In fact, I haven't tried to convince anyone that my particular take on well read is correct in some time.
Moreover, I was trying to change the direction of the conversation, to discuss why it is so important for people to be considered well read. It does seem to me to be that way. If people flood in and say no, they don't care, I will then stand corrected, but why not let us have the conversation?
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited December 12, 2004).]
posted
it seems a common error to add an extra "r" into my name prior to the "t"... i would vastly prefer it if people strived to stop doing so :P
that said, i feel absolutely no need to be well read. i am happy where i am, and if by some persons standard i am well read, then so be it! and if not, likewise!
well, actually, i'm not entirely "happy where i am," i'm constantly in a state of digesting new books. but i do not care about whether the books i read ever get me into the category of well read or not.
posted
I don't think you need Survivor's blessing to have any converation, especially this one. Just carry on, he will agree or disagree, depending upon his mood. Then go about your business agreeing with him or not. It's completely up to you! Isn't it great how a free speach platform works! It even allows people like me to throw out things like this. Cool.
Well read or not, I am happy with the things I read. I read for enjoyment or to entertain myself. And, in the right gatherings I can discuss what I have read with other people who have read the same things. That is enough for me. If I haven't read what they have then I can choose to look at it or not... my choice.
I do like some "classics" but I don't make a study out of them. I certainly don't spout off in a manner suggesting that I am "well read" because of that. I read them and then I move on.
And yes, I have read all of the Harrry Potter books. I'm not too proud to say so. I do not subcribe to any list of required reading.
Finally, anyone can read enough to make themselves sound well read. Most of those people are called con-artists or even perhaps bullshitters. Just take a look at the foreward in Huckleberry Finn. I think Twain knew what "well read" people would do to his works. In my opinion, perhaps well read = Wisdom. Something I am still chasing and most likely will never find in it's entirety. I'll leave it at that.
posted
If you think about it, as fewer and fewer people read, anyone who reads will be well-read. I think that is a reason books like Harry Potter keep comming up. They are read. I was watching something on tv...a news show, and they were talking about best sellers not actually being read. People would buy them because the were a "best seller" and read enough to not feel left out. They lacked real interest in the book only the status of saying they had read it.
posted
There is a difference between reading, understanding and appreciating. Most books are written to be enjoyed, not to be suffered because someone has decided it needs to be read (who does the deciding? Somebody who has already read that book.... mmmm!!).
But there are other books that are made to develop understanding and appreciation. Usually in the academic fields nowadays we talk about being well read in his field. Which means they have read and understood all the worthwhile pieces of writing in their field.
As for the question about translated texts. Well I have read the Iliad and the Odyssey, but only the translated version, and I was always conscious I was reading a 20th century translation by a scholar whose knowledge of writing entertaining work is rather dubious. I am not saying it was bad, just that I wish that someone more proficient in writing had done it. But whoever does the writing, it will never be the same as the original. And I will never know how good the original piece was.
posted
No, Axi, I don't believe all best sellers should be read to be considered well-read. I think that, like most other groups, a person should have sampled many of those books. Keep in minds that the "New York Times Bestseller List" is a crock. It's a lie that has very little to do with the # of books sold. But even the real best sellers are not the same as Harry Potter. Harry Potter has made an impact on our culture. We all know those books. We all know that chracter. You can talk about it with a perfect stranger and have some common ground to talk about. (I know; I've done it.) I doubt the same can be said for John Grisham, even if many of his books have now been turned into movies. It's just not the same.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
I think the problem with trying to define the meaning of "well read" is trying to define what constitutes "classic literature". And I think that any discussion of whether or not a person is well-read or even if it matters whether or not a person is well-read is pointless until a definition is given of what should be included in the realm of necessary literature. And what's considered necessary is entirely subjective.
Example: I was sixteen and my mom and I were in a local bookstore. My mom let me buy Foundation because she said it was a classic of science fiction literature.
I stuck a copy of Dracula in our "to purchase" pile and she absolutely refused to pay for it. I told her it was a horror classic. With a prompt "No, it isn't," she put it back on the shelf. She said no classic was that bloody.
She obviously had never read The Iliad.
I have no idea what being well-read means and I really don't care. All I know is that I have a list of books/authors I want to read before I die. Some are considered classical literature (Aeschylus, Caeser, Ovid, etc.) and some are simply called classics (James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, etc.) though my goal is not to read all they ever wrote. Just sample enough of their writing to see things from their perspective.
Every other piece of literature outside of this falls into "work" at the moment. All fantasy and science fiction, whether or not I enjoy it, takes top priority because I wish to write in this field. It's kind of like breaking the rules of grammar: you have to know the rules first.
Don't get me wrong. I love reading fantasy and would read it no matter what. But as a reader, I can pick and choose what I want to read. I can't if I make writing my profession.
So, to say a person is well-read, it's just too subjective a term for any meaningful discussion beyond what's considered necessary for a writer of a particular genre. That's my opinion anyway.
posted
Actually, I don't remember saying that people had to read only literature that people considered "classic." As a matter of fact, the "classic" literature out there is just one of a few dozen areas that I feel a well-read person should have sampled. It's a very small portion, in my estimation at least, of what constitutes well read. It is the whole of what some hard-core literary types think qualifies, but I challenge their view of the world that thinks anything written more recently than a century ago isn't worth reading. I also know that despite the impact that *some* classic literature has had on the world, the truth is that most of that stuff has only had an impact on those very hard-core literary types that claim everyone should read it. That is hardly world changing or earth shattering. Rather, it makes most of that stuff a genre that you may or may not enjoy, but probably won't know unless you give some of it a try.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited December 13, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited December 13, 2004).]
quote:their view of the world that thinks anything written more recently than a century ago is worth reading
Call me a nit-picker (because this is EXTREME nit-picking), but the literary types actually put the cut-off a lot more recent than a century ago. Literary snobs are in love with the modernists, and they were in like the 20s, 30s, and 40s. They love Updike, and he was in the 50s and 60s, I believe. They'll take stuff written at least up through the 60s, probably later. Like I said, I know that's nit-picky, but hey, I'm a smart-ass.
quote:the truth is that most of that stuff has only had an impact on those very hard-core literary types that claim everyone should read it
This is the part I really want to disagree with. "That stuff" has influenced every writer here, whether you have read it or not, I guarantee it. If it hasn't influenced you directly, it has strongly influenced the people who have influenced you, or the people who influenced them, or...well, you get the idea.
The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix have influenced every song writer today, even the song writers who don't like their music at all, or the song-writers (if they exist) who have never heard their music. Those artists have influenced the face of music in general.
Likewise, the classic authors have influenced literature in general, and, like it or not, they've influenced you. I've said several times before that I HATE Hemingway. He has influenced my writing, though, because he has influenced all American Literature. If it wasn't for him, we'd still all be writing 300 word sentences.
Give credit where credit is due. You've been influenced by the classics.
posted
You are right, wetwilly, classic literature has influence modern literature. But when speaking of well read, I am talking to readers and not to writers. It is my view that the world as a whole did not sit still for classic writers, merely other writers and the very well educated.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited December 13, 2004).]
posted
I never said anyone did. The books mentioned are on my own personal list.
I was trying to point out how any required reading list is going to be subjective. Even as a writer, I tend to pick up books that are more in tune with what I like to write.
Back to my example, if I had decided to write horror, Dracula would most definitely be a book I would read, mostly because so many people are familiar with the story. I'd be afraid of stumbling through well-trod territory instead of walking purposefully through it.
But there is no set list of what should be read, therefore, there is no definition of what constitutes well-read. Just your own personal desire and passion.
posted
Ah, but what does it mean to be well-informed? If I haven't read Gene Wolfe, but I've read Peter S. Beagle does that mean I'm not well-informed?
posted
I find most of the discussions around here to be 6 of one, half dozen of another. On the other hand, I don't need you to tell me I'm well-read because i know I'm not. Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
I was talking to an American friend who said I should use them or I just come across as mean. Sorry if I did.
You can be well informed on some things and not others, you can obtain this information through reading.
As per J's earlier posted definition:
What is the difference between 'well-read' and 'well-versed'? Can someone who cannot read, be well versed?
Is it possible to inhabit, function within and engage an intellectual paradigm with integrity without agreeing with it?
It is not just about what you draw from a subject you have studied, because inevitably you will filter out those things you don't like, can't deal with, disagree with or simply don't understand. It is about not misrepresenting ideas. It is about faithful transmission of the concept-matrix.
For an anti-example see Fahrenheit 911, whether or not it was an accurate portrayal of truth does not change the fact that it was a biased delivery, which indicates an emotive and intellectually unjustifiable approach.
What is more important, the facts or the truth?
Presenting your 'take' on an idea as the idea itself is the hallmark of someone who is not applying intellectual rigour to the process of learning.
On a sidenote; Can you be well read if all you read are the commentaries of a text? Can you be well-read if all you read are translations of a text?
Edited to include another smiley.
.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited December 13, 2004).]
posted
I get well-red in the summer. It comes of being a blond, in Texas.
I cannot consider myself to be "well-read". I tried to figure it out once, but I found that it would take so long to get an objective opinion based upon a survey of the world population (pause for breath) that I would be hopelessly out of date by the time I had an answer (not to mention long-dead) and thus, by definition, no longer "well-read".
So, instead, I just go out in the sun long enough to get burned and not often enough to tan. And when people ask, I answer modestly "Yes. I AM well-red."
posted
I think that this obsessing over whether we are "well read" is particularly puzzling.
I still haven't noticed anyone claimimg to be well read, or even anyone pointing out some particular person that has claimed to be well read.
So why the heck would we steer the discussion in that direction?
My point is that how I define "well read" and "erudite" and "educated" and "literate" are all very important to me because I commonly say these things of other people, both people I meet off-line and people whose works I critique on-line. So I want to make sure that when I say to someone "You're clearly well read, but you seem unaware of how cliche [some element of the critiqued text]..." that person doesn't think that I mean something weird like "You've clearly read the Harry Potter books, but...".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
)
