/lit/ - Literature

>>5613816
Yeah, all the time.
Have you seen Woody Allen's "To Rome With Love"?
Ellen Page's character is the epitome of pseudo-intellectual wikipedia reader.

>implying I don't defend myself by scrunching up my brows and saying "Really? I don't remember that. When does it happen?" and go home and search online to see if they're pulling this on me

No, I don't like calling people on lies because it's embarrassing, but my eyes will glaze over and I will lose some respect for them.

>>5613816

No, but I frequently pretend to have read way more than I actually have.
It's very rare that I'll blunder something and when I do, I just ride it out, make more and more specific references to other works and even quote something I know about. I can just pretend I mis-remembered the title and ask for the down-low from the obviously attentive reader. Now I can fake having read that as well.

What's worst is when someone has read something, but has a completely retarded interpretation of it. Or even worse, it turns out that you have a retarded interpretation that's so off course you may as well have not even read the book in the first place.

i feel that this is a good way to get people to think that you're an idiot, even if they don't mention it

>Hey guys I read Ulysses last week
>DID YOU KNOW IT'S SET IN INDIA?
>Everyone thinks you're a moron and just nods so that you'll go away
>OP goes home thinking "heh, no one is as patrician as me, they didn't even read the book"

>>5613842
If they say that then I apologise and alter the statement to something coherent. The best lies are ones quite close to the truth, so that you can disengage them easily

> I love the bit where he kills the woman he thought was homeless
> He does?
> Oh.. no you're right, he just puts money in her coffee

And that's it. A hair of questioning that is quickly forgotten by the other party, though you've gained immediate knowledge of them.

>>5613848

I don't call them either. If they nod along then I'll make them struggle a little, ask for specific favourite scenes or something, but I'll never outwardly call them a liar. I will make a mental note not to respect them though.

>>5613855
Why?

>>5613903
>And that's it. A hair of questioning that is quickly forgotten by the other party, though you've gained immediate knowledge of them.

What knowledge have you gained if the other party, without having actually read the book, can still deflect your questioning by looking confused and saying "When does that happen?"/"I don't remember that."/"Wait. Who does that?"/"I'm pretty sure that's not what happens."

>>5613888
>>5613900

If you charge into them like a retard then they'll think you're one. Just introduce a small but obvious error, well planned so that you can excuse it by linking it with another work. It would be quickly be caught by a reader of the book, or at least puzzled at, whilst the non-reader will nod along or perhaps even offer an empty statement in agreement.

>>5613919
seriously i would just let it go and assume you're an idiot

>>5613903

Why I do this?
Obviously, to look smart. Inclusion in a group and maybe some admiration are pretty good feelings, yo.

>>5613918
Most normal people will attempt to avoid in depth discussion of a work they're lying about, and this is a way of provoking it. My technique won't catch out dedicated liars, but they're a minority anyway, and make for much more interesting company then simple nodders

>>5613923
Well then you're a passive person that probably isn't worth talking to anyway. I prefer talking to people that say when something is incorrect, because this is the basis for all good discussion

Nope, but I've been tested by people like you. And failed because I had read the book years ago and couldn't recall half of it. It's awful. There I am, telling the truth about my readings but the other guy doesn't believe me and I can feel how he despises me for "being" a pretentious liar.

>>5613933
If someone says that they don't remember, I will believe them. It's when they just go along with lies that I get irked.

>>5613842
Do you respond to every detail the other person mentions this way, when you're pretending you've read a book?

>'Dostoevsky of course wrote Crime & Punishment in Russian, so naturally...'
>'Wait! Really. I don't remember that', then you walk home to google it immediately, because using the phone's too much for you.

>>5613926
Ah, that's fine then. It's just that I often lie about this sort of thing and have never been caught; most people in my social circle see me as some sort of uber-patrician even though I have never even heard of most of the books/films/albums/artworks/whatever that they're talking about.

>>5613945
Nah, just when it's a storyline or characterization detail. Otherwise I'll furrow my brow, mutter unintelligibly to myself, look momentarily taken aback, or otherwise express some sort of vague confusion and surprise. They can interpret that however they want.

>>5613954
Yes, that's the appropriate reaction. If I see it then I will correct myself

>friend asks if I read this one book
>I say I have
>proceeds to want to discuss it
>realize it's been 6 years and I don't remember any of it
>now he thinks I'm a bullshitter

Literally the worst day of my entire life.

>>5614054
What was the book anon?

>>5614054
>read brothers karazamov as a teenager
>most profound book i've ever read, plus bragging rights
>now early 30s
>literally cannot remember a single thing about it
>just say i haven't read it

>>5614082
Yup pretty much. The nice part is the reread will be so rewarding.

>>5613946
Most of my friends are plebs, though I have one really clever friend who can run rings around me whenever we enter any discussion. The fucker went to a much better university than me though, so it's just plebs again, as far as the eye can see.

>>5613816
Do it with music too.
I tricked abunch of wanna be hipsters into looking up novacancy milk hotel and the billy goats.

>>5613954
>storyline or characterization detail
>important
>reading for plot

>>5614286
Well these are the only things you can actually catch people out on, can you?

>>5613816
Maybe they forgot. Its not like i remember all ive read myself.

>>5614294
If you actually taught yourself reading comprehension, it'd be pretty clear when someone you're conversing with has not read the piece in question.

>>5614302
You just hang out with stupid friends.

I used to, OP. But doing that adds nothing to your enjoyment of the conversation anyway. If you feel you're talking with someone who's talking out of their asses just stop talking.

>>5613816
Is this what participating in the "literary life" is all about.

Pretty pathetic, bro. I mean at least they are pretending to read books. Would you rather them just watch TV like the other mindless zombies.

Also, everyone you meet thinks you're an asshole.

how does one go about tactfully correcting someone. is it even worth it? it's usually about something minor too, you'll just seem like a pedantic autist.

>>5614338
If it's just a storyline or characterization thing, it usually shouldn't even matter.

>>5614330
>I mean at least they are pretending to read books

lol is this what we have been reduced to? celebrating people who pretend to read?

When someone tries to pull some bullshit like that I just say "sorry that I don't remember your little insignificant factoid, Mr. Autist, I've literally read hundreds of books like it and don't have anything to prove to the likes of you."

>>5614354
Yeah, but keep in mind there are now people out there who pretend to watch sports, play video games, and watch TV shows, so it's not nearly as pathetic by comparison.

>>5613859
lel'ed out loud

>>5614406
why would you use kek or lel instead of lol? Think about it. It doesn't mean anything, its just the modification of the actual acronym lol. You don't even know why you use it. Somewhere, sometime you saw a few people post it and hopped right on board. Too mainstream for lol right? Thats so old, its meaning makes sense but you dont feel comfortable expressing your approval of things on the internet with the common old "lol" thats been around for so long. You'll man up and use the purposely misspelled version with no discernible humor or purpose besides making you look like a complete idiot while you maintain the false concept that other people find it amusing or appropriate and using purposely misspelled words shows the world that youre not afraid of anything and are part of some grand inside joke that no one finds funny. Theres a lot going through your head, but you realize I am right. You will try though, to get the best of this exchange. What are you going to go for? Newfag? Summer? oh damn there are so many options to choose from. An implication that I'm underage perhaps? Thats always fresh. Maybe you'll just shut down. I think you should go with something about butthurt or being mad or even comment on the length of the unproportionally long comment that so swiftly brought to your attention that you are a faggot that tries oh so hard to fit in. Careful though, is this even oc? Tsk tsk hard to say dont want to get embarrassed anon. I'm sure you could find some grammar or spelling errors as a last resort. I cant wait, Its always fun playing insult roulette

>>5614425
thispastaagain

>>5613831
woody allen is shit and if you watch his movies you're shit

They probably nod to further the discussion.

I had this with my literary teacher(not native English). I was walking about that I read english books, then she introduced my to some grammar books, I proceeded to say those aren't of use to me and talked about a popular book I couldn't myself recall, calling it Sylvia or something while it actually was named otherwise; she nodded because I was stuck on remembering, interrupting the flow of conversation with pondering on a piece of information that wasn't all that important in those seconds.


Maybe in examples when you need to know that he read the book to proceed the chatter, that you wouldn't feel as misunderstood or talking in vain, then I agree for this test. Otherwise, you just caress your insecurities.

>>5614425
>It doesn't mean anything
lel

>>5614483
>I was walking about

Talking about**

>>5613816
Sometimes people just feel too awkward to correct you.

>>5614330
Well pretending to read books and enjoying mindless television probably go hand in hand

>>5614338
I express outward puzzlement, and if they fail to correct themselves, provide them with my memory of the passage, with as much emphasis on subjectivity as I can.

>>5614483
Offering a different opinion is how discussion is furthered, especially if the error is simultaneously prominent and easily made

>>5614585
I have no intention of keeping conversation with people too awkward to hold their own. If they can't hold their own in discussion then they probably aren't worth talking to. Anyway, I also pepper the subject with open-ended questions, and see whether they recall any scenes I haven't mentioned. If they recall a scene that's only in the movie adaptation then dropped dropped dropped

Sometimes when people start talking about a book I claimed I read (but I haven't) I'll randomly shout in "but, but.... uh, never mind" to avert this sort of thing happening.

>>5613930
>I prefer talking to people that say when something is incorrect, because this is the basis for all good discussion
>d-debate me!

>>5613946
>books/films/albums/artworks/whatever
Because most people only talk about plebshit that we don't have time for.

>mention a book you like
>"What's it about?"

>>5614669
What makes you think you are worth anyone else's time? Get over yourself.

>dropped dropped dropped

Are you recalling some painful childhood experiences?

>>5614786
Well good conversation has to have at least a little discord, otherwise you end up just hearing what you already know to be true. I don't mean debate in that sort of sense

>>5614790
I suppose that's part of it

>"Anon did you read/watch/hear the recent Bestseller 3?"
>didn't know there was even a Bestseller 1
>"Yeah, this is what I thought of it"
>pull generic review out of ass, change it slightly so they won't notice it's the exact same review every time
>"haha yeah anon, I agree with you on _____ point and ____ point"

>>5613816
No John, you are the disgust.

>>5614801
I hate doing this, but how do you ask what's intereting about that book when you don't know it? I some times use "what's its thing" or "how is it" but they aren't too good either.

>>5614831
Just say something generic and vague like "tell me about it".

>>5614425
Lel is the ironic re-introduction of lol, taking over all of lol's functions while retaining a certain level of sarcasm (the specific density of any one lel must be evaluated on a case by case basis). Lel served its roles valiantly for a time but because of irony's property to increase memetic velocity, lel had a shorter life than lol. Kek was the next iteration, and a more family-friendly one at that.

>>5614840
But what about lyl?

>>5614432
Get a load of this fucking pleb.

>>5614669
autism, ladies and gentlemen

>>5614840
this is why i'm majoring in Meme Science

>>5614432
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJ8tKRlW3E

but his movies are so great!

>>5614432
Someone's jealous.

>>5614082
This, but I'm only 18

>>5616198
i dont want to be a pedo jew

>>5614360
no you don't. don't lie on the internet.

>>5613816
No.

But I do nod along when people say blatantly incorrect things so that I don't embarrass them.

>>5614840
jej

>>5616488
You just need to ask something like:
"I don't recall.." In an uncertain tone, or "When was that?" No need for a correction

>>5613816
"aaaeeeeeeeeeeeeii"

OP sounds like a massive cunt. do you frequently ask people to write book reports for you on a night out? usually when i meet people for the first time i dont immediately start judging them because they didnt pass my inane fucking literary test. you sound like you are really fun at parties man

>>5618791

>you sound like you are really fun at parties

am I in the youtube comment section?

>>5618791
If literature comes up in conversation and I ask them whether they've read something, I expect them to answer truthfully. People that lie to save face can fuck off

>>5618797

o yes, /lit/ is a much more sophisticated place than most other places on the internet. this thread isnt even about literature just "how can i embarrass random people i meet because they dont remember every detail of a 900 page Russian novel they read 4 years ago"

>>5613816
YEE

>>5618806
see >>5618834
>"how can i embarrass random people i meet because they dont remember every detail of a 900 page Russian novel they read 4 years ago"

I've stopped pretending I know anything I don't. If it's a stupid question I have to ask, then so be it, at least I will learn something.

>>5619221
Pleb.

I always cut down people like OP with wit and invoking Wildean ideas.

>>5619221
You've really grown up, Tai.

Jesus Christ OP, everyone is just nodding and agreeing for the sake of not embarrassing you and themselves.

You're not an autist, but you're definitely mentally deficient.

>>5619259
I try to cut them with a knife, it's quicker.