Novels you claimed to have read but actually haven't

[Cassiopeia]

I agree with KTC, no matter the reason for reading the books I have, I've come away with something from everyone of them.

[cptwentworth]

H'mm, I remember lying to Mrs. Perkins in 11th grade English that I'd read Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer (I don't remember what it was called because I couldn't get through it, still can't stand it), but at least I got part way through with Cliff notes for it. But only lied about that one for her. And my grade. Depending on the teacher, Cliff notes work. A good teacher, no.

Even the other classics that you read in high school, some enjoyable, others not, you either choose to read it or not, for a grade, but just because it's school work doesn't count as not reading it. And I've reread some of those books outside of school, with no one telling me to. Imagine! People reading nonassigned material, just for fun!

As an adult I can't imagine the reasoning for lying about books. It's almost, well, sacreligious. Reading is a pleasure, joy, hobby, intellectual pursuit, entertainment, escape...and the list goes on.

I remember the first time I hurt someone's feelings when I handed a book back halfway through, something by Maeve Binchy, and said I just couldn't finish it. She was hurt. Strange that my taste in reading should hurt her feelings, but I couldn't lie about it. People love to discuss the works they've read in depth, and it would only make you look like a fool. And a liar.

[Cella]

Originally Posted by cptwentworth

I can't imagine the reasoning for lying about books.

what if you're trying to get the cute boy to like you?

[cptwentworth]

Originally Posted by Cella

what if you're trying to get the cute boy to like you?

Then I'd better read it quick! I wouldn't want him to think I'm a liar, a surefire turn-off.

[kaitie]

Okay wow...

To answer the first question. No. I don't think I've lied about reading a book. I actually was one of the only people who ever trudged through even the most miserably hard ones in school. I also will admit freely when I didn't really understand something. I also have no problem honestly saying "I read that so long ago I don't even remember the character's names."

As for whether or not something read in school counts...I just find this completely RIDICULOUS. Seriously. I was a lit major. I loved English classes even in high school, even when I had to read things I really despise. I have read Shakespeare in both classes. For the record, I also can't stand the stuff. And if it counts for anything, I read Hamlet in class (I'd never read it for pleasure) and STILL managed to have a completely different take on it than anyone else in class did. Personally, my personal little opinion made me actually enjoy the story more.

Anyway, my first point is that whether you've read a book or not is what matters. Understanding, etc. doesn't make a darn bit of difference. Do I seriously think that the average person can do a better job reading a classic piece (they're HARD) without any help than a person in a class with someone there explaining "This is what the cultural significance of this phrase means" can? Not at all. My favorite book of all time, The Sound and the Fury, was so difficult I could never have made it through and understood it without having a teacher there helping us with it. Now I'm talking averages here. Not the book-lover who reads this stuff so often that they actually can just do it on their own.

Second point, still related to understanding, chances are if someone IS reading something incredibly difficult outside of class and not understanding it, they're still going to look for some sort of explanation. I know I've done it. They might go to Cliff's Notes. They might use Wikipedia. Just do an online search, or post a question on Yahoo Answers. The point is, it strikes me as silly to say that having a teacher actually means you haven't read a book.

A teacher (a good teacher, anyway) will not just get up and tell you what to think. They will ask you questions. They will ask you to think critically about the work while providing the framework to understand it. And that understanding is the hardest part, particularly when reading something incredibly difficult full of cultural references that are no longer viable, for example, or when it uses incredibly convoluted language that is so outdated that it's practically like translating a foreign language to understand. A teacher is a facilitator. If a teacher is just getting up and telling you what to think they're failing at their job. And if you, as a student, just accept whatever the teacher says as the truth without thinking it through, you're failing at your job as well.

Finally, I don't know about your English classes (junior high and high school), but how many of the people in your classes actually read what was assigned? Seriously? In my class (and I was always in the AP advanced classes as well) there were about 3 of us. Three. Out of thirty. The rest of the class would read twenty pages and get sick of it, go buy the shortcuts, look things up online, or try to get the three of us who did do the work to tell them what happened before the quizzes. We'd joke about the art of bs-ing essays and learning how to regurgitate the teacher's words in a new way so that they wouldn't notice you were doing it. It annoyed the shit out of me because I actually read this stuff, even the stuff I didn't like. I'll give the one exception to this rule--Ender's Game. I think everyone in class read that one in two days. We loved it.

Point being, saying you haven't "read" something if you did it in a class setting is just inherently wrong. To read means to have picked it up and read the words. It doesn't necessarily mean you understood it well. It doesn't mean you can get up and give a lecture about it. It means you read the words and they went into your brain. And honestly, considering the number of people in school who never read (by any definition of the word) the assignments, I definitely think that it should count.

Anyway, on a completely unrelated note, I can't think of a single time that I've heard anyone brag about having read Shakespeare to sound smart. Maybe that was because I was a lit major. And it wasn't typically like we sat around discussing it, either. I have known a couple of people who would lie about this sort of thing, but it was generally ridiculously obvious that they were doing it. I don't see the point, and I don't see why there's anything shameful about not having read something (unless it's something I've written, of course. ). There have been millions of books printed in the course of history. Even as a lit major I've never read the Grapes of Wrath or Of Mice and Men. I might read the latter one day. Always have meant to. I'm not ashamed of either.

[MGraybosch]

Originally Posted by Cella

what if you're trying to get the cute boy to like you?

You can't just press him up against a wall and kiss him? It worked for my wife.

[mscelina]

Originally Posted by KTC

This is not the way that we all feel about it. I took in every book I read. It's just silly to use a wide paintbrush like that. SILLY.

Exactly. QFT.

There were books I had to read over the course of my education that I absolutely loathed. To Kill A Mockingbird was one of them; Moby Dick and For Whom the Bell Tolls were two more.

But I read them. I can discuss them intelligently. Sure, I didn't bother to pick any of them back up after school but even now I'm in my forties *sob* I still retain that two weeks' worth of study from my junior year of high school. Personally, I was blessed with an outstanding public school education in Tennessee (yes you read that right-Tennessee) because of teachers who loved their subject and spread that enthusiasm to their students. I never had to have my hand held by anyone, but I followed in interest when a teacher pointed my inquisitive little nose in a new direction.

[Puzzles]

I read the majority of Burroughs "Naked Lunch". I got about three quarters the way through before my patience wore away to nothing. If someone asks, I will say that I have read this book.

I think at that point I realised that reading another quarter of the book would leave me just as confused and unsatisfied as the rest did. I read enough to feel alright saying I read it.

I decided that sometimes drugs make for amazing ideas. Also, sometimes a heroin addict can manage to get so many pages of incoherent babble published, and finding meaning in it is an exercise in futility.

The only other time I claimed I read a book and hadn't, was when I mixed up 1984 with one of Ray Bradbury's books, which was unintentional.

[Lady Ice]

Originally Posted by kaitie

Personally, my personal little opinion made me actually enjoy the story more.

Finally, I don't know about your English classes (junior high and high school), but how many of the people in your classes actually read what was assigned? Seriously? In my class (and I was always in the AP advanced classes as well) there were about 3 of us. Three. Out of thirty. The rest of the class would read twenty pages and get sick of it, go buy the shortcuts, look things up online, or try to get the three of us who did do the work to tell them what happened before the quizzes. We'd joke about the art of bs-ing essays and learning how to regurgitate the teacher's words in a new way so that they wouldn't notice you were doing it. It annoyed the shit out of me because I actually read this stuff, even the stuff I didn't like.

Point being, saying you haven't "read" something if you did it in a class setting is just inherently wrong. To read means to have picked it up and read the words. It doesn't necessarily mean you understood it well. It doesn't mean you can get up and give a lecture about it. It means you read the words and they went into your brain. And honestly, considering the number of people in school who never read (by any definition of the word) the assignments, I definitely think that it should count.
.

This is exactly my point. English Lit should be about students finding their own relationship to the text, whether it be troubled, negative, indifferent, or absorbed; whether they choose to interpret X as about sexual liberty or the dangers of a dictatorship. Spark Notes websites can be useful to remind you of key points but they also have a negative effect in that they limit the book's meaning, making everything black and white. If a student feels that their opinion is negated, even if it is worthy, they will be withdrawn and won't want to read the books. A friend of mine got shot down in class for giving a sexual interpretation of a poem. I'd read it and agreed with her- in the exam I made that point and I got almost full marks. Teachers don't know everything.

You pretty much have to read the books in English high schools as the exam questions are based on references- you're given a quote and then a statement. It's just you, the paper, and the book.

Agree also on the point about students not bothering to read the books they're set. I read them (sometimes even re-read); those people who can't be bothered- and brag about it, because they do that sort of thing- don't deserve a good mark.

[Pink Chick]

Do audio books count? I have a long commute and have a book going in my car at all times. Even though I'm not "reading" them off the pages, I count them. Am I right?

[MGraybosch]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

If a student feels that their opinion is negated, even if it is worthy, they will be withdrawn and won't want to read the books.

I agree. I never offered an opinion of my own concerning the books I was expected to read in high school. I'd read them for myself if I deemed them interesting, and then referred to the cliffs' notes so I could tell the teachers what they wanted to hear, especially when it came to symbolism and the author's motives for writing in the first place.

[Freelancer]

Well, yes I did and no, I didn't. I did few times in school, when I needed to read mandatory literature but I never read the full length version from those ones back in those times. I had much better things to do, then read mandatory books when I was a teenager. Later of course I read those books, the full version and I enjoyed most of them, but in school, I rather read the short edition of them. Usually our library had them and I written my essays from those ones, usually for A or B grades. Of course my teacher always knew I never read the full version from any of them, but she loved my essays which became sometimes better then those essays, which was written by those ones whose read the full versions.

So, yes. I'm guilty. I "cheated" when I needed to read those mandatory literature stories.

[RunawayScribe]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

University level study is fine- that's a proper in-depth study. But high-school level study of Shakespeare is only surface. People claiming to have 'read' Shakespeare bug me because it's normally in a bid to sound intellectual ('read' in brackets means 'read, understood, and have my own ideas on it'). If you've done it at school, say that

Memorising the first three acts of Hamlet? Wow. I can remember the odd line or sometimes speech

As for Shakespeare writing plays, of course dramatic literature is open to interpretation. That's why you should initially read it with no teacher and a vocab list if you need it to form your own opinions, to decide you don't find it interesting or to make it your own. Naturally you discuss it with other people afterwards to find their opinions- we all have our writing/reading preferences and views; they differ and it's that difference that makes studying books really interesting.

This is unfair. It depends on 1) the high school teacher and how well it's taught, and 2) what you make of it. Some people say "Oh, I read that in high school" and by that mean "I sparknoted it and remember that Romeo and Juliet both die." But I didn't do that. I read those plays closely and did plenty of individual thinking about them.

Anyway. No, I don't lie about what I've read. How in the world can I be expected to have read everything? I'm still learning, and always will be. There's billions of books out there, too. Anyone who doesn't understand that isn't worth impressing.

[steampunkette]

I've claimed to have read Atlas Shrugged when in reality I threw the book across the room after about 150 pages because reading it was like eating sand. Yes, the premise might have some merit. Yes, Ayn Rand is historically and politically interesting. But JEEEEZ.

My husband thought he'd read Moby Dick when he was in his early twenties, only to be caught out in a conversation with a friend. The friend was talking about the length of the book, and H said "what are you talking about? It's only about 100 pages long".
Turns out he had read the Reader's Digest version...

[Forty-sevener]

Great Expectations. But that was for English class.

[KTC]

Originally Posted by steampunkette

I've claimed to have read Atlas Shrugged when in reality I threw the book across the room after about 150 pages because reading it was like eating sand. Yes, the premise might have some merit. Yes, Ayn Rand is historically and politically interesting. But JEEEEZ.

My husband thought he'd read Moby Dick when he was in his early twenties, only to be caught out in a conversation with a friend. The friend was talking about the length of the book, and H said "what are you talking about? It's only about 100 pages long".
Turns out he had read the Reader's Digest version...

I've read Atlas Shrugged about 6 times. Funny...taste is such a crazy wild thing. (-;

[Phaeal]

Mmmm, I'll eat sand with Francisco d'Anconia any time.

No one should hurl Atlas Shrugged across a room. You could throw your shoulder out that way, not to mention brain pets or crush drywall.

[Krintar]

It actually had a pretty good story - just far too much ranting. I get that she was all about espousing her philosophy, but if you're going to use a novel as your medium, it behooves you to respect the story enough to keep it moving. Basically, it would've been a much better book if it were 100-150 pages shorter.

[Phaeal]

Originally Posted by Krintar

It actually had a pretty good story - just far too much ranting. I get that she was all about espousing her philosophy, but if you're going to use a novel as your medium, it behooves you to respect the story enough to keep it moving. Basically, it would've been a much better book if it were 100-150 pages shorter.

You just have to skip John Galt's three hour long radio speech. Then you can get right to the torture and mayhem.

I skip old John's speech about half the time. I have to be in the right mood for it. Besides, the inscription on the generator house says it all.

(Francisco d'Anconia does better speeches. More zingers.)

[steampunkette]

..... yet I loved We the Living.

I don't have a problem with ranting and/or the author obviously having an agenda, it was the excessive character description that bothered me.

And I'm going to say it: Rand doesn't create realistic characters.

**ducks**

[MGraybosch]

Originally Posted by steampunkette

And I'm going to say it: Rand doesn't create realistic characters.

Nor does she claim to. She even wrote a book called The Romantic Manifesto, for the love of Chaos.

[steampunkette]

Originally Posted by MGraybosch

Nor does she claim to.

She and I agree on that point, then!

[Krintar]

Originally Posted by steampunkette

I don't have a problem with ranting and/or the author obviously having an agenda, it was the excessive character description that bothered me.

I admit it; I didn't even notice that. I tend to gloss over lengthy character descriptions.

[OliviaMagdelene]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

I'm sure we're all guilty of one of the following:

- Pretended to have read a book a friend lent you so you don't hurt their feelings but really you were too busy/didn't like it.

- Counted a book amongst the classics you've read when in fact you only managed to get halfway through.

- Given opinions on books you haven't read based on the general consensus amongst your mates/the press/your elite social circle.

- Name-dropped some books in order to look intelligent

- Claimed to have read a book when you've only watched the movie.

- Counted Shakespeare plays you studied at high school as part of your 'Shakespeare reading'.

Most of my fibs about books came about because I have worked in book stores fairly often. It just doesn't do to recommend a book to a customer and say, "Um, well one of the other employees read this and..." Especially when you are in the middle of rush hour for the store. As a general rule, I tried to remain in sections with which I was readily familiar such a politics, children's books, romance, graphic novels, horror, literary fiction, poetry and anything in the bargain or bestseller's section.

I have done the thing where someone lends me a book and I've forgotten about it, then they want it back so I lied that I read it. I've only done that with friends that are particularly sensitive. Otherwise I would ask them for more time or state I don't have time to read.

As far as name-dropping books, in the circles I traverse many of us are well-read enough already and such actions only make one look pretentious. We speak about books to actually speak about them and dialogue because most of my friends are avid readers like myself.

[OliviaMagdelene]

Originally Posted by RunawayScribe

This is unfair. It depends on 1) the high school teacher and how well it's taught, and 2) what you make of it. Some people say "Oh, I read that in high school" and by that mean "I sparknoted it and remember that Romeo and Juliet both die." But I didn't do that. I read those plays closely and did plenty of individual thinking about them.

I agree with this. I read much of Shakespeare when I was in high school. However, I was in all advanced English classes where independent reading was the standard, not the rule. To this day, I still have memorized whole sections of Macbeth, which has always been my favorite of all the plays and the only one that I have reread ad nauseaum besides the oft mentioned Romeo& Juliet.