Are you well read?

[Grammath]

I know one of my New Year's resolutions (and, being Jewish, I get to make two sets every 12 months :( ) every time I make some is that I will endeavour to become better read. Since I already read about 60 books a year on average, to me, this means I will try to read better quality books e.g. more classic fiction, rather than that I will make the effort to read even more.

Since I assume I'm talking to an audience of ardent bibliophiles, I wonder how many of you would describe yourselves as "well read" and what you consider this phrase might mean.

Is it that you only ever have your nose in an acknowledged classic or some other book considered by a wide consensus of opinion to be of great merit?

Does it mean you read a diverse and eclectic selection of books?

Does it just mean you read a lot?

Or does it not really matter to you as long as you enjoy the books you read?

[My Friend Jack]

1. Rightly or wrongly, I've always considered that "well read" refers to someone who has consumed a wide variety of non-fiction and is able to spout on about many topics.

2. No, I don't consider myself to be well read within my definition!

3. I read for entertainment, and I will not read anything that I'm not enjoying.

[Top Cat]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of different definitions people have for the term "well-read".

I remember a few years ago, when I was selling my house, potential buyers would see my wall of books and say things like "Crikey, you're well- read!" and look at me like I was some sort of literary freak. But then I hear about how much someone like Will Self reads and feel totally inferior (that said, i don't like his books much, so maybe there's not too much to be jealous about). Lots of my friends think I read a lot (about 45 books a year, although I always strive for the magic 52), but I'm always giving myself a hard time for not reading enough, and reading too many modern books. I'm forever picking up Jude The Obscure or Great Expectations, then putting them down in favour of a Carl Hiaasen or a Paul Auster... Will this ultimately make me a less knowledgeable, rounded person? I'm not sure. I always think "oh, I'll get around to reading To Kill A Mockingbird one day", but at the moment, my ratio is about one classic book to every eight contemporary books. And as for My Friend Jack's comment about "well read" being a trait of a non-fiction reader, that would rule me out almost entirely... In the end, my literary needs are quite basic: I like a good story better than anything.

[Jassie]

I think I consider myself an eternal learner rather than someone who is well read. What is that quote by Socrates...(the only one I remember)
"I know enough to know I know nothing". I enjoy fiction and non-fiction books but am ashamed of my sieve like memory. The minute I finish a book I'm leaking characters, names, dates and situations all over the place. What I remember from a book can be so selective sometimes and I wish I could be more articulate about what I've got from reading fiction or non fiction.
I can't say I remember how many I read, I go through some weeks not reading much at all and others, like now, I seem to be get through a book a day almost, not 'classics' of course, those I cannot read fast. That's because I am not working at the moment - what joy. Slowly catching back up with all the unread books on my shelves. I read all kinds of books and have a minor addiction to anything Regency. I don't think I can call myself well read though I do read rather well. I think its all the practice, it seems to be paying off - good page turning technique! :)

[Darkstar]

I think I would consider someone who is reasonably familiar with the literary canon as 'well-read', since that doesn't include me, I suppose I don't consider myself to be 'well read'. I do try and read 'classics' every now and then - I'll try and read at least one Dickens every year, as well as other 19th century authors.

[dpleith]

I have promised myself that when I retire (4 years) I will read more of the classics but I would much rather read for enjoyment than for 'improvement'. I was on holiday recently for 2 weeks and I read 18 books. None of them would be regarded necessarily as 'classics' although a couple were prize winners (Whitbread/Booker) but I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I am tempted to join a book club but am slightly scared off by the prospect of book snobs. I enjoy a wide variety of styles and don't want to make reading a chore.I have recently joined this website and want to be directed to books I might normally have disregarded. (Bizzarely I have enjoyed many books I chose because of the interesting cover - how girly!!!! - how fortunate!!!!)

[willow]

Hi

I have come to the conclusion over the years that a book is 'good' if you enjoy it and get something out of it. Obviously a book can be analysed and there are certain aspects that can be recognised as 'good literature' but unless the reader can connect with the writing what's the point.
I have always tried to be open minded about literature and will give any book a fair go. There are book snobs out there but I find the best reply to a sneer at what I might be reading is that I say that I'm perfectly secure enough in my intellectual ability to enjoy................ (whatever). I was an avid Dallas fan in the 80's and this was a line I used then to great effect - it shut them up!!!!!
So go out there join book clubs and hold your own - I'm in 3 very mixed ones and find the chat once a month both stimulating and rewarding and I've made some great new friends.

Willow - who adores Jilly Cooper books but also loves Dickens, Zola and Austen!!!!!!!

[deirdreofthesorrows]

I would suggest that 'well read' is relative, like so many other things in life. I, like most people, judging by the posts I have read, seem to enjoy a wide range of books, both fiction and non-fiction.

I enjoy reading ,and like some of the previous posters, I really only read books I like, seems counter productive to do otherwise. I have kept a record of all the books I have read since 1981, with a rating system that denotes how much I liked a book at the time. These ratings change over the years with books I have gone back to, which suggests taste in books changes with age and experience, as does everything in life. I don't quite know if this is sad and obsessive, but having done it this long I am loathe to give it up.

To get back to the original point, I regard myself as 'well read' compared to some, and woefully ignorant compared to others. Thus the definition of 'well read' is highly subjective and open to debate. And finally for any of those interested (I dont think many) my total list from 1/1/81 to date is 941 books, some of them are duplicated.

[Adrian]

I would like to think I'm well-read, but to be honest I might just be a poseur. I have no room on the the bookshelves in my living room to display all my books. What I put out there are some of what I've just read and also some of the weightier, more impressive stuff too. Now, I have read them all, but the bookcase isn't indicative of my typical reading.

But it also begs the question what does it mean to be "well-read". Like others here, I consider all reading to be good, and would hate to be judged because I don't like Dickens or Hardy.

Years ago I was berated for reading Jeffrey Archer and argued strongly that what he does, he does well. Before that I'd read Moby Dick and tried to get across that a widely varied reading diet was better than living solely on material that you read because you thought you had to.

That is a great topic title: intelligent, provocative, open-ended. Just what we need.

[BrumB]

Then there's the question of memory. Like others, I read a lot of varied books - fiction, fact and poetry - and have read most of the classics. However, I often don't remember much of what I've read. I find that the people I consider to be well read can always quote chapter and verse and have thoroughly absorbed their reading. This is such an admirable quality and I wish I had it.

[Cathy]

Right now I'm very aware that there are lots of Big Books I haven't read, like War and Peace, anything by Rushdie, and some classics I've missed out... but I think its much more important to be guided by what you like to read than by what you ought to read, I venture a definition of a 'well-read' person as someone with a passionate interest in Literature, and who doesn't label a whole period or author as a no-go area, but hasn't necessarily read Everything yet. As that would be impossible. Where would the fun be in that anyway? If you're open minded, you can read Dickens just as novels for fun, if you're thinking 'I must read this' it won't be fun. I like to think of Dickens as the first soap writer!

I used to be obsessed with the idea that there were a certain number of classics I really ought to read before I could read other stuff, and this was, surprise surprise, a bad idea because I wasn't reading for pleasure, it was more of a sort of duty. So I gave that up and the whole way through my degree (french + English) I had to read so much that I barely touched a book for pleasure for the last 4 years and if I did it was something light which I managed to borrow off a friend like Bridget Jones and the Hitchhikers Guide. So I don't dare to think of myself as well-read yet, I'm just rediscovering reading for pleasure right now and letting my fickle tastes guide me! And I don't 'do' poetry, which excludes myself from my own definition!

And I have the opposite problem to lots of the people who posted here, I'm only reading classics right now and find modern stuff to be a bit of a minefield. How do you know what is good? I have tried looking for things that look interesting in reviews at my local library but it is totally hopeless!

Wow, I find diedre's book log very impressive! I always forget nearly everything about a book after I've finished it except a vague impression that it was great, or ok or funny or whatever.

[My Friend Jack]

Several of you have mentioned memory - in the context of forgetting plots, characters, etc. I am very much the same.

Like many people, I have several threads to my life - family, work, football, music and books being my top 5. I am frequently appalled and embarrassed by how poor my memory is for 4 of these, it's almost as if I have used my memory capacity on music, so everything else seems to suffer. I have retained an incredible amount of trivia on musical matters (my postings on the lyric / song threads on BGO are invariably from memory, without use of books or internet) - for instance I can recall the catalogue number of the 'N-Betweens' "You Better Run" single from 1966 (it's Columbia DB 8080), and I know that catalogue numbers beginning with 2058 are Polydor label releases from the early / mid 70s - but I forget birthdays, books, work conversations and tasks. I've never tried to remember this stuff, I just do!

Inspired by some of the BGOers, I have kept a list of the books I've read so far this year. This is week 13, and I'm on my 7th - so I'm averaging 1 every 2 weeks (ish). Given that I have maintained a list of every record I've played since 1974, I guess this list might be one that I keep going, now that I've started!

[Tess]

Lots of my friends think I read a lot (about 45 books a year, although I always strive for the magic 52)

I have kept a record of the books I've read for a few years now and I too always try for 52 although I haven't got there yet!

I also think that well read has something to do with variety and therefore like to think of myself as just that. I make an effort to read a classic now and again and although admittedly I find them a struggle at times I do feel that I get something from them in addition to an impressive looking bookshelf. Compared to my friends I feel well read as most are the occasional holiday reader and often ask my advise for a good read. However when compared to the lovely members of BGO I often feel inferior!

I also think that at times I am a bit of a book snob, I can admit to reading and enjoying Dan Brown however I will quietly giggle to myself over the Brown fanatics you hear on buses, I'm far too posh to admit liking him in public! If I'm taking a book on a bus I am careful in what I choose, for example the trashy romance is saved for the back garden. When travelling I love to see what others are reading, this is especially fun on the tube, I admit to being one of those nosey people tilting my head to get a look at the cover! When its one of your favourite reads you feel like you have met a kindred spirit :)

[willow]

I too keep a record of all I read and sometimes write a few notes. I also suffer from memory loss now and then but am told I'm well read by some friends although I wouldn't necessarily agree.

I must admit to being such a fiction fan that I wouldn't consider someone who reads solely non-fiction as being well read. I only pick up non fiction if I want to find out something specific or it is a biography or travel book. We had a discussion in a book group over who read most fiction men or women and felt it was women. In fact one person had met a man at a party who had sneered at the fact she read fiction!!!!! A lot of weird people out there!!!!

A funny story is that I mentioned the local library bookgroup to a stuffy neighbour in case his wife was interested (she had earlier said to me she might be!). He told me that she didn't want to get involved in something like THAT. When I said I loved reading he said they did too but preferred to do that kind of thing in PRIVATE. We now feel at the library that we are the 'swingers' of the 21st century. It's all this bookswapping we get up to obviously!!!!!!!

Willow

[megustaleer]

I've been struggling with this question for a while. When was much younger, I used to think I was well read, but maybe I was just widely read. My tastes were certainly catholic.
Now, though, I read much less, having filled my life with work, family, garden, TV, internet, painting, needlework, etc. There seem to be so many more books around these days, too, so that there is always a new one being hyped, and the classics keep slipping further down the pile.
Physically I find the classics more difficult, too, having been made lazy by the clear layout and larger print used these days, and time having dimmed the eyesight a little.

Memory? Yes, mine lets me down, too. I suppose I move on to the next book too quickly, without spending enough time absorbing the one I have been reading. I resorted to the notebook about 12 years ago, when I found myself unable to remember whether I'd actually read a book, or just looked at the 'blurb' in the bookshop. Just title, author, publisher, and a few notes as a reminder. Plus a simple comment as to my opinion. No grading, and no counting up the yearly tally...although I may go and do that now!

So, maybe 'well read' once upon a time, but not any more.

[deirdreofthesorrows]

Just to add for any one who might be interested, I dont just read. I work full time have a home and family and lots of other non-bibliophile things i love doing.

I find this thread ( and in fact the whole forum) fascinating. I really enjoy reading all the other posters comments and thoughts. And it just underlines the notion that 'well read' is a subjective concept, as compared to some of you out there, I am definately not that well read at all. Happy reading to you all.

[Cathy]

This might be a bit 'off-topic' but I think its such a shame Classics have this reputation for being 'Hard'... Surely one of the things that has made them classic is their popularity? How can a Romance be more gripping than Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights? Who writes better melodramatic soap-operas than Dickens?

Great thread!

[Opal]

Inspired by some of the BGOers, I have kept a list of the books I've read so far this year. This is week 13, and I'm on my 7th - so I'm averaging 1 every 2 weeks (ish). Given that I have maintained a list of every record I've played since 1974, I guess this list might be one that I keep going, now that I've started!
Me too and I'm currently on book number eleven, so I feel I'm doing quite well! :D

As for being well read.... I would define that as someone who has read a variety of books on any subject or subjects. For example I would consider myself to be well read in science fiction, fantasy, childrens/teenagers and (much as I hate to admit it!) trashy romance (you know the kind where after readin the back cover you know who's going to end up with who! :o ). However I've not read many classics or historical books and very little non-fiction (something I'm aiming to change this year!)

[ChrisG]

I think the definition of well read used to be that one had read a wide variety of different styles and genres, i.e., classics, poetry, etc. I took a degree in English Lit and we had to read 19th century novelists, the Romantic poets, southern literature (USA - Faulkner, for example), Shakespeare and Chaucer and the like. Not all of them were riveting but it was an interesting mix. One professor was an absolute fiend for the books of Willa Cather so we read a lot of them (My Antonia, Death Comes for the Archbishop, The Professor's House all became favourites - so thanks Professor Murphy!) :D

My Friend Jack has a musical memory - I have a book memory. I can remember plots and characters from books I read 30 years ago! This is very useful for reading multiple books at one time - I can pick one up after reading something else in between and still remember where I am in that particular book! It drives other people crazy though! :o

[megustaleer]

I can remember book titles, and often the authors, but not often much of the plots or characters. If I've loved or hated a book, then I remember my reaction to it.
Unfortunately, I also remember the titles/authors of books I've 'browsed' on library or bookshop shelves, and recognise enough of the plot as described in the 'blurb' to think I have read it, which used to give me problems when choosing new books to read.
That was why I started keeping a reading diary, and I find it does help to 'fix' a book in my memory.

[Starry]

I'm not sure I've ever tried to pin down exactly what I mean by well-read, but I guess it would include not only having read lots of classics, but having a classical education. Being able to speak with authority on a wide range of subjects, like history, politics, languages, culture and the arts.

Needless to say I've never considered myself well-read, but thinking about it again, I prefer the wide-ranging definition. Then maybe, just maybe, if that was the definition I could consider myself well-read!

I also fall into the group that forgets things easily, so I've been keeping a journal of the books I've read for the last two years. This year I am keeping it online and have challenged myself to read 100 books. So far I am right on target with 28 read. It is preventing me from getting into reading slumps which I do with distressing frequency. It makes me put down a book to read later if it doesn't grab me in the first few pages and so far I've read surprisingly few poor books because I've managed to match up my mood with a suitable book.

Damn, I've strayed off-topic... I'm not sure that 'well-read' is a relative term though, I do compare myself to my nearly impossible standard as definied above, but just because some of my friends aren't interested in reading anything but a few magazines I still can't consider myself well-read because there is still that impossible standard.

[Harriet]

I'm not really well read. I read a lot, and enjoy it, but I just read what I feel like reading and that tends to be re-reading easy reading books, I don't really like having to really work hard to understand the basic plot. In March, for example, I read about 9 or 10 books, but I think the only new ones were Deception Point (the BEST Dan Brown book!) and Heavier Than Heaven. I enjoyed both of them, but then I always go back to the books I've read over and over again.

There was a quote I read somewhere....I can't remember who said it...not really appropriate to me, but I like it all the same :)

'I'm not well read, but when I read I read well'

Actually I think it was Kurt Cobain but I'm not entirely sure. Don't quote me on that.

[Sherman_McCoy]

I may or may not be well-read..... but I'm definitely the most well-read person I know!
The 2nd most well-read person I know is my girlfriend..... but that's just because she tends to read whatever I tell her to.

[Cathy]

Chris G, I'm impressed at your degree! Its sounds well-rounded and thorough. I did English Lit and Land, joint with a language too, but still no excuses, I managed to come out with modules covering Medieval Lit, Dickens, Shakespeare films and some Language courses... bit odd. Not very well-rounded!

And Sherman, how do you persuade your girlfriend to read things? I don't like the sound of you 'telling' her to read things, but if you can help me persuade my boyfriend to for once take up one of my recommendations, I'll be well impressed.

[excalibur]

The only definition I can muster on this matter is an instance where David Beckham is seen as having executed a "well-read" pass in relation to his other team-mates' relative on-field positions. Alternatively, if the hyphen were to be removed from this descriptive term, a comma positioned in the middle and a few exclamation marks placed at the rear for good measure, we would have "Well, Read!!!" A symbolic gesture of agitated encouragement often issued forth by a teacher upon an unengaging pupil, with the intention of instilling into he/she, a crystallized definition of "un-putdownable".

[Sherman_McCoy]

R.O. - I'm only joking, I don't "tell" her to read anything.... in fact she's poo-poo'd my suggestions recently to read One Hundred Years of Solitude and Cloud Atlas. Pretty much everything she does read though is half-inched from my pile!

[sebastian melmoth]

If "widely-read" is the same as "well-read" then i am!

[Seraphina]

During my degree I covered 8 modules - Shakespeare, Victorian, Renaissance, Restoration, Irish Literature, Literary THeory, Modern Literature (20th Century), and 19th Century American Literature. This was quite well rounded and I read a lot of plays, novels and poetry within each of these topics. I would consider myself to be relatively widely read, whether or not that's the same as well read I don't know!

I think I would consider someone to be well read who has read widely and actively. I think it's very easy to read passively, reading the words, but not really taking note of their effect or any underlying themes. I'm guilty of reading passively a lot of the time, although I think that's a by-product of uni! Having had to speed read hundreds of books yet take enough from them to make it worthwhile kind of deadened my brain to the worth of literature for about a year! I don't think it's any kind of specific book you have to read to be 'well-read' either, although it would make sense to have a grounding in the classics - after all they're not classics for nothing, and it is interesting to see how they have influenced modern day writers.

Basically anyone who can read a novel and the only comment they can make is along the lines of 'i liked/didn't like it' is not IMO well read. A person who comes along and reads the exact same books but can make some kind of worthwhile comment or evaluation on the book I then WOULD consider to be well read. In summing up (eventually!) IMO it's the WAY you read rather than just WHAT you read that is important.

[My Friend Jack]

Good post, Seraphina. In fact, "I liked it!" ;)

Seriously, you've made the link that someone who is well read is probably capable of expressing themselves (either on paper or verbally) in terms of explaining why they liked or didn't like a book. Not sure whether that's quite what you meant, but it's a worthy point.

[ChrisG]

I agree with MFJ - very astute post Seraphina! I can empathize with the 'deadening brain' aspect, too. Even though I was a voracious reader since pre-school days, after doing my degree at uni I felt like I never wanted to look at a printed page again! It soon wore off, though. :p

I would be interested in what authors your American Lit class covered. Your syllabus sounds a lot like the one I had.

[Seraphina]

I would be interested in what authors your American Lit class covered. Your syllabus sounds a lot like the one I had.

We didn't really have set texts or authors as such - we were pretty much free to read around each topic as we pleased. It was basically a case of 'hello, you're doing American Lit this term...go away and read now'...! Some of the recommended authors which I read were Poe (which I liked, although it wasn't really what I was expecting), Herman Melville's MOby Dick and Billy Budd, Sailor (quite boring), Emily DIckinson (loved it), Henry James (liked some of it), Thoreau, Emerson and the Transcendentalists (didn't really engage me). Those were the main ones touched on in lectures and things. I have to say American LIterature wasn't my favourite topic - I found it rather dull in comparison to the 19th Century British Literature, although I'm glad it introduced me to Dickinson and Poe. And everyone who considers themselves even slightly 'well read' should have read THe Turn of the Screw! ;)

[ChrisG]

We didn't really have set texts or authors as such - we were pretty much free to read around each topic as we pleased. It was basically a case of 'hello, you're doing American Lit this term...go away and read now'...!

I like your way much better! We got told which authors/books we had to read. I once taught an Adult Education class in American Lit and tried a different approach than the usual (which is read Mark Twain, Nathanial Hawthorne, etc.) by assigning four books on different periods in the settling of America, i.e., The Last of the Mohicans, The Virginian, Giants in the Earth, Death Comes for the Archibishop. The class was pleased that they got something different than expected. At least that's what they said to my face! ;)

[Seraphina]

I like your way much better! We got told which authors/books we had to read.

Yeah it was good, but it was more than a little bit daunting! We didn't even get set essay questions, we had to make those up ourselves too! No set texts, no set essays....sometimes I just felt like shouting SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!! But I definitely wouldn't be as widely read if I'd had a list of set texts!

[omega]

"Are you well read?"

Now what does that mean?


A lot of the aura that surrounds a "well read" person comes, in my opinion, from being just well informed enough about famous/popular writers, and movements/genres of literature, to be able "wing it" when asked general questions in a social setting :D


For example, I've never read Little Dorrit by Dickens, but I've read several of his other books, and so I know the time period the novels are set in, the trademark vivid charactersiation, the social themes Dickens explored, the complex plots, etc.


Example :

(well read person on train)"I'm just reading Little Dorrit...."

(crafty Omega) " Oh really? Dickens is such a joy. His characters are so vivid! Have you read Bleak House? (which I HAVE read!)

(well read person thinks Hmmm, I'm meeting another well read person!) :)


QED!

[Bromden]

I am a school teacher at a classical school, so I must be versed in the Classics. I love the great books.

You could follow a method like, The Lifetime Reading Plan. But I truly believe that the Renaissance Reader, one who reads a great variety of books, is what I would term well-read.

I am reading one non-fiction and one fiction book at all times. My appetite for books truly depends on my fancy at the time. I am one of those people who reads everything there is on a topic for a period of time and then doesn't touch it for years. (non-fiction)

Or I will read a series of books in a particular genre and not come back to it for a time. I have found that reading an isolated book is a sure way to not remember it. An example would be to read Walden, Brave New World, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 1984, and then Catcher in the Rye. To be totally immersed in an idea and let it change you. That is my goal when I read.

Entertainment value comes second for me. I want more than anything to explore the ideas that are out there. Seeing how they play out in fiction is one of the joys of literature.

[Grammath]

I suppose that, since I started this thread, I ought to put in my two pence worth on what I think it means to be "well read".

My take is that it means one is widely read and has at least dipped a toe into most types of writing and read in sufficient quantity to have developed personal tastes.

So, when I make that resolution I do it with a determination to read more of the acknowledged classics in the kinds of fields I like. I've got to the stage in my reading where, when I say that, I feel I am knowledgeable enough about literature to have a fairly good idea what sort of book I will like and what is highly regarded in the genres I prefer. For example, I like crime writing and thrillers, so it is my intention to read Chandler, Buchan, Conan Doyle and Simenon as well as more modern favourites.

There is an element of snobbery too, I suppose. I recognise my pride means I'm unlikely to get over my prejudice towards Jane Austen (see what I did there? ;) ) for example, so, since reading should ultimately be about pleasure for me, I refuse to try and force myself to try to like authors I've tried previously and disliked, just because they are recognised as "greats" - life's too short.

I also have more admiration for books that, when published, may have been regarded as "pulp" but have stood the test of time, rather than those that have made a self-conscious effort to the status of literary classic. Hence, while I have a fondness for an element of surrealism, I don't have the patience to read avant-garde efforts like Joyce and Proust.

I have a degree in American Studies and a personal bias toward American literature, so it also means I'm going to try to fill in some of the gaps where I just didn't get around to the book whilst ploughing through my enormous undergraduate reading list. Hence, for example, I read "Tender is the Night" last year and am reading "East of Eden" at the moment.

Cheers to those who've said they like this thread too *blush*.

[megustaleer]

There was an interesting discussion on the radio today on this very subject, betwen Mariella Frostrup, Lisa Jardine and Christopher Booker.

What it boiled down to was that to be 'well-read' is to become richly knowledgable about books, and is a lifetime pursuit (unlikely to be achieved by anyone under 50).

It is achieved by reading a variety of the available books, fiction and non-fiction, From historical periods and today, and to be able to recall and use them in conversation .

Being 'well-read' refers to the way in which the reading has informed the intellectual outlook of the reader, and the capacity for projecting and communicating that to others.

There is a reading list!

The Bible
The Odyssey
The Iliad
The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
Never at Rest (biog of Isaac Newton) by Richard Restall
Virginia Woolf by Hermione Lee
Middlemarch by George Eliot (listening to the current radio dramatisation won't do!)
and the poems of Tagore


I'm never going to make it, owing to my failure in the area I've italicised

[Seraphina]

There is a reading list!

The Bible
The Odyssey
The Iliad
The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
Never at Rest (biog of Isaac Newton) by Richard Restall
Virginia Woolf by Hermione Lee
Middlemarch by George Eliot (listening to the current radio dramatisation won't do!)
and the poems of Tagore


I'm never going to make it, owing to my failure in the area I've italicised

I wonder how they came up with that reading list! Seems slightly odd to me! And if it's anything to go by, having myself read most of the Bible (misguided youth! ;) ), Parts of The Odyssey, most of The Iliad, (what a chore...both of them! All I remember about them is being incredibly bored, but then I was only 16 or so),Middlemarch (great book, but puzzled why it is on this list?), and The Second Sex (drove me mad, silly feminist nonsense most of it! :mad: but at least it makes you think i suppose...) by the age of 23, I think I'm doing quite well!

I'm useless at remembering what I read though, so I could read every book in the world and still not consider myself well read! I agree with their notion of what well read is, but I am curious about the reading list!

[megustaleer]

A listener had contacted the programme asking for a suggested reading list of five books to read in order to become 'well-read'. These were the books they discussed. Can't remember if they reduced this list down to a final five.

I'm sure that my reading has 'informed my intellectual outlook', but due to the seive like quality of my brain I'd be hard pressed to point to any particular literary sources. :o

[Annabellalot]

Right now I'm very aware that there are lots of Big Books I haven't read, ... anything by Rushdie, ...
Try "East, West" by Rushdie. It's a collection of 9 short stories. That would be another author you could add to your list then.

(I have never read War & Peace :D )

[FirelightSpirit]

You can definitely be well-read in different areas of literature. I'm not a big non-fiction reader, but I do consider myself to be steadily amassing knowledge of the classics as well as reading what I enjoy from contemporary literature. I'm not well-read yet, but I think it's a lifetime pursuit.

I will admit to reading for improvement, but I'm a literature student, so I think that's allowed.

[GERBAM]

[QUOTE=Seraphina]I wonder how they came up with that reading list! Seems slightly odd to me! And if it's anything to go by, having myself read most of the Bible (misguided youth! ;) ), Parts of The Odyssey, most of The Iliad, (what a chore...both of them! All I remember about them is being incredibly bored, but then I was only 16 or so),Middlemarch (great book, but puzzled why it is on this list?), and The Second Sex (drove me mad, silly feminist nonsense most of it! :mad: but at least it makes you think i suppose...) by the age of 23, I think I'm doing quite well!

WHAT!!!! ALAS POOR WILL ... NO SHAKESPEARE? NO JOYCE?

I can only surmise that the list they proposed was one solely for diversity?

I do know I own several reference/non-fiction books by Harold Bloom, Clifton Fadiman and others that speak directly to the WESTERN CANON and also are devoted to discussing HOW TO READ A BOOK. They are excellent to have on hand when I want to understand how to answer questions like this and to learn how GREAT BOOKS are chosen. Several years ago a book titled GREAT BOOKS was a huge bestseller in the US.

GERBAM

[Stewart]

I wonder how they came up with that reading list! Seems slightly odd to me! Not odd in the slightest. So much fiction has Biblical allusions that may otherwise skip over heads if a person hasn't read the Bible. Similarly, the Greek histories. I'm unaware of the rest though.

[lunababymoonchild]

I'm fairly certain that there must be thread on this already but I can't find it, so I'll make a new one.

From a comment on another thread, what do BGOers consider well-read? Is it the breadth of the material read, or the depth of the material or is there some set standard that needs to be reached in order to be considered well read, such as all of the classics for example?

I read all of the time (reader's-block - thankfully rare - excepted), and I just read what I fancy. I always want to read faster so that I can at least get close to making an impact on the TBR but other than that I don't really give it a second thought.

So BGO-land, what is well-read?

[David]

I'm fairly certain that there must be thread on this already...
Your suspicions were correct, Luna! It's a good one to revive, though, so I've merged the two ready for some fresh thoughts.

[lunababymoonchild]

Thanks David, I did search but confess to not reading throught the entire list of 500 or so threads.

Interesting comments made that I've taken on board.

[David]

Thanks David, I did search but confess to not reading throught the entire list of 500 or so threads.
Gosh no - that would take ages! Obviously I remembered we'd had such a thread in the past, but I found it with the search function. If you perform a search within Central Library you can group likely words to narrow the search. So I entered "Well Read" (inside the speech marks to ensure it looks for those words together) and it came up with just 17 likely threads, including this one.

Apologies if you knew how to do that anyway, but I thought I'd note that it's a handy way to find things. :)

[Nellie]

Wow, what a great thread. There was an interesting debate on Radio 4 the other day on whether it is harder to be a polymath in modern times. The conclusion was yes, it was because the breadth and depth of information available to read and learn is so vast now that to even crack a tiny fraction of it would take a lifetime. I wonder if the same arguments apply to being well read?

On a slightly different note, am I well read? I really don't think so, I read a lot, and I can talk about what I have read, but there are a large number of areas that I haven't even touched. Having said that my colleagues think I am some sort of literary genius simply because I read so much more than they do. I guess it's all relative!

[lunababymoonchild]

Gosh no - that would take ages! Obviously I remembered we'd had such a thread in the past, but I found it with the search function. If you perform a search within Central Library you can group likely words to narrow the search. So I entered "Well Read" (inside the speech marks to ensure it looks for those words together) and it came up with just 17 likely threads, including this one.

Apologies if you knew how to do that anyway, but I thought I'd note that it's a handy way to find things. :)I did a search on the whole board and not in speech marks so that's why I got a bigger list to search through. I didn't already know that and will bear it in mind for the next time.

I like this definition best : What it boiled down to was that to be 'well-read' is to become richly knowledgable about books, and is a lifetime pursuit (unlikely to be achieved by anyone under 50).

It is achieved by reading a variety of the available books, fiction and non-fiction, From historical periods and today, and to be able to recall and use them in conversation.

Being 'well-read' refers to the way in which the reading has informed the intellectual outlook of the reader, and the capacity for projecting and communicating that to others.
I can recall books I've read sufficiently to converse about them - most of the time! - but how these books have informed my intellectual outlook I have no way of knowing or measuring, let alone projecting. Then again, I keep being told to 'speak english' and that I'm 'using too many long words' by my father so is that one way of measuring? I certainly have a broader vocabulary than my next door neighbour - I wouldn't have thought that was hard, though - and a husband of one of my father's friends (again, not hard) and my speech is definitely informed by the material that I'm currently reading, which can get comical on the odd occasion that it's Shakespeare!

So am I well read? As Nellie points out it's all relative. I read all the time and a wide variety of material, both fact and fiction and from all different time periods and in different styles. The aforementioned neighbour doesn't read at all but my father reads as much as I do, just different subjects. There are gaps, like insufficient amounts of poetry and somewhat lacking in the classics.

Still, I do have the time to fill in these gaps before I'm fifty and practice being eloquent about it.

Thanks everybody. :D

[ennui]

I'm not at all well read. I got into literature in a more seriouse way a few years back and started a literature degree...so I haven't had an awful lot of time to read more widely. Someday though.

Unless of course the internet counts? lol.

[bobblington]

I am well-read in terms of having read many books - mostly modern fiction.

However a bit like the term "intelligent" how can "well-read" be defined that make clear divisions of everyone. It can't. My OH reads lots of non-fiction and often says he is envious that I can read so much fiction, but like wise I wish I could focus on non-fiction more. I would say that I read most books for enjoyment, but that my non-fiction to fiction ration is about 1:10 books with most of my non-fiction being either Sport or Biography related. In terms of classic books (including prize winners/nominees) I would say the ration of classic to non-classic is 1:4 but then define classic?

I have to admit that the setting up of my book club was in part to broaden my reading habits, but I would say my devouring of fiction is fairly wide because back in my teens I told myself each time I went to the library I would get a book by someone I'd never read before - this has increase over time with the aid of things like this website, friends recommendations and the old 342 in Waterstones and nearly 90% of books I borrow from libraries are authors I have not read before.