It's a simple game: each person admits to NOT having read a particular book which they really ought to have, and gets points for every other person who HAS read the book. In other words, you win by choosing books which everyone but you has read. In real life games, everyone can have several turns until someone has racked up enough points to easily win, or the group tires of the game.
Over in earlymodern, elettaria has started an LJ version of Humiliation. There are games going strong in a number of other journals and communities, including an enormous one in literary_theory. But the problem with playing in comments is that it's very easy for whoever commented first to garner the most votes. Many of the early players will forget to check back and see if they've read later competitors' books or not. Later players will have the most chances to vote on the earliest players.
Thus I am nobly volunteering my LJ-space for a more organized version of the game. If you want to compete, comment below with the name of a book you've never read. On Saturday afternoon, I'll compile all the entries into a poll, with lots of ticky boxes, so everyone will have equal access to votes. On Monday, we'll find out who won. The more popular the book, the more likely you are to win - but do be honest.
Update: Entries are closed for this edition of Humiliation. Voting is now underway for the worst-read entrant!