My experience is that most standard interview questions, no matter what they are 'designed' to do, just arbitarily eliminate x% of applicants using a reason that could stand up to a challenge. Very rarely do they identify the best shortlist of candidates for the job.

The questions that do help identify the best are tend to be the 'What would you do if x happened...' which do not often have a single 'right' answer. But many organisations like the 'Tell me the syntax of the y statement' because it is easy to score and compare this type of result.

An example of a poor litmus test is the requirement to have a university degree. The result I see is that you get the same cross section of no-hoper through to genius if you insist on candidates having a degree compared to those who do not. In the main, the ability to actually do the job is not much affected by the posession of a degree*. But insisting on a degree means employers can quickly eliminate most of the potential applicants, leaving a more manageable number to look at in more detail.

As for using a question about who appeared in a particular book, this beggars belief. It may be the bedtime read of the interviewer, but that does not mean that the group of people most capable of doing the job feel it is worth looking at.

* I say that in the main a degree is no guarantee of suitability, but I do admit the absolute top class people I have seen are never without one.