Interesting, but I have no idea how to rate it.
It's hard to tell how much is tongue-in-cheek and how much is serious.... possibly something was lost in translation?
But it was very interesting, if slightly dry, to read.
I do disagree with the general premise, though. I have no qualms about admitting that I haven't read a book, so the issue of pretending that I've read it or whatever doesn't come up.
The idea of being aware of where a book fits in the overall-ness of books is a good notion, but I don't see why you couldn't do that and discuss that while still admitting you haven't read it.
(And now I'm just making stuff up [mostly the word "overall-ness"], as if I hadn't read it, because the truth is it falls under the third category he talks about-- books you've read but forgotten. This is what happens when I don't review a book right away... I can't remember all of it, so I don't always have as much to say. As opposed to the times when I remember everything about the book but still don't have much to say... or don't want to say too much because it was too wonderful to be explained and you have to just go read it.... now I'm rambling.)
Anyway, I'd say it's worth reading, though it is a bit hard to follow at times.