Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » well read (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: well read
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
All right, I'll start a new topic.

I apologize for cluttering up another topic with a discussion of what is or is not well read. I do, however, believe it is a valid and important discussion for writers who presumable strive to be well read. A writer doesn't have to be, but I propose that a writer who does not at least want to be or strive to be well read is more of a hobbiest. Feel free to challenge me on that or any other point as long as we keep this discussion friendly.

I did not mean to make this a religious holy war and I still don't think it has to be or I wouldn't have started this topic. It began with my assertion that to be well read in our day, you need to have read Harry Potter. I stand by that. In response to the most recent challenge to this levelled by SUrvivor:

" (millions of humans were well read before those books were even written, you know, and REALLY BIG NUMBERS of people have been and will be well read without ever having read anything written in the English language at all)."

My response is that your definition of well read, in order to be meaningful, must change with the times. In the 1800's you didn't have to read Tokien, Hemmingway, or Fitzgerald to be considered well read. Now you probably should have sampled some of what those authors wrote. Also, Harry Potter has been published in most foriegn languages so the English language argument doesn't work in this case.

BUT**********I want this to be more than a discussion of Harry Potter. It's one book. It does not define well read,, not even for someone like me who would put it on an imaginary list. Soooooo what is well read? What do you have to read? What do you have to sample? What does it take? What books belong to the ages?


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Darkstorm
Member
Member # 1610

 - posted      Profile for Lord Darkstorm   Email Lord Darkstorm         Edit/Delete Post 
I read mainly sci-fi, fantasy, and books that keep me employed. I enjoy what I like, and no matter how "wonderful" the classics are. I don't enjoy them. Times change, writing changes, as I mentioned on another thread about book only 30-40 years old. I don't feel that enjoying Hemingway, Tolkien, or even Harry Potter is bad, but I certainly don't have to like them to know what I want to write. I remember a few enjoyable disagreements over this concept in the past

Since I have no stories in my head that involved deep thought provoking moral concepts, I don't feel the need to read them. I write to attempt at making something enjoyble, and would be thrilled beyond believe to achieve a tenth the accomplishments of Card, King, or Rowling. Quite a few others as well. I just question the need to read something I fail to find anything but dull...as a value to me as a writer. Anyone can disagree, but it is doubtfull I will change my mind.

I read the types of books I want to write, as well as books that tell me some of the concepts behind how it is done. I enjoyed the Harry Potter books. The story was entertaining, and even though I have a few issues with them, I found myself lost in the story.

I guess one question would be...if the Harry Potter books were so badly writen, why did book 5 sell 8,000,000 copies the first day? They might not be writen as well as other books, but it seems that a good story outsells a perfectly writen story that isn't as good. Noble thoughs are nice, but you write for an audiance. Well, if you want an audiance.

[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited December 07, 2004).]


Posts: 807 | Registered: Mar 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
To be well read, you must read well.

Being well read isn't a matter of having read any particular book or group of books in the past, it is a matter of reading at least one text such that you take that text into yourself and become a living example of the meaning you found in that text.

For this purpose, it is possible to become well read by reading only one book, or even just part of one book. The point is that you have experiencial knowledge of what makes literature powerful and relevant to a reader, because you are a reader to whom literature has been powerful and meaningful.

I think that probably one of the more important tests of being well read is that there are texts that you have read many times. This is not essential, but even for those with eidetic or near eidetic memory it is important to have books that are real and living places to which we return so that we can further enjoy the experiences we took from them. This usually results in a degree of familiarity with those works, an ability to quote quote them appropriately at any time (though naturally eidetics display this even with works they found otherwise uninteresting).


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
Jules
Member
Member # 1658

 - posted      Profile for Jules   Email Jules         Edit/Delete Post 
Survivor, I'd describe what you're talking about there as "having read well", not "being well read".

I'd have to say that to be well read, you need to sample a wide range of books, so that you are familiar with different styles and the ideas that underly different genres.

I do agree, though, that there is no specific book that one must read to be well read. No book has ever been written that is that much better than all of the others.

That said, I would expect a well read person to have at least read some of the books of the bible, koran or similar historical religious text, simply because the ideas in these books influence so much around us.


Posts: 626 | Registered: Jun 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
kathmandau
Member
Member # 2254

 - posted      Profile for kathmandau   Email kathmandau         Edit/Delete Post 
I think I would first have to give a more precise definition to the term "well read". That is a tough enough question on its own.

I'll try......well-read : having read a significant portion of a category defined to have awareness of the style and structure that constitutes such a work (or category), as well as the experiences and sentiments that are generally consistent with the writers and readers of such work (or category).

I had to limit the scope to 'category', because for me the world is too expansive, the volumes of available text, too numerous for me to imagine being collectively well read.

Of course, use of the term "well read" would always depend on who is applying the label. If I applied the term to someone, the unspoken part of my statement "he or she is well-read" would be 'in the writings relevant to philosophy, genre, etc, that we were refering to in our most recent conversation'.

Time restrictions considered, I aspire to be "well read" in works favored in and compatible to the market I seek to sell, and the company I seek to keep.

[This message has been edited by kathmandau (edited December 08, 2004).]


Posts: 17 | Registered: Dec 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
It's always interesting to see the diverse definitions given to a term so common as "well read." IMO, the term is thrown around as if it were meaningless. It's one of those things that sounds like something everyone wants to be and so they want to make a definition that makes sure they can be included in it. I'm not saying that makes any of you wrong. After all, this is just a matter of our individual opinions, but I set a difficult standard behind "well read" that does require the reading of certain books and texts that have helped to shape our world and have had an imnpact on who we are today. Part of being well read, I think, is to be able to converse smoothly with a wide variety of literature people. In fact, the definitions I have seen so far go more to how i would definte literate" as opposed to "well read."

First, Survivor said: "For this purpose, it is possible to become well read by reading only one book, or even just part of one book."

I most strongly disagreed with this statemtn, so I'll address i first. I'm not even sure you can be truly literate if you only ever read one book (or perhaps more precisely, one thing....some of the most literate people spend most of their lives reading articles, transcripts, etc.) If you don't read the whole of a book then you cannot have made that particular piece of literature "powerful and meaningful" to you.I'm not saying you have to finish it if you hate it. I've disliked books strongly enough to stop reading them. But those books will never become powerful or meaningful to me.

As for the rest, let me propose actual definitions instead of speaking to each individual comment:

literate: A person is literate if they have read, read, and have plans to continue to read. They seek out meaning in the written word and those words have power and meaning to them. (I liked that part of what Survivor said. )

I know this is a departure from Merian-Webster, you don't have to go look up their definition. (Actually, it's not as far off as you would suppose from some of the definitions listed there...they are rather vague and I'm simply just giving you a more specific connotation that's always worked for me.)

wel read (generally): A person is well read when he or she has sampled a wide variety of works from different authors, periods, and on different subjects. Short of comprising a list, he or she should have at least read one work by each of the writers considered "classic" in that schools of higher education continue to teach them to this day. They should have read most of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and selected from a few other religious works as to have knowledge of world religions beyond those popular three. They should have sampled texts on history and politics. They should have sampled books from non-fiction as well as fiction, both to their individual tastes and concentrating on works that have had a solid impact on the world. For those who live in the United States in particular, if you have not read the Constitution I would not consider you well read. (Note that this is a bit culture specific, but I only know what I know...Of necessity, the term is culture and time specific. Next year, it may be different.) You should have sampled works that had an impact on every major fiction genre including, but not limited to, romance, mystery, thriller, western, action, science fiction, and fantasy. And when I say sampled, I don't typically mean just one. You should be able to converse intelligently with lovers of a particular topic.

This is a tough goal and I am not kidding when I say I would sibelieve anyone under the age of 50 who claims to have gotten there. Heck, looking back at my difficult standards, I'd be dubious of anyone over the age of fifty. I have a feeling that most people can only *strive* to be well read. And truthfully, that's good enough. Striving to be well read means that you are keeping an open mind, always trying to learn new things, and always trying to give different ideas a chance.

We don't *have* to be well read. Peopl ehere take is as an insult when someone accuses them of not being well read. I think, honestly, that's how this all started. It's not an insult, at least not when I throw it out there. (I mean, look at my definition! ) I only even mention it because I think its good that we all strive to reach it, that it becomes a long term goal of ours. Why? Because even if we like to write science fiction and fantasy alone, the influx of different ideas can do nothing but help the genre. I've seen the field go into a loop of rehashed ideas with slightly new spins on them. You want better spins or fresher slants or perhaps even *gasp* a completely new idea? (I do believe they float around out there, they are just rare and hard to find.) Then you need to keep your mind open and always strive to learn.

Now, you can be well readin a genre quite a bit younger. Read a lot of it, read the classics, be familiar with most of the authors in the field and you've pretty much got that. And there' snothing wrong with that, especially if its the field in which you are writing.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's what Webster's has to say about the subject:

well-read adj 1: well informed or deeply versed through reading; "respect for a well-read man"; "well-read in medieval history" 2: highly educated; having extensive information or understanding

Now, becoming generally well-informed, deeply versed, or highly educated by Western standards requires not just lots of reading, but at least reading certain things. I'll reiterate the canon I posted in the Public School thread:
1) King James Bible (whether or not you're religious, the KJB is critical to understanding both western culture and the English language).
2) University of Chicago's 60 volume Great Books of the Western World series (or any of the other comparable canons)
3) Great fiction (Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Wolfe, Orwell, Huxley, Dumas, Twain, White, etc.)
4) Last and least, everything you can get your hands on in the particular popular fiction genre of your choice


Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Robyn_Hood
Member
Member # 2083

 - posted      Profile for Robyn_Hood   Email Robyn_Hood         Edit/Delete Post 
Just as it is ludicrous to say, "Once you have read such-and-such list of books, you will be well read.", it is equally ludicrous to say, "You cannot be well read if you have not read such-and-such book."

What does it take to be well read? I don't think there is or ever will be a general standard. A 10-year-old can be well read for a 10-year-old or they might be well read even if compared to someone 15-years-old. A person can be well read in 19th century English lit. The list goes on and on.

To be well read in general? I think you need to have read authors from a variety of disciplines, views, genres, eras, nationalities, religions, etc. There are certain authors and writings that have stood the test of time and are considered important to the developement of language, literature, and society. A sampling of these are important to anyone who wishes to consider himself well read.

But there is no list. It may in fact be enough to be considered well versed in several areas and negate the need for reading or literacy at all.

I believe it was Socrates who refused to become literate. And I wouldn't have wanted to try and argue anything him.


Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeraliey
Member
Member # 2147

 - posted      Profile for Jeraliey   Email Jeraliey         Edit/Delete Post 
That's 'cause Socrates was a verbal bully.

I wouldn't want to argue with him either.


Posts: 1041 | Registered: Aug 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Robyn_Hood
Member
Member # 2083

 - posted      Profile for Robyn_Hood   Email Robyn_Hood         Edit/Delete Post 
For me, the primary purpose of becoming well read is to be able to discourse on a variety of subjects with a modicum of intelligence.

I do read to help improve my writing. I enjoy reading just about anything and everything, but when I choose to study a particular piece or author, I tend to choose based on long term staying power as opposed to marketability.


Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
LOL

I'm sorry, Robyn Hood, you hav eno idea why that's funny to me and I can't explain it. I'm certainly not laughing at you, it's just some things I've noticed in my life...

Anyway, the ability to discuss a variety of subjects with a modicum of intelligence can be a lot of things. It can be4 a scam. Some people are extremely good at the fine art of bull **** (I'll let you fill in the blank). Politician, in particular, seem to master this. I used to date someone who had a knack for always seeming to know what he was talking about. It drove me up the wall because I'm too honest to attempt such a farce.

It can also mean that you're well educated. That you have taken the time to study a lot of things on a surface level. This is more honest than the fine art of BS, but get you no closer, IMO, to being well read.

In order to be well read the written word must be a great part of your life. It must not only be a source of information, but of meaning. Certainly, the ability to intelligently discuss lots of things stems from it, but it is only a nice side effect of the whole package. The entirety of being well read is so much more.

And being well read does not mean that every book you read has meaning fo ryou. An honest person doesn't like all the books they read, and most people will have trouble taking meaning from books they hate. A well read person will, at least, be enough in tune with their own tastes, desires, and search for meaning that they can speak intelligently as to the flaws of any given work.

In fact, I don't think you need to be well read to be a great writer. I think you need to be highly literate and well versed in your discipline of choice. Well read is a distinguished label that I apply very stringently and with honor to a very small percentage of the population.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Robyn_Hood
Member
Member # 2083

 - posted      Profile for Robyn_Hood   Email Robyn_Hood         Edit/Delete Post 
It was intended to be a little tongue-in-cheek.
Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
franc li
Member
Member # 3850

 - posted      Profile for franc li   Email franc li         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm pretty new here. Are you published, Christine? I'm not, so I guess I'm still a hobbiest.

The term "well-read" implies to me a certain snobbery about what is worth reading that is detached from how many books one has actually read.


Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Hi franc. I've had a couple articles published but I'm still struggling like most of the others here to really get a break through. I don't think you're a hobbiest until you get published, though.

Well read *can* imply snobbery about what is "worth reading." I don't think of it that way because in my opinion a well read person has read so many different things that they've gone beyond what is "worth reading." They have, in fact, read enough of *everything* that they are uniquely qualified to suggest what may or may not be worth reading, as always framed in their own opinion.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
You all keep using definitions of "well read" that cannot be legitimately applied to any living humans.

I don't really see the point of using the term if you're going to define it that way.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
franc li
Member
Member # 3850

 - posted      Profile for franc li   Email franc li         Edit/Delete Post 
I used to use not being well read as an excuse for not writing, so I guess I kind of take it personally. Especially insofar as I have not read Harry Potter. Of the 100 top banned books, I've only read five, even though like 20 were taught to me in high school. I guess I take a perverse pride these days in not being well read.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006  | Report this post to a Moderator
wetwilly
Member
Member # 1818

 - posted      Profile for wetwilly   Email wetwilly         Edit/Delete Post 
Well-read=the state of having read a lot of stuff.

That's all there is too it. If you read a lot (literature only--street signs and cereal boxes don't count) of stuff, you're well-read.

Saying ANY work is necessary to be well-read is wrong, I think. There is so much great stuff out there, you can spend your whole life reading it and never get through it all. If a person has read 50,000 great books and none of them were Harry Potter, the Bible, or Faulkner I'd still say he/she was well-read.

Here's the problem with the term "well-read": it's a measure of how other people see you. There is no well-read state independent of somebody else's opinion of you, so there can be no universal definition. Because it's a measure of how others see you, the definition will always change based on who is making the decision.

quote:
I guess one question would be...if the Harry Potter books were so badly writen, why did book 5 sell 8,000,000 copies the first day? They might not be writen as well as other books, but it seems that a good story outsells a perfectly writen story that isn't as good. Noble thoughs are nice, but you write for an audiance. Well, if you want an audiance.

That's a question of whether you want to be an artist or an entertainer. I don't want to sound cynical towards either choise; I think they're both fine. It's just a matter of what your goal is. Do you want to create great art (which will be vastly under-appreciated by most people), or do you want to entertain? That's something that comes up in all artistic/entertainment pursuits. In bands I have played in, it has always been a point of conflict: do we want to create (in our opinion) great music, or do we want to write music that people can bounce to and have fun with at a show? One way, you create something you can be proud of, and the other way gives you a chance of one day quitting your day job.

[This message has been edited by wetwilly (edited December 08, 2004).]


Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
franc li
Member
Member # 3850

 - posted      Profile for franc li   Email franc li         Edit/Delete Post 
Now that I'm thinking about it, the whole "well-read" hangup was just one facet of being way too concerned about what other people thought of me. Which pretty much precludes taking any risks necessary to produce self-expression.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006  | Report this post to a Moderator
yanos
Member
Member # 1831

 - posted      Profile for yanos   Email yanos         Edit/Delete Post 
I think for someone to be well read they should have read a wide range of works from various cultures and not just the popular western ones. If you really want to experience the works that have shaped the world of course and not just your little part of it.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Now that I'm thinking about it, the whole "well-read" hangup was just one facet of being way too concerned about what other people thought of me.

I agree 100%.

I think that's part of why I set such a high standard for well read. It tends to be a weapon, a jeer, a criticism, or on the flipside, in the first person, it's a crow. I hate it both ways. So I demand a lot before I will agree that you are well read, and therefore two things are true. 1.) You can't use it as a weapon against me because you aren't well read either and 2.) If by any chance you are, you'll excuse me if I'm only 27 and haven't had much of a chance to sample the great works of our world.

Kolona, I also agree that sampling from different cultures is crutial.

By the way, I haven't brought up the Harry Potter books since my original post here, although most everyone else keeps doing so. I'm staying away from them on purpose because I don't want to debate the merits of that series. I do, however, feel that they are important books to read if you want to have sampled the world's literature if for no other reason than that such a large percentage of the population has reead them. 8 million copies on day one, and my husband and I didn't get our copy until day 3. You want to talk intelligently with a wide variety of people then how could you have left off reading a book that a wide variety of people have read? And by wide variety I mean old and young, rich and poor, American, British, French, Spanish, Russian...Hate it if you want. Think it's trash written in a mediocre manner by a hack who got lucky, but I'm surprised as hell if a well-read person isn't at least curious about what could possibly have caused all that hype.

And there it is...simple, human curiosity. What's it all about? Why is this so popular? Is it just good marketing or is there something more? Will I agree with so many or will I find fault? Curiosity. I'll drop my lists. I'll check them at the door. Forget that I mentioned them. You're right, there are no lists. But tell me how a person can be well read without curiosity and I'll tell you that they won't need to have read even the first of the craze of our day.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Darkstorm
Member
Member # 1610

 - posted      Profile for Lord Darkstorm   Email Lord Darkstorm         Edit/Delete Post 
That number of 8 million is for US only. That doesn't include any other countries. Just thought I'd clarify...
Posts: 807 | Registered: Mar 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
franc li
Member
Member # 3850

 - posted      Profile for franc li   Email franc li         Edit/Delete Post 
I find stories about J.K. Rowling interesting. And we even own the first book. It just doesn't appeal to me. But maybe it's due me not being able to see those who permit abuse as innocent.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006  | Report this post to a Moderator
yanos
Member
Member # 1831

 - posted      Profile for yanos   Email yanos         Edit/Delete Post 
Just in case you wanted to know the Harry Potter series was a bestseller in Thailand, S. Korea, Malaysia, Singapore.... So it is obviously a book which translates well. I do know that the movies have helped sell the book in Thailand as opposed to doing the opposite.

The question really could be what other books that us westerners may not know of should we read? And I don't just mean the coffee table books... I mean ones to read.


Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
rickfisher
Member
Member # 1214

 - posted      Profile for rickfisher   Email rickfisher         Edit/Delete Post 
I have to admit there's a lot of the classics I haven't read. But I've seen the movies . . . or read Classic Comics . . . or "Cliff's Notes." And I've read Harry Potter in the original English!
Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeraliey
Member
Member # 2147

 - posted      Profile for Jeraliey   Email Jeraliey         Edit/Delete Post 
The fact that it translates well implies to me that the success is not in the writing itself, but in the elements of the story.

My $0.02


Posts: 1041 | Registered: Aug 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Robyn_Hood
Member
Member # 2083

 - posted      Profile for Robyn_Hood   Email Robyn_Hood         Edit/Delete Post 
There are books out there that are not as well written, but that tell a good story, and stand the test of time. Bram Stoker's Dracula comes to mind. While I haven't yet been able to get very far into it, I read the introduction to the Oxford edition. In it, Dracula is described as having mediocre writing but a strong story. While I have heard all the hype about Harry Potter, I have also heard it described in a similar fashion.

If the strength of the books continues, then someday I will probably pick at least one of them up. Part of my issue with Harry Potter, is that it feels and sounds like a fad. 8 million people buying a book before anyone has had time to read it, says to me that it isn't being read on its own merits.

But they may end up like L. Frank Baum's Oz books: plentiful and always worth the read.

(Since I haven't said anything about Harry Potter yet, I just thought I'd get it out of my system. As to well-read, it appears this thread has proved one thing, the definition of well-read is subjective.)

[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited December 09, 2004).]


Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
franc li
Member
Member # 3850

 - posted      Profile for franc li   Email franc li         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm partial to Russian novels, translated into English. I did take Russian for a while. I've read some Chinese stuff and the 1001 Nights. But I have to say that my extent of exposure to Africa is what they show on PBS children's programming. I studied Greek myths a lot when I was a kid. But I haven't actually read the Illiad. So that is kind of my downfall. Maybe if I read the Illiad I would consider myself well read. Maybe if I read the Aeneid in Latin I would consider myself well read. Does it really count to read world literature if it is translated into your own language? I haven't read any Dickens. And I don't intend to. I guess that's my point. At this stage in my life, I'm not going to read something just so I can fit in with someone's idea of "well read". Though if someone wants to recommend a book based on specific qualities, that is different.

Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006  | Report this post to a Moderator
wetwilly
Member
Member # 1818

 - posted      Profile for wetwilly   Email wetwilly         Edit/Delete Post 
You should read Dickens because he wrote good books.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
In terms of DIckens, I read "A Christmas Carol" and "Great Expectations." The first was dreadfully dull, though there was a gem of a story in there. The second read very much like a choppy story written at the behest of the readers and without the passion of the writer. In fact, it was a serialized piece written for a periodical (I don't remember how often).

I've read enough Dickens now. On to other authors!


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
hoptoad
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for hoptoad   Email hoptoad         Edit/Delete Post 
Survivor said that these definitions are impossible to apply to a living person. Interesting, it made me think of those who I consider well-read and realise they are impossible beings.

A term I have not heard yet in this thread is renaissance man which has two definitions

1. a modern scholar who is in a position to acquire more than superficial knowledge about many different interests for instance a statistician
2. a scholar during the Renaissance who (because knowledge was limited) could know almost everything about many topics)

(Definition thanks to Princeton WordNet 2.0 Search)

Think of Lewis and Clark, their writing, illustrations scientific exploits, they were renaissance men.

Cheesy but true.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited December 09, 2004).]


Posts: 1683 | Registered: Aug 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
franc li
Member
Member # 3850

 - posted      Profile for franc li   Email franc li         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think it's possible to know everything about any field (worth studying) let alone everything about a good breadth of fields. The nature of academic dialogue insures that.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006  | Report this post to a Moderator
hoptoad
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for hoptoad   Email hoptoad         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

I don't think it's possible to know everything about any field (worth studying) let alone everything about a good breadth of fields. The nature of academic dialogue insures that.


Knowing everything about anything is not a criteria for being well read.

It is when you start thinking that you know something about anything that you often make an ass of yourself

I can't stand esoteric or jargonistic banter.

Can being well-read today include the concept of being well-watched as in documentaries movies, plays etc?

It seems the heart of the matter is that people want to be considered well-read.

Consider the opposite side to Lincolne's quote "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." We may look smarter if we keep our mouthes shut.


Edit to include:

I think the Quran is important to be familiar with. Some of the writings of the christian fathers. Pride and Prejudice was critical for me, as was The Great Gatsby as are museum and gallery exhibition catalogues. Also, I think today you have to know how to obtain credible information from the web in order to be well-read.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited December 09, 2004).]


Posts: 1683 | Registered: Aug 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't put any book written by any human or collection of humans on a "must read" list for the well read. Nor would any really well read person.

I use "well read" as a label to apply to others, not myself (whether others apply it to me is not important). For that purpose, I need it to be defined as something that others can be. So I'm picky about giving it a definition that is useful. Frankly, we don't usually judge whether or not someone is well read by finding out what they have actually read. We determine whether or not a person is well read by the sort of things that person says and writes, the references and ideas that we assume to be taken from texts. Not just their number, but the quality of those borrowings are what make a person well read.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
J. Stewart
Member
Member # 2262

 - posted      Profile for J. Stewart   Email J. Stewart         Edit/Delete Post 
I have to agree with Survivor. Being well read does not imply that you have read everything worth reading. I know a lot of people that are obsessed with "Lists" and making sure they are up to speed on the latest "must read" books on the NYT list. Generally these people are extremely boring. (at least to me)

I know others who claim it is a waste of time to read any fiction at all. I think such judgemental statements should be discounted immediately. A well read person will have read widely and be familiar with most of what are considered the classics, both fiction and non-fiction. But by no means will any person ever have read everything worth reading. Not enough time or translators for that to happen.


Posts: 9 | Registered: Dec 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Axi
Member
Member # 2247

 - posted      Profile for Axi   Email Axi         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree completely with survivor.

And just one thing:

<quote>
I do, however, feel that they are important books to read if you want to have sampled the world's literature if for no other reason than that such a large percentage of the population has reead them.
</quote>

IMO, the fact that a great number of people have read a book, doesn't mean anything. Same as other things (movies, shows, etc). I rely more on opinions of people whom I trust. (Sure, sometimes I must be missing something worth reading, but there is so much to read, one must make choices )

[This message has been edited by Axi (edited December 10, 2004).]


Posts: 35 | Registered: Dec 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
I have to disagree with this idea that there aren't any standards to being well-read.

The term "well-read" (as opposed to "well-read in X") isn't a vanity title. The term signifies a specific type and degree of education.

Accordingly, being well-read is not something that you can claim because you've read a lot of just anything or because you've read things that meant a lot to you personally.

To be well-read, you have to have read the books that have informed our entire culture on philosophy, religion, natural science, literature, history, economics, etc. The Republic. Nichomachean Ethics. Nuovum Organon. Calvin's Institutes. Summa Theologica. The Prince. Leviathan. The History of the Peloponnesian War (Thucidydes). Locke's Second Treatise of Government. The Communist Manifesto. Shakespeare. Moliere. Hume. Swift. Voltaire. Hegel. Nietzsche. Freud. Tolkien. C.S. Lewis.

The list goes on and on, and comprises a massive body of reading. But the point is that there is some kind of list. There is a general concensus on which books have been the most useful, the most insightful, the most influential, the most worth reading in the history of our culture. It is the act of reading this books and acquiring the deep and broad education contained therein that makes a person well-read.

I agree with Christine that it's extremely difficult as a matter of time alone to become well-read short of 50.


Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Thank you, J, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who espoused that concept of well-read. I don't have to be right, but it is at least nice to know that I'm not alone.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
bladeofwords
Member
Member # 2132

 - posted      Profile for bladeofwords   Email bladeofwords         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh come on J. I read through that entire thread and I was thinking that the whole time, then two posts before the end you had to go and say almost exactly what I was going to say. But I'm going to say it again, hopefully differently so as to expound upon your already great post.

I think being well read is having read (and absorbed) enough literature to understand where a particular society has come from. It's a sort of historical perspective. It consists of being able to understand how that society felt in a certain period of it's history about certain major issues and how that society transitioned into its next stage. Basically, being well read is having read enough literature to understand how and why we are they way we are.

Jon


Posts: 175 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that several people have already mentioned that being "well read" isn't a title people claim for themselves. And it isn't an indication that you have simply read a list of works.

It is a quality of insight that is generally aquired through studying influencial works. But a person can be well read by having deep knowledge of Oriental history and literature with only passing knowledge of western texts, and still be acknowledged as "well read" by a group of western scholars who care more about the depth of insights rather than being able to trace those insights back to the same books they all have read themselves.

The opposite is true as well. Which means that there are no books that can be required for being well read, because there are no books that every genuinely well read person has read.

I also disagree with the idea that being well read is culturally dependent, that if we brought a great scholar from a hundred years ago to our time (or a very venerable visitor from another planet ), that person would not be well read by virtue of not having read Rowling's works. Such a narrow minded and parocial view of what it means to be well read must be the inevitable result of describing this quality in terms of a list of books one must have read.

And you can't say that the average person can even qualify to add a text to their list until reading it enough times to become deeply familiar with its ideas. A definition of being well read that allows a person to be well read by virtue of simply looking at the successive pages of certain texts is so shallow as to be worthless.

Besides which, it is nearly impossible to tell if anyone is really well read in this sense. We don't know what books others have read except by their reports.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Fortunately, Survivor, time travel is not possible, otherwise things would be a mess. But since it isn't, why don't we leave well-read ninetenth century men and women be and concentrate on bringing our own minds up to date? The best read people of history have contributed to our culture immensely, but never by stopping short of their own present day.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, then, let's not use time (or interplanetary) travel.

Let's use one of those venerable erudite persons you would formerly have called "well read".

How many of those people do you think have read any of the Harry Potter books?


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Survivor, you're purposefully missing the point. The point is that at any point in history, a well read person needs to be up to speed on not only the past, but on things that are hapening to influence his or her own time. This includes current events. I think a well read person needs to have a source (historically the newspaper) that they read almost every day to keep up on current events! Now stop throwing dead men at me and let them rest in peace.

[This message has been edited by Christine (edited December 11, 2004).]


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Darkstorm
Member
Member # 1610

 - posted      Profile for Lord Darkstorm   Email Lord Darkstorm         Edit/Delete Post 
I would have to agree that "well read" does not have to include Harry Potter. I found them enjoyable. I doubt I will ever fall into the catagory of "well read"...don't care.

Most of what people concider the "classics" I think of as "dull". I was forced to read some of them in high school, and found sci-fi enjoyable but not shakespear. I know I've disagreed with Balthasar over some of these concepts before.

I'm happy being a limited reader.


Posts: 807 | Registered: Mar 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
dpatridge
Member
Member # 2208

 - posted      Profile for dpatridge   Email dpatridge         Edit/Delete Post 
don't like Shakespear!? how can one be a writer and not like Shakespear?

really, I rank Shakespear up there with all the other true masters of the both written and spoken word. you can READ Shakespear, and if you understand the language, it is just as if the play were taking place right before your eyes. he was a master. I can only dream of ever being as good at English, modern, renaissance, and archaic all, as he had been at archaic and renaissance English.

well, anyways, that is my take on Shakespear... as for this whole "well read" argument... DOES IT MATTER? i read what i read, if i like it, i like it. i don't care whether it's a "classic," shakespear, sci-fi, fantasy, other genre fiction, or not genre fiction at all! i tend to prefer sci-fi and fantasy, most other fiction is too set in its ways, too unwilling to explore the unknown, to appease my appetites.

does this mean i am not well read, or am well read? certainly not, it means absolutely neither, all it means is that i am an avid reader that greatly favors speculative fiction

[This message has been edited by dpatridge (edited December 11, 2004).]


Posts: 477 | Registered: Oct 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
LDS probably doesn't like sheakspear because he talked like a fruit.(sheakspear not LDS) You put in the discalimer 'if you understand the language' Those who don't tend not to like him.

Personally 'well read' is just something people put in personal ads.

Franc: What did you mean by "those who permit abuse"?


Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
bladeofwords
Member
Member # 2132

 - posted      Profile for bladeofwords   Email bladeofwords         Edit/Delete Post 
On the topic of Shakespeare (notice the e) I think that while it can be interesting if somebody who really knows what they are talking about, it is far more enjoyable taken as what it actually is: theatre. Either performing or watching (well done) Shakespeare is pretty impressive. He's not the end-all-be-all of writing but he's pretty darn good. His words are meant to be heard and seen, not read. However, if you can hear and see them, just by reading them, by all means, knock yourself out.

Does being well read matter? Despite my huge post above...no.

Then again, I don't see why we shouldn't keep talking about it.

Jon


Posts: 175 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
djvdakota
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for djvdakota   Email djvdakota         Edit/Delete Post 
I fear I'm about to raise a few eyebrows but...

Could it be that Shakespeare is considered a master merely because we have such a bulk of his work? Perhaps in reality ol' Willie was just a mediocre writer, and the true masterworks have been lost to time and the ever-pesky fires that occurred with frightening regularity during the time period?

[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited December 12, 2004).]


Posts: 1672 | Registered: Apr 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
No, Shakespeare was great in his own time. He had rivals, to be sure, and a cousin who was actually his superior as a poet (unfortunately the fellow was Catholic and ended up being tortured to death for his religion). But the judgement of history isn't quite as blind as some people suppose. There are plenty of texts older than Shakespeare which are lost mostly because they are boring and innane.

And leaving the historical debate aside, I can state unequivocally that the writer of the texts now attributed to Shakespeare was a genius in using the English language. Even if (as I fully expect is the case) it turns out that they were all written by a top secret anti-russian commision in the fifties to close the "Tolstoy Gap", it doesn't change the simple facts that those plays and sonnets are among the greatest works of art written in our language.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
dpartridge said: "does this mean i am not well read, or am well read?"

This is the heart of the problem I've seen on this thread, no matter what the individual and subjective definitions of well read have been. Some people seem to think that well read is something they ought to be, smoething they have a right to be. Among intelligent people, as I suspect most of us on this borad are, it's emotionally charged. It feels like something you *ought* to be. But I tell you it isn't! There's nothing wrong with not being well read. You don't have to have a definition of the term that includes yourself. Good lord, I don't!

I am not well read.

I will probalby never BE will read.

Why not? Becuase I don't want to read half the stuff I think I ought to have read to be well read. I'm very narrow minded when it comes to what I want to read and it suits me just fine. It doesn't mean I'm not smart. It doesn't mean I'm not a worthy person. It doesn't mean I'm not literate.

I am striving to be well read in science fiction and fantasy, but only because they are my chosen fields of writing. I would feel remiss if I weren't eventually well read in those areas. As for the rest: I read enough Shakespeare to know I don't like it. I also didn't like Hemmingway, Faulkner, Dickens, Twain (well, he was all right), etc, etc. I just didn't like them and they soured my opinion of other "classic" literature to the point that I've consciously decided not to become well read.

And that's ok. I think we've exhausted "what is well read?" We've definitely exhausted Hary Potter, I'm not even sure why it keeps being brought up. I have a new question for you:

Why do you feel the need to be included in the group of people considered well read?


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that your contention--that the only reason others can disagree with you is because they want to be considered well read--is rather dubious.

Particularly since I don't recall anyone on this thread claiming to be well read.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2