The New York Times Magazine has a list of books that their staff lies about reading. They were inspired to ask the question after another site posted a list of books Brits lie about reading. Seems like something only students would do but no, some people want to appear smart by saying they read something they did not. Really stupid people, of course, just brag about TV shows they claim to have watched.
Read more at 6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com.
Oddly, their list is a pretty cool reading list. Does that make them smart for knowing the cool books to lie about? Here’s a few they came up with.
Want to start your summer reading early? Click on the images below.
I lied about reading the Lord of the Rings just to be cool with the nerders. Plus, never seen the movies either.
I've read 'A Confederacy of Dunces', 'War and Peace' and 'A People's History' out of that last. I am an avid reader and find it funny when people lie about the books they read.
I don't understand why people would lie about reading. Good literature is personal. It's intimate. I don't read for "bragging rights." I read b/c I enjoy the act of reading.
It's because the so called intellectuals are full of shit. They just don't want to admit they spend most of their reading time on sci/fi and fantasy like most people.
I've read 1984 only because I didn't get any Orwell when I was in high school. Lot's of shit about racism in the south though, and I lived 10 hours north of Vancouver.
I've read one of these (Gatsby), and started and stopped three of them (Corrections, Dunces, Moby Dick). And I consider myself an avid reader.
Satanic Verses should be on this list instead of Great Gatsby. Confederate of Dunces is a really good book, and funny, too. I got halfway through Infinitie Jest right after Wallace killed himself and I had to put it down before I did the same.