Not what they read, but whether they read - to me it's often (though not always) an indicator of how curious and keen to learn someone is, which is something I find attractive (and the absence of that curiosity unattractive). If all they read is, I dunno, pulp fiction or chick fic I'd also hesitate a little, but that is getting more into snobbery.

If someone has other interests that demonstrate the same thing then it wouldn't bother me so much.

Being the NYT Book Review there's plenty of pointless snobbery in that article, but of course someone's reading habits have a bearing on how you perceive them. I wouldn't call it "judging", as such, but it does give you an insight into their personality and preferences.

This just started off a discussion* on another board I frequent so I was interested to see what otf thought.

I don't know; when someone says 'urgh, she says she reads Dan Brown, I couldn't possibly relate to someone that thick' I get all kinds of cross, not only because I don't really think it's a reliable indicator of anything of the sort.

I suppose also I think of reading as a bit of a private thing and don't really expect to often talk about books in proper detail with anyone. I married someone who doesn't really read fiction at all, which I would have said was impossible at one time. he does read non-fiction but just isn't obsessive about books the way I really am. Then again, we have vast serious and possibly irreconcilable problems, so I can't really use it as an argument either way.

*and led to a bit of a personal argument, but let's not do that

I do to some extent, yeah, as part of the overall picture. It wouldn't do, I don't reckon, to take a position like "If you don't share my passion for the philosophically-inspired short stories of Jorge Luis Borges then It Is Not To Be," but on the other hand, I don't think I could ever feel a hardcore Jeffrey Archer fan was any kind of soulmate. Such a person might be genuinely kind and worthy, but you know what? Not enough.

It even works on the level of friendship. I find I can easily tolerate bizarre claims on the part of my friends concerning music (such as, to choose from among the most egregious, the proposterous notion that the Sisters' version of 'Gimmie Shelter' is better than the original). Such foibles are easily outweighed by the fact that the holder of this (frankly buffoonish) opinion loves late Waugh and early Kundera. Among the many virtues of E10 Rifle, in my book, is that he's prone to go on about how brilliant The Great Gatsby is. If it needed underlining how great a guy Andy C is (which of course it doesn't), his penchant for alluding to Wodehouse would do the job. I mean I could go on.

Literary taste, more than taste in most other forms of art, does say something about the kind of person you are. It's rarely a dealbreaker where your mates are concerned, but it's in there, no doubt.

"I suppose also I think of reading as a bit of a private thing and don't really expect to often talk about books in proper detail with anyone. "

See, I'm the opposite. Reading for me is all about discovering and sharing knowledge and beauty. One of the things I dislike most about OTF is the way Books is so neglected and we rarely have lengthy threads about individual books or authors - the ones we do have tend to be about fiction I haven't read, although I recall we had a big Ancestor's Tale one a while back.

OTBooks seems livelier on here so far, for some reason. I guess the only way was up.

Oh I don't mean I don't want to. I do, very much. When I say expect I mean, expect from most of the people I know. I would love it otf books develops lots and becomes full of interesting discussion.

I hang around on the GU books forum a lot but people on there talk mostly about clothes, cheese, etc, sometimes it seems.

I don't think I judge people by individual books. But the kinds of books they read tells you something about a person. I don't care if someone has failed to enjoy The Master And Margarita, or whether they have a penchant for bad chick-lit, say, provided that they read some fairly serious novels now and again, and do it because they enjoy it. If someone only reads chick-lit, or only reads bad American self-help books, then that tells you something about their character, I think.

I don't judge people as good or bad based on books, (unless, y'know, they happen to have the "Left Behind" series hanging around prominently) but sniffing around people's bookshelves at parties is certainly one of my habits. Perhaps more reliably than musical tastes, one's selection of books is a very quick guide to someone's "tribe" and overall outlook - whose opinions they value, etc.

Non-fiction is a better litmus test for this than fiction, I find.

Chubby and I are of one mind and one time, apparently.

I can't get on with biography*, so biography enthusiasts unnerve me a bit. Then again, I could probably learn from one.

* I realise this is a stupid opinion to hold and I might as well say 'I don't like fiction' etc, but it's the general principle that I don't like; I can't help it.

This will get close to the conversation there was on the old board about reading things in public to impress people/talking to people using their book as an icebreaker etc, but I remember some guy once congratulating me because I was reading a Patrick White novel. it's possibly one of the most patronising things I've ever heard.

I don't have a problem with biography. But people who *only* read biography are unnerving. It impies an especially blinkered approach to history.

Be aware you're cussing down my Mum there.

But, er yeah. You're right.