Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On pretending to have read books

thecritic.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: On pretending to have read books

#31

Post by sneak »

1sembiyan wrote: post #25

A 15 year old niece told me this week that she can’t be bothered to read because she gets bored by the time she gets to the end of the first page. “Why do that when I have TikTok and YouTube?” It seems like there’s going to be a generation of people who don’t have to pretend to read - they simply don’t care to, and it doesn’t confer the same status TikTok fame does.

I am fairly certain that that has held true for a majority of people in the previous generation (and the ones before that), too.

Most people don’t read. This is not remotely new.

Re: On pretending to have read books

#32

Post by technothrasher »

marc_abonce wrote: post #29

Funnily enough, pretending to read a book will almost always make you better at these conversations than actually reading the book. This is something I learned the hard way back in school. Whenever I actually read the book/chapter/article I would almost invariably do way worse on the quiz or essay compared to when I "cheated" by only reading a couple of summaries or reviews. In fact, I really enjoyed reading Eco's Na…

The best grade on a book essay I got in High School was for a book that didn't even exist. We were supposed to read a book of our choosing and write about it. I couldn't be bothered (ok, ok, I wasn't the best student), so I just made one up and the teacher commented that it was the best essay in the class.

As an adult, I've now read a lot of the classics I was supposed to have read in High School, and wish I could go back and tell my knucklehead past self to just read them, as they are actually very good.

Re: On pretending to have read books

#33

Post by justinlloyd »

I've read "quite a few books" in my lifetime. I am not interested in having a conversation about any of them. Well... maybe one or two. Love Tolkien but boy did he need an editor. For the most part, many of the books I read are instantly forgettable. Those that aren't, I remember fragments, some bright, salient details surrounded by a fog of dullness.

I watched John Carter the movie with my wife a while back, I know I read the books and shorts many years ago, I couldn't tell you anything about them other than "civil war era soldier" (I think), goes to Mars, does some stuff, saves the day, gets the girl (sort of). All I could think, after having read the Princess of Mars story was about were the plot holes for a few days post-reading. Ripping yarns. And then, after years, utterly forgotten. There was a few parts in the movie where I thought "Oh, I remember that from the book" and other scenes I thought "was that in the book." I have no desire to go find out. For all I know I could be confounding the John Carter stories with Danny Dunn.

I keep a spreadsheet of all the books I've read or started to read. Date started, date completed. There's more started dates than completed dates. Any initial thoughts. Sometimes some updated thoughts a little while later. Whenever one of the books comes up in conversation, I get this uneasy, vague recollection that I might have read that. I usually have to check my list. People want to show off how clever they are by quoting bits of it, or dissecting the story - either they read and re-read books for a living, or they don't read very many books, I can't decide which it is.

If someone were to question my knowledge on a book I claim to have read, I'd look incredibly suspicious. I've found, of the people who have tried this gambit, that it is usually someone trying to engage in a pissing contest and I'm not interested in engaging in that. It also makes tops of your shoes dirty.

P.S. Essayist is a) gatekeeping b) showing off his "I read books" Scout badge c) needs a damn editor.

Re: On pretending to have read books

#34

Post by quesera »

tapanjk wrote: post #9
karaterobot wrote: post #3

I thought for sure this essay would reference Pierre Bayard's really fun How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read . Oh well! Anyway, I think there are at least three kinds of reading. The one where you skim some reviews and read twenty pages is one of them. You can do this in order to just be able to say you've read something without putting in the "work", but you can also do this as part of a serious study of some s…

> The last one is when you read the book, then think about it, then read it again, then read about it, then keep reading it over and over for the rest of your life. Agree. Would love to see examples from people of books that fall in this category. I assume it is a short list for most people.

I'd also love to see a list of the most common books people claim to have read, but have not.

There's some obvious stuff:

  - Proust
  - Tolstoy, Dostoevsky
  - Joyce (although to be fair, how can you tell?)
  - Probably David Foster Wallace
  - Knuth :)

Re: On pretending to have read books

#35

Post by bilater »

I see the author's point yet there are echos of the old argument of 'this generation doesn't do X'. Typically those arguments almost always end up being false.

Ultimately, we need to have a little more faith in the younger generation, just like our boomer parents could have done with us. I bet there were articles in the 50s & 60s freaking out about how books are going to go extinct cause young people only want to watch TV. And that did happen to a certain extent (readership fell), but a percentage of the population kept reading good old fashioned books, and that will be true going forward as well.

Re: On pretending to have read books

#36

Post by StormChaser_5 »

sneak wrote: post #30
tapanjk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The last one is when you read the book, then think about it, then read it again, then read about it, then keep reading it over and over for the rest of your life. Agree. Would love to see examples from people of books that fall in this category. I assume it is a short list for most people.

Mine (predictably): 1984 Stranger In A Strange Land The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress Time Enough For Love Friday The Crying Of Lot 49 Seveneves Neuromancer I’ve read all of these at least 4 times, with reading-about-them in between. I usually pick one up to re-read just a part of it, then I get sucked in and before I know it I’ve re-read the whole thing.

Have you tried "The player of games"? Based on the others you have there you might like it.

Re: On pretending to have read books

#37

Post by sneak »

StormChaser_5 wrote: post #36
sneak wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine (predictably): 1984 Stranger In A Strange Land The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress Time Enough For Love Friday The Crying Of Lot 49 Seveneves Neuromancer I’ve read all of these at least 4 times, with reading-about-them in between. I usually pick one up to re-read just a part of it, then I get sucked in and before I know it I’ve re-read the whole thing.

Have you tried "The player of games"? Based on the others you have there you might like it.

I adore the Culture novels, but I read them for the first time last year.

So far I have only re-read Inversions and Excession, the two that were the most fun the first time through.

Re: On pretending to have read books

#38

Post by v4dok »

My mother used to read a lot of books when I was young so I picked it up as a hobby. I have to say that after the internet came into my life, reading books has become much harder. The effort is much bigger because my brain was wired to faster reward cycles.

I continue pushing thought but I have to admit it's still hard. Especially because books that worth it are hard. They are not something you mindlessly consume like a movie or (in a lesser degree) a theater play. I don't know how people manage to read hard books when they also work on something even somewhat challenging on a day to day basis.

So yes, faking you read a book is stupid and easily recognizable to someone who actually did, but on the other hand, any way to shorten the effort needed to read books is welcomed. Especially when they are so many produced now with SEO-like content that just waste your time.

Re: On pretending to have read books

#39

Post by scubbo »

icambron wrote: post #24

I can’t identify with any of this—I guess I simply don’t travel in social circles where reading books confers status—but I will say this article is wonderfully written and entertaining throughout. In particular, I got a good chuckle out of this turn of phrase: > You don’t have to go fully commando, of course. There are plenty of briefs available.

Oh, wonderful. I was (perhaps fittingly, given the topic) skimming, and didn't notice this for the excellent pun that it is - I'm glad you pointed it out.

Re: On pretending to have read books

#40

Post by tomxor »

karaterobot wrote: post #3

I thought for sure this essay would reference Pierre Bayard's really fun How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read . Oh well! Anyway, I think there are at least three kinds of reading. The one where you skim some reviews and read twenty pages is one of them. You can do this in order to just be able to say you've read something without putting in the "work", but you can also do this as part of a serious study of some s…

> The latter is much more rewarding, but my point is not that one is better than the other [...]

I disagree that it's not better...

The "march through a book, page-by-page, as quickly as possible" method is wasteful of your time. That just seems like a task for the sake of being able to say "i've read it", and even if someone is that pretentious, it's a pretty low return on investment - I say screw that, you can only read so many books in your life, read the ones that genuinely interest you at that moment in time. Even if you don't finish or read it front to back contiguously without large breaks, at least the content is meaningful to you while you read it, so you get the most from your time spent reading.

Post reply on HN