Quote:
Originally Posted by bZkindle
Right. I see your point and the distinction.
Still, insert 'critics choice' instead of 'classics' and my point still stands.
|
But since I wasn't referring to classics in the first place, your point doesn't stand.
Quote:
|
Can we all agree that studying the ingredients labels on soup cartons will not make someone 'well read'?
|
Really? This is what you got from my post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppaea
Not liking it is a matter of taste. Not getting it is a matter of not being well-read.
|
Not necessarily. I really think this goes back to what is the definition of being well-read. Does being well-read mean reading primarily fiction that usually makes the lists of "books you must read before you die?" If someone read 100 books every year and most of those books are mysteries, are you not well-read? Does reading famous non-fiction from a particular subject make you well-read? If I make a reference to Mircea Eliade's idea of homo religiosus and you don't get get it (I'm not saying you do or you don't), does that mean you're not well-read? What's the criteria?
I know we all think that we know what it is to be well read but if we're hard pressed to really say what that means then I think it becomes difficult to really define.