(Reading, that is). Apparently, if you do, you'd be in good company. Recent Guilty Secrets survey (Apparently carried out by the UK organisation 'Spread the Word' as part of the lead up to National Book Day) reveals that 65% of respondents have lied about reading a book. (Erm, just to clarify, not lied about ever having read a book - that would be extra scary - I mean lied about having read a particular book).
And what are we pretending to read? Well, poor George would be turning in his 'doesn't anyone in this world understand irony' grave, because it's, dada, yes, 1984. Apparently 42% of people have lied about reading that one. Not that his dystopic view of dumbed down centrally controlled simpletons with a loose hold on truth has come true or anything (she says sweetly without any hint of malice).
Shortly followed by
2. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (31%)
3. Ulysses by James Joyce (25%)
4. The Bible (24%)
5. Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert (16%)
6. A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking (15%)
7. Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie (14%)
8. In Remembrance of Things Past by Marcel Proust (9%)
9. Dreams from My Father by Barack Obama (6%)
10. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (6%)
I can happily admit to not having read 2, having read 3 chapters of 3, random quotes from 4, nothing of 5-9, and actually not being able to remember if I've read #10 (Bsharp can you jog my memory - was that uni reading?). I did read 1984, but jeez it was a long time ago and I think I had to for school.
And if you do sometimes fake it, what really turns you on?
The Guardian reporting on the same survey says that when asked to name the writers they really enjoyed, 61% of people ticked JK Rowling and 32% John Grisham. I guess my guilty pleasure mystery novels (Chandler, Rankin, Grafton, Evanovich, McCall Smith and others)are on par with Rowling and Grisham. I really enjoy them for the 4 minutes it takes to read them, but does that mean I enjoy them the most out of everything I read? Or are books like lovers, and sometimes the ones that take longer to get there and are more unusual, surprising and multifaceted, awkward, challenging even, end up being the ones that change you, that linger on your mind?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
heheh miss j! This story is getting a lot of traction over in UK, with a funny column by Charlie brooker about it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/09/charlie-brooker
He posits that the percentages suggest that both participants on a date are likely to be lying about books, so therefore why not just admit to loving trash and go home and watch the telly and shag?
Of your poser at the end, I hope it's the latter about what we -really- enjoy! The more difficult ones are more rewarding.
I don't fake it, but often can't remember the details or main point of a classic. Er, like Great Gatsby anyone.. hello? Perversely, I can be impressed by what someone has really read - and really hates - in contradiction to common popular opinion (e.g. Murukami ... so many reasons to be disappointed) .. heheh. I have yet to find someone who also loathes Coehlo. Terrible isn't it?
I've read ONLY 1984 of that list. Eek. But have read it twice, and remember some bits in great detail. Of the others - haven't tried midnight's children, but getting into Rushdie recently, currently half-way through Satanic Verses but dropped it right in the bath and am drying it out right now. (great lover of culture, oh yes).
Aaannd... we didn't have selfish gene on the actual reading list but it came strongly recommended by a couple of ecology lecturers. Also "the blind watchmaker".
Post a Comment