These Are the Books That Make You Totally Undateable

[Editor's note: It's Labor Day, so your devoted Flavorwire team is taking a break. To keep you entertained, we're leaving you with our most popular features of the summer months. This post originally ran June 15th.] We’ve always wondered how many people read specific books to seem cool — and how many people deftly sidestep talking about the books that perhaps cast them in a less-than-flattering light. Recently, we were tickled by an edition of Ask the Paris Review, wherein the always-delightful Sadie Stein answered the question “What’s a book I should read to make girls think I’m smart in a hot way?” by polling her friends and colleagues. The answers, of course, varied widely, proving that it sort of depends on the girl.

Though it’s good to know what to do to seem appealing to the opposite sex, it’s also good to know what not to do — that is, to know which books might send a potential mate running for the hills should they be spotted on your nightstand or peeking out from your back pocket. In the interest of seeing the full picture, we asked both men and women of various sexual orientations to share the books that they think render their devotees totally undateable. So click through to see which titles you should avoid like the plague — or at least hide in a desk drawer somewhere when you’re entertaining — and don’t forget to pitch in with the books that would make you cut and run in the comments.

The Catcher in the Rye — not because it’s a bad book or anything, but because, in my personal experience, any man over a certain age who still idolizes this book also still acts like a child.”

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

I think she's taking a crack at being funny... It's not working. Good comedy treads a fine line. Sometimes, you plant your face on the wrong side.

Oh this article was probably written by a hipster or an idiot.

What about Les Miserables or anything by Thomas Wolfe (not Tom Wolfe)?

I wouldn't judge anyone negatively based on the books they read, but I must admit that when i went to my boyfriends house for the first time and saw his shelf full of Pratchett I knew I was on to a winner...

Well, this list is admittedly kind of silly. I think that's kind of the point. Although I agree that some of these books are kind of terrible - and honestly if you like Ayn Rand, I wouldn't date you; I mean, really why waste my time? - BUT the gravest sin is not reading anything at all.

If I see anyone reading Tao Lin I immediately think they aren't even reading, just holding that silly book in their lap in hopes of meeting a hipster boi/gurl.

i didn't finish the list...i stopped at a certain number and decided to delete this site from my favorites list...never to return! adios

This post is as dumb as not reading a book on an e-reader out of some principle that the written word has more meaning when it bound between two covers.

I don't want to even get into how stupid this article is.

Robert Greene. Can't trust a person if books are about art of persuasion, power, and seduction.

There are no easy-to-date people. Such a thing does not exist... I mean, if you're easy to date, I'm not quite sure I want to date you. Say what you will...

Crime and Punishment? Funny, that'd get points in my book (NPI), and anyone who thinks we should only read light and happy literature is a write-off for me. E-books are awesome. Move with the times (and save a tree or two). If I saw someone reading Twilight, I would wonder if they are perhaps not the one for me, but Hunter S? Palahniuk? If you're scared that anyone who admires a character wishes to be them, you're going to end up reading some *very* bland books.

I personally found this article entertaining. I don't really think it was meant to be taken all that seriously. As human beings, whether we realize it or not, we are constantly assessing people we meet as potential friends and/or lovers in terms of some kind of criteria, depending on what's important to us. Different things for different people- could be looks, job/career, weekend hobbies, and yes, even books. It isn't necessarily the same as "judging" but the old adage is often true: bird of a feather flock together. Never eliminate the possibility of a new friendship or relationship because someone is different from you, but there's a certain joy in becoming close to a person who shares your interests and likes. That being said, it would certainly be wrong to "judge" someone for what they read. However, books can sometimes shed more light on someone's personality and interests than a lot of other things. A particular fancy for F. Scott Fitzgerald's work may be associated with a love of all things Jazz Age. Someone who reads a lot of Kurt Vonnegut probably has a particular view of the world. Maybe a Chandler/Hammett fan also digs film noir and vintage fashion. So no way should you ever disqualify a potential friend/date based on what they read, but on the flip side, their reading choices might reveal what's important to them, how they see themselves and the world, and what they love. But really...I think this was just meant to be an entertaining blog entry.

Most of your choices as to what to add to this list make sense. Some of them might make you totally undateable.

Crime and Punishment, really!? I would be interested in dating someone simply because they read Dostoevsky. This article is really juvenile.

Several of you are taking this way too seriously. It's a list for harmless fun*. Your next date will not be issued this list prior to your date, you're safe with your Hemingway. However, your lack of a sense of humor will probably be noted. *Though let's face it, people in the dating world will judge you on superficial criteria, just as you judge them (even if you say you don't-no one was that outraged over Dan Brown after all... it's just when it hits a little too close to home.), you just have to realize that it's part of the weeding process of dating and get over it.

Why is Marian Keyes in the list of authors whose work one should avoid completely? Does anyone even know who she is? This explains why I am single, I guess. I LOVE her. But seriously, why is she on this list?

I think frankly its quite pathetic to deem someone who has one of these books on their shelf 'undateable.' I mean, really? I honestly couldn't care less if someone had any of these books on their shelf. I'd probably respect their ability to make their OWN choices and decisions about books. Also, quit the whining about classic snobbery. Some people genuinely do like reading classics. They don't care whether it seems 'cool' to read them or not.

I for one completely agree about the e-reader. Anything "printed" on a digital screen is so cold and lifeless and doesn't have the right smell, etc. That's why I am now shutting down my computer and never returning to read anything on this website. Let me know when you start making your blog posts available in hard bound editions.

I made a list too. It's called "if you read these blogs or write for them you're a shallow dumbass" #1 flavorwire.com

Crime and Punishment? Lighten up? I adore that book and telling me to be less serious is the opposite of what anyone who ever listened to me talk about it would say - I get completely giddy and excited and can't stop smiling and have to try very hard to not start jumping up and down and flailing my hands, it's just so much fun to read and analyze.

The last time I moved I got over my ereader hate and got one. 47 frakin boxes of books and a bad back. Yes I kept physical copies of my favorites but the rest are now being used to craft book purses. The pages are being used to make paper flowers.

Anyone who reads The Game and thinks it's a guidebook is an idiot.

It's pretty funny how people start getting pissed off as soon as they find something on this list that they obviously have on their shelves. Come on, relax...

Something anyone who has actually read "Crime and Punishment" would know: it's not only one of the greatest novels of all time, it is also one of the funniest and most entertaining. I would date someone FOR having it on their shelf.

Funny list, I agree with most of these, but I most contest the inclusion of at least "Crime And Punishment". It's tick, it's a classic, higly regarded work and author. Besides it has a moralistic title and for the non-connoisers it may even be confused with a law book (and according to the John Grisham film adaptations lawyers look like Tom Cruise). Also there's a little bit of pretty woman like romance considering the passion between Raskolnikov and Sonia, but of course with much more drama and heavyhandedness. Even if deemed embarrasing I will proudfully don my copy of Fear and Loathing and still keep my head up. You guys mentioned lolita, but didn't put it on the list. Big mistake, since most people will think your a peodophile if your spotted reading it(I love the book myself but I'm sure to be shunned if I read it in public). Also anything by Lovecraft would also be frowned upon unless goth and metal fans are your thing. That goes for Glen Duncan's I Lucifer as well, for it will get you pegged as a satan worshipper. Finally and certainly not least how is Nicholas Sparks not on this list? Dudes reading it will be called whosses and women will appear to be teenagers who never grew up. I'm starting to think I should have made this list...

I had a roommate whose girlfriend read "The Rules". Every time he caught her using something from "The Rules" on him he tore a random page out of the book.

I thought this article was hilarious, and that is coming from someone who has read most of the books on the list and owns an e-reader. So take that for what you will, commentariat. There's no reason to be so sensitive everyone! I loved the Twilight books for about three minutes. And then I got over them. I would not consider dating anyone seriously who thought they were amazing. Reading a questionable book alone does not make someone undateable, but becoming a huge fan of such a questionable book without recognizing any of its flaws definitely renders that person undateable to me, and I don't consider myself an elitist for saying so. I don't understand the cries of "Elitist snob!" from everyone commenting here. Do YOU want to date someone who reads Tucker Max? Currently reads Tucker Max? Believes he's a genius? I sure as hell don't. That guy is a douche. Do you want to date someone who adores Hemingway to the point of exclusion? Ignores other authors because Hemingway is the only one that matters? Broods about the masculine romanticism of bullfighting, drinking in Paris, and fishing? I don't want to date that person either--and I love Hemingway--because that idolization of a particular archetype speaks to their emotional maturity level. Seriously guys, enough with the condemnation of this article. It was written in fun, it was a lot of different people's opinions, and it was not meant to be a condemnation of your bookshelf--as pointed out by the final item on the list. Also, hands down, anyone who loves Ayn Rand is a huge turnoff for me. And I will not apologize for that.

@Lori, a mere comparison of the comments here at FlavorWire and those at The Paris Review make the distinction in the character of readership painfully clear.

@Muñoz, have you seen the various attempts at making a usable e-book out of Infinite Jest? I've seen 3 (the Kindle version, a PDF that was OCR'ed from the book, and an ePub which undertook some effort to do proper linking.) I can't say that any of them are really better than the print book. (Though reading the full-page size PDF on a Kindle DX was pretty close to the experience of the print book with the ease of reading of the Kindle.) When I re-read IJ last year, the technique I used was to read the text on my Nook, and use the physical book for footnote reference. I just read Eliot's The Waste Land on my iPad using Touch Press's The Waste Land app. Totally worth the $14, IMHO. I can't wait for a modern publisher to do the same to IJ.

If this article reflected Emily's opinions, I would wholeheartedly agree with the vast majority of the comments. However, since the remarks in the article are explained up front as the opinions of those being interviewed by Flavorwire (in an attempt to provide the yang to The Paris Review's yin), and they are in quotation marks, I merely chalk them up to a far less sophisticated readership than that of The Paris Review.

bahahaha, you realize that this article is a joke, right guys? That the point is you basically can't read anything or people will judge you?

I think you're undateable. Besides you're effectively putting pressure on young minds to not read some of the best literature in history out of sexist and orthodox reasons(and don't give me the crap that just read them but don't buy; they will never be able to share good books). In my (maybe humble) opinion, if I come across someone who has book(s) she's never read, she should serve jail term for hoarding knowledge and entertainment.

"Anything — I don’t care if it’s Infinite Jest or Lolita or Moby-Dick — if it’s on an e-reader. Sorry." is a ridiculous notion. Why is it that it's not bound in paper that it matters less? I have an e-reader because the amount of books I owned was causing structural damage to floor in the room I kept them in. Upgrading to a more neatly kept less damaging form of media somehow makes me a "undateable"? I also don't read books in public to display what I like. I read in public to pass the time while I'm travelling. What this implies is that the only reason I read is to get attention. So stupid. Reading whatever you like doesn't make you undateable. Believing stupid lists and believing them is what makes you undateable. Idiot.

If you actually size up prospective dates by their reading choices, you will expect to be judged the same way, and how will anybody know how groovy you are if you can't display a groovy cover? No e-reader can do that so naturally you will hate them. A book is only a book, but a book cover speaks volumes.

Ugh. I read this article on my e-reader. I guess I'm toast.

My e-reader is filled with J.K. Huysmans. Anyone who has heard of him is instantly beddable. Hint: late 1800s, the Surrealists loved him.

I just can't agree with the anti-e.reader snobbery though. I find people who solidly condemn e.reading to be book fetishizers who spend more time talking about how they LOVE books than actually reading them (print or no). I will read in any format I please, thank you very much (book, magazine, e.book, 'zine, blog, book on tape, script, newspaper, comic strip, bathroom graffiti, etc.) -A librarian

I'm not going to get into the e-reader discussion - except to mention that on many previous travels, I have thrown out clothes, shoes etc so my suitcase a) could fit in the books I'd bought travelling, and b) scrape under the weight limit for planes. Throwing out clothes didn't hurt; throwing out shoes was hard; getting rid of the books would have been a tragedy. No longer a choice I have to make. Yes, I still love books as objects and own thousands of them - but the value of what is IN the books is not dependent on the cover OR the means through which we read them. Nothing wrong with having both hard and soft (I think that can apply to more than books). re: the list? I've never read so many replies that are in complete agreement. Get over yourself, Emily. The only one I had any sympathy with was the empty bookshelf one - but that's mostly aesthetic. A former partner had no books and never read - because he was dyslexic. But he loved stories, discovered he loved being read to (even for him, I could not go without my daily reading fix) - and when audio books became available, he was addicted. Still is. To all kinds of books. I've always suspected that the wider the range of books displayed, the more facets of a personality are revealed - primarily, a curiosity of mind and spirit that I find incredibly attractive. What I miss with e-readers is the same thing I miss about people having all their music on MP3 players instead of available for me to browse through via CDs or albums - it's not as easy to find out some of those common interests, shared experiences, even shared passions that link you with a new partner. You actually have to talk before you find out. Just as well the joy of protracted pleasures means more to me now than it did when I was a young adult...

this is awful. so shallow and uninteresting. I feel stupider for having read it. Agree with the asshat comment. I'm only writing this comment as revenge for the time I lost reading it.

This is pretentious. Get over yourselves!

I have a few problems with this list. The first is the e-reader. Really? Any avid reader will know what a pain it is to travel with books, but it's hell to travel without them too. Whether you're trying to drag a hardback copy of the Hobbit to the doctor's office, or you have to ship 20 kg of books home from 5 months in Ireland, an e-reader alleviates the problems of carrying a book. It can hold 300 books, more if you add storage! You have infinite possibilities, all with less bulk and weight than a paperback! It doesn't replace physical books, but it does make reading much more portable, which I appreciate. Also, Dan Brown. And Twilight. I hate Twilight. I read it when it came out and found the writing infantile and ridiculous. I also found Dan Brown's writing lacking, but thoroughly enjoyed the story (which is fiction, but that's a different issue). However, being a reader who enjoys an eclectic selection of books, I own both. Reading them does not make one unoriginal or boring. And that's when I realized the whole list is ridiculous--judging a person based on what's on their shelves (and not even their opinions or thoughts on the titles) is judging a book based on its cover. If you cut and run because you see a certain book on a bookshelf without even bothering to discuss, you're undateable. (Not to say that I don't wholeheartedly agree with some of the comments--Catcher in the Rye I have found to be true in 99% of cases)

Phew! The comments on this crap piece are 1000% better than the list.

This list lost me at "anything Chuck Palahniuk." Why Chuck, in particular? I'm a fan of (most) of Palahniuk's work, so you'd get major points from me if you had his books on your shelf and double points for every book that isn't Fight Club--which, for the record, is a fantastic book in its own right, but an obvious choice given the popularity of the film. As a woman who reads avidly and hopes to become a published author some day very soon, I'm attracted to men who enjoy discussing stories of all types, across genres and mediums, and form their own opinions about what they read rather than simply adhering to lit-snob trends. The only men I consider "undateable," when it comes to their choice of literature, are the ones who choose not to read at all.

Lost me at Hemingway. We can't read books whose authors may not have had the cleanest personal life? There goes 99% of worthwhile authors.

I found this compilation hilarious. Anyone who has ever dated (and broken up with) a fan of Doestoevsky can relate to the comment: “Crime and Punishment. I mean, seriously, lighten up already.” A book I would add? On the Road. If you're caught reading it, you're trying too hard to look cool. On the other hand, if you haven't read it yet, what planet have you been living on?!

I love my Nook! I don't see how that would make me undateable! It's not like it replaces all my physical books, but I can take 300+ books on my Nook with me a heck of a lot easier than I can carry 300+ books around.

This is great! A whole list created by people who, to judge by the comments, they wouldn't be able to get a date with in any case! It's a perfect match. BTW, re: the e-reader - subways make carrying around especially large books (like Infinite Jest) prohibitive. You can tell the really dedicated book readers without e-readers on the subway by the curvature of their spines.