The most lied about book....

[Aiwendil]

Interesting. I've read numbers 1, 6, 8, and 10 (honestly!). I would have thought that if people were going to lie about reading John Gray or Dan Brown, they would be people pretending not to have read them.

I am very surprised, though, about LotR topping the list. Though the critical bias against it has been easing a bit lately, it's still certainly not the sort of 'high brow' book that 'cultured' people are expected to have read.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

But I think pretending to have read the book is probably quite common among younger people, who grew up associating Tolkien with cool movies rather than the somewhat geeky image he had as an author when I was young.

Hmm.

I had wondered about this for a time. Whenever I chanced upon my real-life friends' profiles, most of them write LotR as one of their favourite books, and normally the first in the list. The same goes for favourite films - after all, who wouldn't have heard of nor watched them? However, when I make an allusion to the books, or ask them about it...how come they don't recognise it, nor seem to know how to talk to me?

A weird theory I had was that they felt rather ashamed calling a film their favourite, and not the book upon which it was based. Because I would probably be, in that position.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I would have thought that if people were going to lie about reading John Gray or Dan Brown, they would be people pretending not to have read them.
.

Indeed!

I'm not surprised by this though as there are the films so unless people get into a conversation with a big fan they can often bluff their way around it - they soon get 'found out' otherwise.

Makes me think of an English teacher I once worked with. I asked her what she thought of the Booker Prize shortlist and she looked at me oddly "What's the Booker Prize?" she said. And after I told her she must have seen there was no way of bluffing so she got huffy and said "I've not got time to waste reading books! I hate reading!".

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Makes me think of an English teacher I once worked with. I asked her what she thought of the Booker Prize shortlist and she looked at me oddly "What's the Booker Prize?" she said. And after I told her she must have seen there was no way of bluffing so she got huffy and said "I've not got time to waste reading books! I hate reading!".

And such people exist???

Myself, I proudly declare that I never lied to anyone about not reading LotR (why deny my very personality!) or about reading it (there wasn't much time in my life before I read it, I couldn't almost speak before). I actually do not remember if I ever pretended reading something - but with seeing movies, yes, quite often. But I think my case is a little bit specific: I do not want to pretend it, but most cases one of my friends comes to me and starts talking with me about the movie, presuming that I have seen it. I didn't, but instead of correcting him, I just nod and pretend that I know what he's talking about.
Now on second thought, there is actually one exception in which some people think that I have read something I actually didn't. One of my friends reads all these paperback fantasy books from Conan to D&D-inspired books and for some unexplicable reason, he thinks I have read them all as well. Funnily enough, he never read Tolkien. Me and other my friends who have read Tolkien, call him "a braque-fantasy reader".

To the top place of LotR in this "pretending contest", I think it's funny, and also interesting that Tolkien has earned such a high place. But I don't think it is a reason for celebration: the fact that people want to seem that they have read it does not, in my opinion, come from the fact that Tolkien would be taken as "high literature", but merely from the fact that there were the movies and many people would presume that when you saw it, you'd also read it. I think it is actually more sad than a reason for celebration.

[Lalwendë]

And almost half of respondents said that reading classic titles like Jane Eyre or Pride and Prejudice makes you appear more intelligent.

Thinking about it this quote makes me laugh. Makes you 'appear' more intelligent? Is that like this thing some people have of choosing the 'right' book to read on a beach holiday, based on what image it projects rather than if they actually want to read it?

I don't see the point in forcing yourself to be 'seen' reading something if it's a load of rubbish, personally! Yes, I'm not one of those people who would buy a Harry Potter in 'adult' dustjackets. Why hide it? Likewise, I hated that homes trend in the 80s for 'fake books', basically blocks of 'leather look' plastic which were made to look like sets of Dickens or Shakespeare and somehow make the homeowner look more intelligent.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I don't see the point in forcing yourself to be 'seen' reading something if it's a load of rubbish, personally! Yes, I'm not one of those people who would buy a Harry Potter in 'adult' dustjackets. Why hide it? Likewise, I hated that homes trend in the 80s for 'fake books', basically blocks of 'leather look' plastic which were made to look like sets of Dickens or Shakespeare and somehow make the homeowner look more intelligent.

But that's what people do / did! Why to deny the fact?

And at least I myself have to confess having given the impression of having read a book / seeing a film when the social occasion requires it. I don't think that is evil when it is for smoothing those social situations.

But these general lists of "what you must have read", and those who judge others by them, really make me angry. How hypocritical or fake can one get? So some people judge other people on the grounds of which books (movies) they deem important themselves? Well easy, but groundless anyway...

[Mithalwen]

I have read all but War and Peace and Great Expectations (but I have read Anna Karenina and some other Dickens). Harry Potter and Da Vinci code I read to see what the fuss was about and at first I thought both were overrated - while Harry grew on me, Angels and Demons confirmed my suspicions. Fine to pass a wet Sunday afternoon but I boggled that folk were taking it so seriously.
As for John Gray, well despite my Bridget Jones moments, it was while I was doing a Psychology A level "for fun" a few years back and had to do a project on attraction. I think my former sig "Men are from Earth.Women are from Earth. Just deal with it...." sums up my opinions on it .

Actually I agree with Lal ... I kept very quiet about my love of Tolkien in the university years... the odd mention in linguistics but that is all. Bit mean sinceI probably wouldn't have been doing that course without JRRT's influence

[Thenamir]

I'll say this: the furthest I usually go in bending the truth is responding "fine" to the ubiquitous question of "How are you?" when in fact I am not fine at all. But the book on that list I'd be most likely to lie about, is saying that I've not read Harry Potter, when in fact I've read most or all of 3 or 4 of the series. The shame, the horror...

On a more serious note, one thing that makes me wonder -- some years ago, having read LOTR meant that you weren't serious about literature at all. The literati (by which I mean the so-called "experts" in literature who either write books that are painful to read, or the critics who try to persuade us that such pain is "for your own good") used to look down their sky-pointed noses at JRRT and those who read him. They passed us off as too simple to comprehend the subtle nuances and obvious superiority of Chaucer or Bronte.

But now, folks lie about reading LOTR to appear more intelligent? What a wonderous turning of the tables! Rejoice, Tolkien geeks -- we have been recognized as the intelligent visionaries that we are!

For what it's worth, I've seen two different movie versions of Pride and Prejudice -- does that count? (And as an aside, I suffered through them both -- with the exceptions of Elizabeth and her father, all the characters are so insufferably silly and stupid that I find them painful to watch. I shudder to think how they are portrayed in print.)

For the record, on this list I've read 1, 5 and 10, and parts of 4 and 9.