62% Person of lie about having read classic books

[Robin Of House Hill]

Cryptile's Classics:

The Left Hand of Darkness - LeGuin

Ringworld - Niven

Time Enough For Love - Heinlein

The Space Merchants - Pohl & Kornbluth

The Demolished Man - Bester

Stormbringer - Moorcock

The Book of the New Sun - Wolfe

Foundation - Asimov

The Martian Chronicles - Bradbury

Dune - Herbert

Ender's Game - Card

Hyperion - Simmons

LOTR - Tolkien

OMG! I've read all of those.

[Leofric]

1984 by George Orwell - Yes

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy - No

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens - Yes

Catcher in the Rye by J D Salinger - No

A Passage to India by E M Forster - No

Lord of the Rings by J R R Tolkein - Yes

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee - Yes

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky - No

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen - Yes

Cryptile's Classics:

The Left Hand of Darkness - LeGuin - Yes

Ringworld - Niven -Yes

Time Enough For Love - Heinlein - Yes

The Space Merchants - Pohl & Kornbluth - No, but read Heechee books and other stand alone ones by Pohl

The Demolished Man - Bester -Yes

Stormbringer - Moorcock -Yes

The Book of the New Sun - Wolfe -Yes

Foundation - Asimov - Yes

The Martian Chronicles - Bradbury - Yes

Dune - Herbert - yes

Ender's Game - Card -yes

Hyperion - Simmons - Yes

LOTR - Tolkien - Yes

Did better on the sci fi classics list.

[Clueless Northman]

A lot of these "classics" I haven't read, but on the other hand, a lot of books considered just as much as classics I have read (actually, only LOTR, Crime and punishment, and War and Peace). And having read Thucydides' Peloponnesian War at 18 and War and Peace at 20 (among others), I don't think I really need to beef up my classical reading credentials.

At the end of the day, most classics I haven't yet read, I actually intend to read one day, if I have time (which might not happen, since there are far more books I want to read than is doable for an average human life). Of this list, 1984 is obviously the one I most blatantly need to read next.

I don't understand why this is supposed to be surprising, since it covers both "people who buy books merely to put them on the shelves to impress visitors" and "people who buy or borrow more than one book at a time and need somewhere to put the ones they can't start straight away". I own lots of books I haven't read yet. That doesn't mean I have no intention of reading them and it seems a weird thing to conflate with "lying about books you've read".

I take it it means half the people buy books and display them while they never had the intention of actually reading them.

Would be weird, since I'm pretty sure than in any current Western society, half the people would actually not display any book in their home, and never ready any book. Well, 50 Shades or similar crap maybe, once a decade.

The other option being, as you said, quite asinine. At one time, half my books were unread, because I'd been on big second-hand books buying sprees - which were only stopped because I hadn't any room left to store them, bookshelves being already buried under 3 rows of books. I'm actively working on reducing the amount of unread, but it'll take many years (and since books will still be readable when I'm old and retired, unlike DVDs and video games whose formats will be obsolete way before I'm an old fart, I might as well keep a few for my old age).

[wolverine]

A lot of these "classics" I haven't read, but on the other hand, a lot of books considered just as much as classics I have read (actually, only LOTR, Crime and punishment, and War and Peace). And having read Thucydides' Peloponnesian War at 18 and War and Peace at 20 (among others), I don't think I really need to beef up my classical reading credentials.

At the end of the day, most classics I haven't yet read, I actually intend to read one day, if I have time (which might not happen, since there are far more books I want to read than is doable for an average human life). Of this list, 1984 is obviously the one I most blatantly need to read next.

If this was a concern I don't think a few books as a teenager gives you much.

How many classics are there?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Cryptile's Classics:

No Mervyn Peake or Arthur C. Clarke? Heathen!

[LordStoneheart]

Hehehe... I'm just starting out a british lit class in college. Prof asked if we've read the assigned books. Gulliver's Travels I said yes... except I half-lied. It was the great illustrated classics version in middle school that took away all the satirical and social criticism. I also directly lied about reading Jane Eyre. I only saw the mini-series.

I have read the catcher in the rye though. Twice. Once because I thought it would be good, and once for school a year later. Both times hated it.

:leaving:

[Clueless Northman]

If this was a concern I don't think a few books as a teenager gives you much.

How many classics are there?

What I meant is that I don't feel much need or pressure to actually pretend I've read stuff, just to appear smart / well-read / whatever because someone put up a subjective list of "What you have to read" which obviously will only include a tiny fraction of worthy books, and of all classics; pretending would be pointless, I don't see why there'd be some kind of contest between people who actually read, and read classics.

As for classics on my to-read list, that's in the hundreds, so I can only despair in the full knowledge that I won't live long enough to read all there is to read - actually had to get out of the university library the first time I went there, because I realised it in a few minutes. I mean, just the Mahabharata and the Ramayana would keep me occupied for some weeks, assuming I don't work, sleep and eat :D Of course, considering the fact there are non-classics worth reading, including a sizable amount of SF/F, I'm really doomed.

[Weeping Sore]

1984 by George Orwell – Yes

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy – No, but I loved Anna Karenina

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens – Yes, but I just don't like Dickens

Catcher in the Rye by J D Salinger – Yes, Salinger's Franny and Zooey is better

A Passage to India by E M Forster – No. Don't plan to, either. I think I bear it a grudge because the movie version won best picture over Gilliam's Brazil.

Lord of the Rings by J R R Tolkein – Yes.

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee – Yes.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky – Yes. Make sure you read the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation if reading in English.

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen – Nope. No plans, but maybe I'll read the zombie one.

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë – Yes.

[TheEvilKing]

Why is everyone lying so much in this thread?

[Darth Visenya]

Classics that I have read:

LOTR-Tolkein

I read one of E M Forsters other books-Where Angels Fear to Tread

The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy-One of my favourite books.

[Lyanna Stark]

As with others, I've been tempted to go back to W&P and C&P to see if I am more up for it this time. Then again, I think I've been halfway through Catch-22 for the past 5 years, so maybe I should finish that first....

I love Catch 22! :P

It's weird that tho that when it comes to the classics, people have such different relationships to the novels. Personally I find it odd that people can't see the humour in works like Catch 22, Pride & Prejudice and Candide, for instance (all three novels I love because I find them humorous) but then I am absolutely certain there are novels other people find similarly amazing, and I just can't see it.

Er, why, it was the most boring book I've ever had the misfortune to read, Oh Elizabeth,Oh Mr Darcy, Kitty stop coughing to amuse yourself, really?, it's inane 18th Century chick lit.

Haha no, it is not. It's a really fun, subtle critique of what it meant to be an upper class woman in 18th century England. It may be a lot of things, but "inane" is not one of them. Austen even declares it on the very first line of the novel, so you have to be quite blind to not see the sarcasm in the statement.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Since women aren't allowed to actually *do* anything useful even though they are described as Lizzy is (i.e. as pretty clever and as a person with integrity), then they are stuck in a bind of having to marry for money and station. This is what the novel is really about, especially since we see the marriages of Mr Collins and Charlotte Lucas, and Lydia to Mr Wickham as examples of when this goes really badly wrong. Not to mention Mr and Mrs Bennett themselves. Even if their interactions are hilarious, it is quite obvious their marriage is far from an ideal one.

So to all you P&P haters, stop slagging off this nifty work of early feminist critique.

Good to hear I am not the only one! I had to blag having read Great Expectations for a seminar once. Really, at the age of twenty, I had far better things to do with my time!

Like what? Being drunk? Playing Quake?

As for classics on my to-read list, that's in the hundreds, so I can only despair in the full knowledge that I won't live long enough to read all there is to read - actually had to get out of the university library the first time I went there, because I realised it in a few minutes.

Just look at it like this: isn't it better to have something to look forward to than to know that the supply of great literature is finite? I love that there are lots of great books I haven't read. Some day, I will have time to sit down and read again, and then I will have great time, no? :)

[thecryptile]

OMG! I've read all of those.

You are a classicist then in my book.

Did better on the sci fi classics list.

They're better books IMO.

No Mervyn Peake or Arthur C. Clarke? Heathen!

I knew I was forgetting someone- lol.

I used to give my English teachers the big "Literature of the Future" spiel, and tell them how SFF was superior to mundane literature.

[Darth Visenya]

I love Catch 22! :P

It's weird that tho that when it comes to the classics, people have such different relationships to the novels. Personally I find it odd that people can't see the humour in works like Catch 22, Pride & Prejudice and Candide, for instance (all three novels I love because I find them humorous) but then I am absolutely certain there are novels other people find similarly amazing, and I just can't see it.

Haha no, it is not. It's a really fun, subtle critique of what it meant to be an upper class woman in 18th century England. It may be a lot of things, but "inane" is not one of them. Austen even declares it on the very first line of the novel, so you have to be quite blind to not see the sarcasm in the statement.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Since women aren't allowed to actually *do* anything useful even though they are described as Lizzy is (i.e. as pretty clever and as a person with integrity), then they are stuck in a bind of having to marry for money and station. This is what the novel is really about, especially since we see the marriages of Mr Collins and Charlotte Lucas, and Lydia to Mr Wickham as examples of when this goes really badly wrong. Not to mention Mr and Mrs Bennett themselves. Even if their interactions are hilarious, it is quite obvious their marriage is far from an ideal one.

So to all you P&P haters, stop slagging off this nifty work of early feminist critique.

Perhaps having to study and analyze it for school didn't help but I really couldn't stand P&P and my memories of it aren't fond, while reading it I secretly hoped the next chapter would yield the early invention of the chainsaw and a serial killer making house calls just so the drudgery would end.

I'm glad you enjoy it but like you say it's one of those books I just don't get.

[Shryke]

Haha no, it is not. It's a really fun, subtle critique of what it meant to be an upper class woman in 18th century England. It may be a lot of things, but "inane" is not one of them. Austen even declares it on the very first line of the novel, so you have to be quite blind to not see the sarcasm in the statement.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Since women aren't allowed to actually *do* anything useful even though they are described as Lizzy is (i.e. as pretty clever and as a person with integrity), then they are stuck in a bind of having to marry for money and station. This is what the novel is really about, especially since we see the marriages of Mr Collins and Charlotte Lucas, and Lydia to Mr Wickham as examples of when this goes really badly wrong. Not to mention Mr and Mrs Bennett themselves. Even if their interactions are hilarious, it is quite obvious their marriage is far from an ideal one.

So to all you P&P haters, stop slagging off this nifty work of early feminist critique.

Mr. Bennett is the most amazing person. He's hilarious, drier then good gin and I assumed drunk on said gin most of the time to stand his wife.

[Alhazred]

1984 – YES

WAR & PEACE - NO

GREAT EXPECTATIONS - YES

CATCHER IN THE RYE - NO

PASSAGE TO INDIA - NO

LORD OF THE RINGS - YES

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD - YES

CRIME & PUNISHMENT - NO

PRIDE & PREJUDICE - YES

JANE EYRE - NO

"Yes" means I read it, not that I lied about it. Of course, I could be lying about that.

[Alhazred]

Cryptile's Classics:

The Left Hand of Darkness - NO

Ringworld - NO

Time Enough For Love - NO

The Space Merchants - NO

The Demolished Man - NO

Stormbringer - YES

The Book of the New Sun - NO

Foundation - NO

The Martian Chronicles - NO

Dune - YES

Ender's Game - NO

Hyperion - NO

LOTR - YES

Guess I'm not much of a fan of "sci-fi classics"; though I would say I've read my share of sci-fi.

[Fragile Bird]

Cryptile's Classics:

The Left Hand of Darkness - LeGuin

Ringworld - Niven

Time Enough For Love - Heinlein

The Space Merchants - Pohl & Kornbluth

The Demolished Man - Bester

Stormbringer - Moorcock

The Book of the New Sun - Wolfe

Foundation - Asimov

The Martian Chronicles - Bradbury

Dune - Herbert

Ender's Game - Card

Hyperion - Simmons

LOTR - Tolkien

I believe I have read all of these, but it was so many decades ago, when I was a teen.....

Ursula LeGuin along with Asimov and Heinlein and Bradbury were my favs. But I just read Ender's Game, because I saw the trailer for the movie and I might go see it (I was avoiding Card because of all the nasty stuff I had heard about him over the years) and I finally read Wolfe this year.

All you folks who have not read To Kill a Mockingbird? Especially you Americans who haven't read it...go buy it or borrow it, it is a wonderful book. Then watch the movie, then read the book again, hearing the voices of the characters as played in the movie. I love, love, love both the book and the movie, as I mentioned up thread. :)

[Tears of Lys]

I love Catch 22! :P

It's weird that tho that when it comes to the classics, people have such different relationships to the novels. Personally I find it odd that people can't see the humour in works like Catch 22, Pride & Prejudice and Candide, for instance (all three novels I love because I find them humorous) but then I am absolutely certain there are novels other people find similarly amazing, and I just can't see it.

Haha no, it is not. It's a really fun, subtle critique of what it meant to be an upper class woman in 18th century England. It may be a lot of things, but "inane" is not one of them. Austen even declares it on the very first line of the novel, so you have to be quite blind to not see the sarcasm in the statement.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Since women aren't allowed to actually *do* anything useful even though they are described as Lizzy is (i.e. as pretty clever and as a person with integrity), then they are stuck in a bind of having to marry for money and station. This is what the novel is really about, especially since we see the marriages of Mr Collins and Charlotte Lucas, and Lydia to Mr Wickham as examples of when this goes really badly wrong. Not to mention Mr and Mrs Bennett themselves. Even if their interactions are hilarious, it is quite obvious their marriage is far from an ideal one.

So to all you P&P haters, stop slagging off this nifty work of early feminist critique.

Like what? Being drunk? Playing Quake?

Just look at it like this: isn't it better to have something to look forward to than to know that the supply of great literature is finite? I love that there are lots of great books I haven't read. Some day, I will have time to sit down and read again, and then I will have great time, no? :)

:love: I feel the exact same way! And I'm so sad that people are just seeing Austen as stodgy rather than the sparkling wit she was.

Do some of these books take getting used to to understand the author's voice? Sure. But they're well worth it.

Mr. Bennett is the most amazing person. He's hilarious, drier then good gin and I assumed drunk on said gin most of the time to stand his wife.

Mr. Bennett cracked me up too! And it really was poignant how he turned so serious when he feared Lizzy was going to marry someone who she was unsuited to - just like he was. :(

[slim da reaper]

i have personally started all of them, but a lot of classic literature is fucking shit. especially crime and punishment, i know so many people who have started and ditched that book.

I'm not alone then on that book, different times though I'd still not have read it.

I've read 1984 twice, not the greatest read as the protagonist being middle class is a severe weakness but Orwell says himself there is hope in the proletariat, if we ditch the class rubbish there's hope in the freeborn. It's an interesting book as some people who think they've understood it that "we're fine" that it is merely an attack on oppressive communist regimes hasn't understood what the book is criticizing: oppressive communism that defines 'modern civilization' one example being a conservative twat I heard tell someone once "But he's your prime minister like it or not" Like it or not! that bollockhead! lol. Don't tell me who is my anything, don't delude yourself that you actually own anything, all your arrogance brings about war as it always does as you abuse people to attempt to grandiose the object that you make yourself and have the arrogance to extend that control freakery towards others. Where once I'd have believed in freewill for all people, maybe they are object type people.

Lord of the Rings: started will almost certainly read all the way through one day.

Passage to India: own unread.

[callmedodge]

1984 by George Orwell - Yes： Excellent book.

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy - No

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens - No

Catcher in the Rye by J D Salinger - No

A Passage to India by E M Forster - No

Lord of the Rings by J R R Tolkein - Yes: Terrible. An absolute drag.

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee - Yes: Studied in school. Really enjoyed it.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky - No

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen - No

Cryptile's Classics:

The Left Hand of Darkness - LeGuin - Yes

Ringworld - Niven - No, been on my bucket list for a while.

Time Enough For Love - Heinlein - No

The Space Merchants - Pohl & Kornbluth - No

The Demolished Man - Bester -No

Stormbringer - Moorcock -No

The Book of the New Sun - Wolfe -No

Foundation - Asimov - No.

The Martian Chronicles - Bradbury - No

Dune - Herbert - No

Ender's Game - Card - No

Hyperion - Simmons - Yes, excellent

LOTR - Tolkien - Yes

I really need to get back into reading.