The most lied about book....

[Mithalwen]

I saw a reference to this research a few days ago in the paper and so have found an online link since I thought it was of interest.

It does seem an odd thing to lie about since there are so many who have read it that you would soon rumble an imposter ..we KNOW if you have only seen the film

Sorry if this should be in N&N.... btw

[Lalaith]

Hmm...most people I know in RL are proud NOT to have been able to read LotR. (yes, yes, I know...) 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.
Two books I would have thought would have been on that list, though, are Ulysses and Tristram Shandy. (I got to about chapter 4 in the latter...it's still in my bedside bookshelf ) And John Gray at number 5....why, in the name of heaven, would anyone pretend to have read that?

[Boromir88]

Well it does make sense. Just look at my sig, and put that with the article you provided. I mean if you want to impress somebody telling them you have read the 'greatest fantasy epic in British history' (according to Tom Essex) is definitely going to leave an impression.

Enjoyable article to read, and as a side note I am amongst the 1/10 that have lied about reading a book to get on a lady's good side. (I haven't lied about reading LOTR however - or any of those on that Top 10 list ). It serves as a good conversation starter, or a way to get an excuse to talk to a person of the opposite sex. Than you quickly cover your tracks by changing the topic or metioning other books that you actually have read. Oh I've done that with movies too.

[davem]

Hmm...Well, I've read no's 1 (about 15 times), 2 (twice), 3 (once), & 6 (once). Don't think I'd lie about having read any of the others. Have to agree with Lalaith, though, about John Gray (& Dan Brown).

[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.

[Mithalwen]

Pride and Predjudice is wonderful. Both movie versions are inadequate ..The BBC version with Jennifer Ehle is just about perfect.. but the book is better ...maybe it is a girl thing (Cloin Firth certainly is... - I told you I had my Bridget Jones moments....)

[Thenamir]

I will reserve judgement on the books until I find enough time to read several hundred pages of the literary equivalent of a chick-flick.

Is it an indication of my cultural illiteracy to admit that I have no idea who Bridget Jones is?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I will reserve judgement on the books until I find enough time to read several hundred pages of the literary equivalent of a chick-flick.

Is it an indication of my cultural illiteracy to admit that I have no idea who Bridget Jones is?

Bridget Jones' diary was chicklit then chickflick loosely inspired by Pride and Prejudice (long suffering father, batty mother desperate to marry off her daughterv and it's own Mr Darcy played in the film by the divine Mr Firth). Bridget has become a synonym (and heroine for) thirty something single women... especially those who drink too much chardonnay and are tormented by smug married friends.... ahem..

[Lalwendë]

If it's any consolation I can count the number of men I've met who liked Jane Austen on the fingers of one hand. I encouraged davem to watch the BBC P&P adaptation and after two hours when the credits came on (I had taped it in two hour 'chunks' from Sky) he asked was there any more. "Four more hours!" I brightly replied to which he pleaded with me not to make him watch any more and described it as "The most horrible thing I've ever had to put up with."



However, he has watched the Bridget Jones films and found them funny - which I do too, unlike the story when it appeared serialised in The Observer before being made into a book. I used to read it and then rant for about thirty minutes without ceasing, it annoyed me that much. It got so annoying I switched to The Sunday Times. And then to no paper at all because AA Gill annoyed me too....

I know someone who adores fantasy but has never read any Tolkien whatsoever; I'm the opposite, have read too much Tolkien but generally do not have any particular taste for fantasy. This guy I know loves to wind up Tolkien fans by telling them the films are the only thing worth bothering with. He only does it because it teasesssss....

[Mithalwen]

Well I guess I am just bitter and twisted (NOT from being single ) but because after I defended Miss Austen in a seminar (ie tore apart some hapless males, chewed them up and spat them out (oh maybe THAT's why I'm single ) my most brilliant and inspirational lecturer stopped me at the end of the class and told me that I should consider doing Austen for my dissertation and that if so she would like to supervise... and, heart breaking, I had to say that I was required to choose from French lit only and so ended up being supervised by Dr Sleazy Dwarf ..


However to get back on topic... it would be interesting to see the gender split per book - I wonder if Austen is an author guys pretend to have read to impress girls, whether Tolkien is one that girls read to grab themselves a geek :S

So Lal ... you won't be making a pilgrimage to Chawton when you descend to the infernal southern regions for Oxonmoot?

[Bêthberry]

I'm a bit sceptical about the survey itself.

For instance, I would have expected this kind of "patter recognition' or coy mistressing to include Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, said to be one of the most unread bought books of our time, yet the titles listed include only fiction. And I cannot believe that Joyce's Ulysses is no longer in this category. (Perhaps BloomsDay put paid to this quality of Joyce's epic?) And no Mrs. Dalloway?

Was the poll limited to fiction? Who chose the titles that were included? And how many were included? Were 'write-ins' allowed? Where was Tolkien placed on the poll? What is the statistical reliability of the results and are any other polling demographics available?

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if respondants were limited to males only.

EDIT: lol! cross posted with Mith. We both sniff some gender twisting here I think.

[Thenamir]

I don't dislike all Jane Austen -- I rather like Sense and Sensability, there were enough characters in it to which I could relate that made it tolerable. That, and I find Kate Winslet very easy on the eyes. (Oops, don't let Mrs. Thenamir hear that!)

After seeing several Austen titles in the form (X) And (Y) like Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensability, etc, When Dumb and Dumber came out I had to wonder if Austen had written it as the story of the elder Mrs. Bennett and her remaining daughters...

EDIT: After cross posting with Bethberry, I have to remark that perhaps A Brief History of Time be included in the Fiction section. I mean let's be real here, the man is discussing what happened in the first quintillionth of a second after the Big Bang with a straight face. (Actually, owing to the ravages of the disability which afflicts him, Hawking technically says everything with a straight face, but you know what I meant.)

[Mithalwen]

Oh noo ..that is worse liking Austen because of Kate Witless who at least doesn't lie to make herself seem more intelligent Quote " I am a huge fan of Iris Murdoch - of course I haven't had time to read any of her books" ... one wonders if it was the promiscuity or disloyalty that attracted La Winslet's admiration - or maybe some little known sphere of excellence - tiddlywinks perchance....

Persuasion is the best and Mansfield Park has interesting themes but an insufferable heroine. Northanger is the funniest especially if you have a taste for the Gothic Novel (which I have a spooky premonition that Thenamir might NOT) and the History of England is a little gem...

[Lalaith]

*brags to impress opposite sex*
I've read all the list except the rubbish. (Brown and Gray) No really. I have.

[Thenamir]

I didn't say that I liked S&S because of Winslet -- only that she made viewing it more bearable.

<Lazy Guy Mode=ON>Are there any plans to make the other stories which you mention into movies? <grin, duck, and run!>

[davem]

Actually quite a boring list - the books are too well known. Much more impressive to brag about reading more 'obscure' books - don't brag about reading War & Peace: brag about reading Resurrection, forget Jane Eyre & name drop Villette. Mention of The Anatomy of Melancholy, or Montaigne's essays will impress the educated far more than the ones listed. The list seems more about impressing the uneducated.

[Mithalwen]

Even more interesting to brag about having read plausible made up books to lure the uninitiated to their doom..... . Once I told my then boss I was going to the opera and he said he didn't like classical music but had enjoyed Tchaikowsky's Peter and the Rabbit..... When I had finished crying with laughter he said he would sack me if I ever told anyone .....

[Lalwendë]

I've not read War & Peace, nor Great Expectations, and I have no plans to either. I'm not a Dickens fan and being forced to read Bleak House for my degree was like torture; nor does War & Peace attract me. Life's too short. Sorry. Nor have I ever read any Dan Brown or the "Men Are From..." book.

A Brief History Of Time? Work of genius. And easy reading too. *smug*

I'm sure the fact that films have been made of most of these books contributes to all the fibs though.

[Lalaith]

Tchaikovsky's Peter and the Rabbit?!

Oh that's sweet. You should have married him, Mith. *ducks*

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Tchaikovsky's Peter and the Rabbit?!

Oh that's sweet. You should have married him, Mith. *ducks*

Ohhh noooooooo...... apart from the fact I went to his wedding.... no.... but he was a good friend at one of the nastiest times in my life - so I do remember him with great affection.

[Folwren]

What I would like to know is why anyone would lie about reading any book? Perhaps they do not have enough books that they've actually read to talk about... I have never found it necessary to brag about books I haven't read. My list of books that I have read is long enough without imaginary help.

-- Folwren

[Mithalwen]

cf Boro's response

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

IEDIT: After cross posting with Bethberry, I have to remark that perhaps A Brief History of Time be included in the Fiction section. I mean let's be real here, the man is discussing what happened in the first quintillionth of a second after the Big Bang with a straight face. (Actually, owing to the ravages of the disability which afflicts him, Hawking technically says everything with a straight face, but you know what I meant.)

I have to say, Thenamir, that, your personal beliefs notwithstanding (and I thoroughly understand and appreciate what you are suggesting here), such a remark does a Very Grave Disservice to the Sub-Creative Principle by which Tolkien placed such worth. Fiction belongs to storytelling, to narrative, to Art and Aesthetics. Indeed, it is the knowingness of its deception as Art which sets it apart from simple systematic speculation and probability.

[Knight of Gondor]

That is pathetic that people lie about having read the books. I'll admit, I had a little trouble getting through Fellowship at first (especially The Council of Elrond, given that it contained so much history), but it became smooth sailing from then on, and I've reread the whole series several times since then, as well as the histories and so forth. (It has become fun to read the Council chapter now, because it ties all of the histories in to that moment in time!)

Mark Twain reportedly said "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read." Apparently this is true.

Well, now I'm reading Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, and if you thought Lord of the Rings was hard...!!

[Galadriel55]

Personally, I've never lied about reading Tokien... well, not true. There were some times when my mother asked me if I have been rereading LOTR for the uteenth time, and I said "no" when I really have been... But that doesn't count, since I was not trying to gain popularity or appear smarter...

A lot of people I know lie about reading it. An example of a conversation:

Person: Why are you reading LOTR?
Me: Because I like it.
P: Why? There's nothing good about it.
Me: You say that with such assersion. Have you read it?
P: Ummm...No... why would I?
Me: Then how can you tell?

!! They always want to seem like they know what they're tlking about! Haaahaa!

Originally Posted by Folwren

What I would like to know is why anyone would lie about reading any book?

Because they want to appear smart, or, as you said, they haven't read a decent book all their lives. Saying "I've read the ABCs when I was four" won't impress anyone.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Hmm...most people I know in RL are proud NOT to have been able to read LotR. (yes, yes, I know...) 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.

I second that. People I know are rather proud that they have not read it.

I see nothing geeky about LotR

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Knight of Gondor

Well, now I'm reading Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, and if you thought Lord of the Rings was hard...!!

*LE GASP!* I've read it! I love that book! Er, well, aside from the fact that Hugo takes 60 pages to explain the drainage system... Well, it's really tough, but it's also really rewarding! I can tell you my entire outlook on life changed after reading that book. Well, 'entire' is an exaggeration, but it DID influence my thinking.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Folwren

What I would like to know is why anyone would lie about reading any book? Perhap-- Folwren

I must admit I have read English translations of books I was meant to read in the original occasionally - I had to read Germinal which starts with a long and very technichal description of a mine which had me referring to Larousse and Robert every sentence to look up words I had not needed beforeand I was averaging 3 cups of coffee per page. It was either get a head start with a translation or die of caffeine poisoning. The other thing is I may be lying by omission or comission simply because I am getting older and can't necessarily rememeber books I may have read very quickly 15-20 years ago. I was talking to Lalwende about The French Lieutenants Woman and I am sure I have read some John Fowlds back in the day but I am not now sure if I have read it or merely seen the film! Similarly when you get the great book lists I sit there and think "I know I have read something by Marquez but was it 100 years of Solitude or Love in the time of Cholera.. Not bragging, just senile...

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

I think it says more about the immense popularity of "The Lord of the Rings" than anything else.

I notice that one of the other books on the list is "The Da Vinci Code", which is nothing but a page-turning potboiler. Why would anyone lie about having read it, other than because it's a very popular book? Really, popularity is the only thing it's got going for it.

I'd be more tempted to lie and say that I hadn't read The Da Vinci Code! I mean, yes I have read it but it's nothing to brag about...

[Mithalwen]

Yes, having occasionally being dumbstruck by benighted souls telling me how good it is, I think I would find it easier to lie than to say I had read it and thought it drivel.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I know someone who adores fantasy but has never read any Tolkien whatsoever; I'm the opposite, have read too much Tolkien but generally do not have any particular taste for fantasy. This guy I know loves to wind up Tolkien fans by telling them the films are the only thing worth bothering with. He only does it because it teasesssss....

I am much the same way. I do not read much fantasy as a genre, but do read as much Tolkien as I can get my hands on. Unfortunately, like many of you who have posted above, most of the people I have met and tried to talk about Tolkien to said that they had not read his books. They are proud to not have read any Tolkien, they think that LotR is boring, despite the fact that they have never read the books and maybe saw the films once. As far as anything else Tolkien has written most don't even know it exists. The Sil? "What's that?" HoME? "Huh?" It goes on.

And me, the only time that I've ever. . . expanded the truth, is maybe sometimes exaggerating how many times I've read LotR.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by TheGreatElvenWarrior

I am much the same way. I do not read much fantasy as a genre, but do read as much Tolkien as I can get my hands on. Unfortunately, like many of you who have posted above, most of the people I have met and tried to talk about Tolkien to said that they had not read his books. They are proud to not have read any Tolkien, they think that LotR is boring, despite the fact that they have never read the books and maybe saw the films once. As far as anything else Tolkien has written most don't even know it exists. The Sil? "What's that?" HoME? "Huh?" It goes on.

And me, the only time that I've ever. . . expanded the truth, is maybe sometimes exaggerating how many times I've read LotR.

Ditto! (about everything, lol) I also sometimes "expend the truth" by saying that I know LOTR or The Sil or etc by heart, when I really don't.

[alatar]

I can see being mistakenly called out on not reading a book, not because I hadn't read it, but that it wasn't *that* interesting to get logged into the brain. How do you differentiate between a person that is lying and one that is forgetful?

For example, I read "A Brief History of Time," some...ahhh...time ago, yet can't remember if it was about quarks and muons or the work of Briton Hadden and Henry Luce.