Does anyone want to be "well-read?"

[Amalthia]

I think I'm curious as to what is the point of being "well read"? (I mean beyond the joy of reading a great story) Does it enrich a person's life, create interesting conversation?

I think people should read what they are passionate about, though I do try to encourage my friends and others to read outside their comfort zone and explore a variety of literature. You never know what you may find.

In my life, it's been rare to meet others that read as much as I do or in a variety of genres, let alone find time to converse.

high school in the united states only slows you down if you want to become well read. I ended up reading a lot of the classics in college on my own free time.

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by wodin

Oh? Does anyone know the correct pronunciation of 14th century English?

I just know the version that I was taught.

[Musette]

I really have no interest in becoming "well-read". Since over half of the books that I start I end up not finishing, I doubt that it's even possible for me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Amalthia

I think I'm curious as to what is the point of being "well read"? (I mean beyond the joy of reading a great story) Does it enrich a person's life, create interesting conversation?

"Yes" to both questions.

[Billi]

Same here - and the more if I'm allowed to use "well read" in it's true sense and don't have to reduce it to the classics.

What I don't get is the snobbishness about reading the classics, their preference over "younger" works, the equation reading the classics=being intelligent that was made in one of the posts here.

I love reading the classics, I read a lot of them, so I don't feel addressed personally, but after finishing one of the old books I would never ever assume myself being smarter than anyone who has read a good contemporary book at the same time. In the best case, we both have learnt something about life and the human nature or we have been well entertained.

[dadioflex]

Originally Posted by Billi

What I don't get is the snobbishness about reading the classics, their preference over "younger" works, the equation reading the classics=being intelligent that was made in one of the posts here.

That would be Poppaea who equated intelligence and reading, obliquely. I agree, it's a vapid argument. I think it's fair, however, to equate being "well read" and being educated.

Originally Posted by Amalthia

I think I'm curious as to what is the point of being "well read"? (I mean beyond the joy of reading a great story) Does it enrich a person's life, create interesting conversation?

Nothing enriches one's life quite like being rich. And "interesting" is a word which relates to a subjective experience while simultaneously reeking of the banal.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by SeaBookGuy

I know it may be heresy here in ebook world, but I can only read "classic" authors: Dickens, Trollope, etc. as audiobooks (UNabridged, thankyouverymuch). I have no desire to read Chekov, but have liked his work onstage. I don't think Stendahl and Hugo would be of much interest, but I plan on listen to Balzac's Cousin Bette.

I'm not a fan of Hemingway, and have no intention of trying Cather nor Fitzgerald.

Cousin Betty!?! I LOVED that TV show! Especially how her lack of guile always managed to thwart the selfish plans of the 'sophisitcated' New Yorkers who worked at that fashion magazine! I had no idea Balzac did TV.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by Billi

What I don't get is the snobbishness about reading the classics, their preference over "younger" works, the equation reading the classics=being intelligent that was made in one of the posts here.

Originally Posted by dadioflex

That would be Poppaea who equated intelligence and reading, obliquely. I agree, it's a vapid argument. I think it's fair, however, to equate being "well read" and being educated.

Sorry guys, this is what you read into my post and not what I wrote...

Originally Posted by Poppaea

Yes, I think it is important to be well read. Literature tends to have a second layer woven into the books that you will only discover and understand when you have read the books referred to. There are puns and jokes you will not get until you are familiar with the cornerstones of literature and thus you will miss a lot of fun.

You can be entertained by Dan Brown, not everyone will find the same entertainment in Umberto Ecos "Foucault's Pendulum" unless your mind has been prepared to make sense of the hints. But then it will create a kind of deep and rich tapestry before your very eyes that is stunning.

The quality of literature is easy to determine by certain standards. Apart from these standards there is a simple method to discern the trash from the gem yourself. I guess anyone can determine it themselves when they are honest. The plots of classical YA books like "Treasure Island" or "The Count of Monte Christo" or "The Musketeers", one is able to tell for the rest of ones lives, this does not hold true for say No. 103 The Three ??? or any other bestselling book you read at that age.

Also arts are interweaved. There is no understanding of the classic paintings unless you know the Bible stories they depict. How are you to grasp what Picasso's Guernica is about without some knowledge of history.

I am sure one can lead a happy life without being knowleadgeable, but I for one prefer to make the most of the gift of reading and ownership of intelligence.

Also I never said I read classics exclusivly and nothing else as I tend to crave mystery and historical novels every once in a while.

Furthermore I used the term trash as opposed to gem. I also talked about literature thus not bashing younger works only trash.

Ah, the joys of Freud once again

[DixieGal]

This thread is becoming very thought provoking, don't you think? It seems like we are exploring what we mean when the lable "classic" is invoked.

I think the idea that something that has become part of our shared identity is "classic." Raise your hand if "The Barber of Seville" brings up memories of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd. And think about how many of our daily conversations contain some sort of Shakespeare quote. And we all know that "A Christmas Carol" is endlessly re-interpretable by Hollywood.

Yes, I believe it is important to have a nodding acquaintance with Austen, Tolstoy, William Blake, and so on. These are windows into our shared culture.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Raise your hand if "The Barber of Seville" brings up memories of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd.

*sheepishly raises hand*

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

*sheepishly raises hand*

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Sorry for being so grumpy but I do fail to see much of a point in Ebert's rambling piece beyond "some authors stand the test of time better than others". He claims that he doesn't want to compile a "list", yet in that case what is the point of telling us about all the authors he has read, unless he only wants to show us that he is such a prolific reader?
The "list" he does not want to provide has some astounding holes. What about European literary giants as Homer, Virgil, Dante, Cervantes, Goethe?
I do not want to rant against lists of "Dead White Males" as I am a white male myself (fortunately not quite dead yet), but do we really still need lists that almost completely ignore all other great civilizations? What about Chinese classics like "The Dream of the Red Chamber"? Japanese literature? Persian? African authors? The only non-Western author seems to be Mahfouz. As a Nobel laureate hardly a very daring choice.
The unbelievable wealth of Spanish and Portuguese literature and all he comes up with are Marquez and Borges? Seriously?
I guess that his list wouldn't have been considered adventurous even 40 years ago. Today it seems exceedingly conservative.
(BTW, Georges Simenon was Belgian, just like Hergé, not French. Thanks.)

ITA! Ebert's rant seemed rather pointless and read like another list of "great American and British writers with some French and a couple of other European writers thrown in". Why is it that most "what to read before you die" or "what to read in order to be cultured" lists are overwhelming white and male (no offense to white males)? Where were the Latino writers, the African American writers, the writers from the Third World on Ebert's list? It's really frustrating because there are so many great writers from all over the world who have such different experiences and perspectives to share but somehow, they always get the shaft. Some of the best literature I have read have been by writers from places such as the Sudan and India. Their use of language, their perspective on the issues affecting their culture as well as the way that they make those issue universal is amazing.

This isn't to say that I don't like Dickens, Gaskell, Austen, Trollope, etc. They're great but I don't think one is necessarily "well read" is he reads these and the other authors that Ebert mentioned or not "well read" if she doesn't read these authors.

Originally Posted by Billi

Same here - and the more if I'm allowed to use "well read" in it's true sense and don't have to reduce it to the classics.

What I don't get is the snobbishness about reading the classics, their preference over "younger" works, the equation reading the classics=being intelligent that was made in one of the posts here.

I love reading the classics, I read a lot of them, so I don't feel addressed personally, but after finishing one of the old books I would never ever assume myself being smarter than anyone who has read a good contemporary book at the same time. In the best case, we both have learnt something about life and the human nature or we have been well entertained.

IA. I do think there is a bias towards the "older" works. It's understandable considering that older literature has withstood the test of time but it does feel problematic sometimes.

[DiapDealer]

It really kind of disturbs me when people imply that an arbitrary list of authors in an article needs to conform to some Politically Correct distribution model that equally highlights gender and/or nationality/religion/culture.

Roger Ebert is an older, English-speaking, male reader. What classic authors did you think he would mention?

It seems that every time something like this comes up, it invariably gets examined with an Affirmative Action microscope.

Sorry faithbw, I wasn't singling you out, my post just happened to follow yours.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It really kind of disturbs me when people imply that an arbitrary list of authors in an article needs to conform to some Politically Correct distribution model that equally highlights gender and/or nationality/religion/culture.

Roger Ebert is an older, English-speaking, male reader. What classic authors did you think he would mention?

It seems that every time something like this comes up, it invariably gets examined with an Affirmative Action microscope.

Sorry faithbw, I wasn't singling you out, my post just happened to follow yours.

No, it's fine.

I disagree with your assertion though. I understand that Ebert is an older white man but I don't think that lets him off the hook so easily. I'm an African American female but in my high school English courses, especially the AP courses, I was still expected to read Dickens, Shakespeare, Wharton, Chaucer, Hardy, even Tolkien. We did read some women and minority writers (Margaret Atwood, Sandra Cisneros, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright) but they were the exceptions and not the rule. Minorities taking English courses still are expected to read the classics like everyone else and we're still held to the same standards when it comes to being "well read".

I don't think it's about being politically correct. I think it's about acknowledging that great works and works of culture are not primarily limited to Western male artists. To be fair, Ebert did mention that he left out "many nations". So I think he is aware of this. When someone points out that writers from other cultures seem to be lacking in our cannon of great literature, I think it shows just how arbitrary our cannon really is. This isn't say that I hate white male writers (I love many of them). I just hate that being "well read" depends on your exposure to certain writers and not others. In fact, the idea of being "well read" carries undertones of elitism that I find troubling.

[Sydney's Mom]

I love Roger Ebert, but he uses well-read in the context of a literature professor. I read contracts and cases all day long - for me, being well-read is reading something that can norish my soul after all that disagreement and negotiating. I agree with DiapDealer that being well-read requires a variety of reading. That is something I struggle with - just like I can eat the same thing for dinner for a month straight (I am at 3 weeks right now with my focaccia flatbread buns and chicken, spinich and cheese burgers), I can read the same thing for an extended period. Right now it is romance and mystery. In 2010 it was books about the financial meltdown. In 2004, it was political books.

But perhaps I doth protest too much.