book but rather saw the film adaptation instead. I can understand this only if the discussion is a comparison of the book to the film but otherwise...

Here's what I have recently read or am currently reading which you might find interesting:

The Private Life of Chairman Mao
Papillon
Red Star Over China
Getting Rich First- LIfe in a Changing China
The Selfish Capitalist
The Tipping Point
God is not Great
A Brief History of Time
Hot, Flat and Crowded ( This would be a good title for a book exploring the escapades which take place on Hugh Hefner's bed on most nights of the week actually)

Anyhoo...
Old Lady: 'The universe rests on the back of a turtle!'
Scientist: 'Ah, but what does the turtle rest on?'
Old Lady: 'Young man, you can't fool me! It's turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down!'

User avatar
Typo
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:18 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:56 am Post

As a writer I'm getting asked "Have you read (insert current bestseller)?" regulary. I prefered to answer truthfully, which is mostly "no", because in bookstores I head straight to the shelves with SF, Fantasy and Horror - not to those stacks at the entrance.

Then I get asked thinks like: You're a writer and haven't read (current besteller)? How can that be? Shouldn't you try to find out what made it a besteller and try to write something like that?

I found it easier not to answer "no" straight away, but instead something like: "I flipped through the first few pages, and I can see why it sells, but it's not my taste."

Makes me look like a pro.

And pretending to have read whole books (and even understood them) ... well, if you have studied literature that's EXACTLY what you do all the time. :D