Quote:
Originally Posted by astrangerhere
Princeton's English Lexicon defines well-read as follows:
There is a massive difference between being well informed in one topic versus many, but someone can be well-read in both senses, of course. I would argue it is the difference between being an expert and a polymath.
I think all the negative connotations we put on the phrase are, as stated above, due in great part to wanting to be considered well-read, but know others wouldn't (due to perceived elitism).
I'd honestly go for the polymath method every time, with a good Zettelkasten to help me relate ideas and thoughts from across a universe of topics. I am an expert in my particular field, but it does not bring me the same pride as when I connect a phrase from a world war I memoir with a 2018 novel.
|
One can be well-read in both senses of the phrase. Being a polymath does not preclude being an expert in one or more areas. Indeed, many famous polymaths were also experts in certain fields. Equally obvious, being a polymath does not preclude ignorance in a specific field.
I suspect that some consider a certain core knowledge is needed to be considered well read. There is likely some truth to that.