Does anyone want to be "well-read?"

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by PG4003

I saw a little quote once that said something like "If you read a lot of books you are considered well read. Does that mean if you watch a lot of TV you are considered well viewed?"

Just a little humor here

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I read very well.

The "classics" are well and good but they are not the end all of good books that can change/enrich your life.

I have a degree in Lit, I've read quite a large quantity of those works. Do I feel enriched for it? Not really. I felt I received more enrichment from books like "Their Eyes Were Watching God," "Kindred," and "Things Fall Apart." Much more enriching than "Moby Dick." In fact, I loathed "Moby Dick" (but really enjoyed Gilgamesh, go fig).


These books are not considered "Classics" and I really don't care if some book snob decides I'm not intelligent enough because I pick my own poison.

+1

Classics may not speak to everyone. To this day, I loathe Great Expectations (although I did like the adaptation made by the BBC that I saw as an adult). I can't relate to it at all. I don't think I'm not well read because I can't relate to it. In fact, the idea that "classics" are "classics" because everyone can relate to them and they somehow relate universal values that we're all suppose to share is stupid. This is isn't to say that I can't relate to a Victorian novel. I just don't think it should be expected that I do.

There are lots of people in my life who have never even touched the classics outside of an English class. Yet, some of them are incredibly intelligent and well read.

[Janette55]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

This is still bothering me. You read what you thought I'd said only because you find me arrogant.

Why does this happen, when I say I prefer to use the gift of reading and the gift of being intelligent (intalics added by me) for books that are intelligently written?

I don't watch TV-shows either and nobody thinks it is arrogant to say one does not watch Germanys next Topmodel of Get my out of here - I am a Star because it is brainless trash and one prefers to engage ones brains for entertainment?

Why are different standards applied to reading/watching TV/movies?

I will give my response to this. I doubt that you meant too imply this (at least I hope not) but that is how it comes across, arrogant; in other words -- stupid, ignorant individuals do not read well written books. Only an intellectual, or someone "with the gift of intelligence" reads such books.

I come a rural setting, my father grew up on a farm, and to him anyone who went to college was a snob, and saw themselves as superior to others; in other words, superior to him. Mainly because many here who attended college, especially during my childhood, did have the superior attitude. I have a college degree, thus I am an "intellectual" (in other words, the gift of learning), therefore I am better than you.


He owned two businesses, and it may not sound like much to some here, but he made around $100,000 a year (average income here is around $20,000). He could barely read, write, or do math; but it wasn't due to ignorance but lack of a good education. I won't go into the teachers here, sufice to say that you will hear the TEACHERS say "done done it" (cringing). But to many he would not fit the concept of an intelligent individual. I am going to make the assumption (and we know what that can do) that my father would, even with a good education, fit the lower level of average IQ.

Dad would watch the "classics" on tv because he couldn't read them. We were encouraged to read and we had some of what I would call children's classics that my sister and I grew up reading.

I didn't see him as an "intellectual" and he didn't feel he was one just because he enjoyed watching movies made from the classics. He was just a regular person who worked a job, paid his bills, went fishing and hunting and loved to gardern.

I like classics and am going to enjoy reading the ones I have downloaded (well, not all, I am not enjoying Moby Dick) and I do see them in a positive manner.

Just my two cents on what your statement seemed to imply. Which is why I see it as arrogant.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by CazMar

One thing I notice about all these lists of "Great Classics" is the lack of any non-fiction works. I know some scholarship can become dated, but back in the days (seemingly when they had servants to do all that domestic stuff!) people would spend years writing works running into many volumes. A more recent (20th cent.) example would be Copleston's "History of Philosophy" - no purple prose here but if you want to know the history of Western thought this is it. And all in a lightweight 10 volumes or so!

Also am I "well read" because I have studied Homer in its original Greek, or not well read because I loathed quite a few of the books on the list of authors? Homer was much more fun - lots of action and strange monsters!

That is such a good point! A lot of people just don't like reading fiction. My husband will not read fiction at all. He's read non-fiction that might be considered "classic" (at least in the sense that I heard of them in college) but those works don't seem to make the lists of what we should read to be well read. There's never classic works from philosophy, religion, sociology, etc.

[bZkindle]

IMO, it's better to read to be edified rather than entertained. No one will be 'well read' by reading the 'Twilight' trilogy or Dan Brown books.
I don't read much contemporary fiction. Too much of it is derivative and watered-down; not much different than television.

[mayoi]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

*sheepishly raises hand*

+1
And don't forget "What's Opera, Doc?" "Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit, kill the WABBit!"
(Although I love opera for its own sake too.)

I tend to read "the classics" as I do any other book, as the mood strikes me. Some have been real duds ("Lady Chatterley's Lover"), some have changed my life ("Ulysses"). And while the idea of a shared cultural background sounds good in theory, the world is vast and wide and it'd be a shame to only limit my reading to some else's list of books, however well considered it may be.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by Janette55

I will give my response to this. I doubt that you meant too imply this (at least I hope not) but that is how it comes across, arrogant; in other words -- stupid, ignorant individuals do not read well written books. Only an intellectual, or someone "with the gift of intelligence" reads such books.

Ok, I am giving up!

I said I prefer to use it for....

I. Me. Not you, not your dad, not the neighbors cat. I said I prefer to do so. So what the heck is bothering you all?

What is arrogant in saying I prefer to use my gifts and not waste them????

[Sydney's Mom]

Methinks we doth protest too much. This bothers me. Because I agree with it, but I am too "lazy" to do it. i have that in quotes, because I don't challenge myself with my reading becuase I am physically lazy (reading is lazy!), and I am not intellectually lazy at work, but I do "dumb myself down" with my reading. I used to watch soap operas, and that is how my husband, who doesn't read fiction, saw it. I see it as relaxation for my brain, just like reading is relaxation for my body.

In other words, it is a lofty goal, but I pass.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by bZkindle

IMO, it's better to read to be edified rather than entertained. No one will be 'well read' by reading the 'Twilight' trilogy or Dan Brown books.
I don't read much contemporary fiction. Too much of it is derivative and watered-down; not much different than television.

I hate Twilight as well but why is it wrong to read Twilight to be entertained? When people read Dickens, Gaskell, Trollope, etc. in the 19th century, they read them, in part, to be entertained. They were published in magazines and their novels were often published in serial format before being published as the novels we have today. No one back then would be ashamed to say "I read Oliver Twist because it's entertaining." Yet, now this is now seen as a negative.

Much of the contemporary fiction I read is probably serious and isn't threatening Jodi Picoult or Dan Brown on the bestseller list but part of the reason why I read it is because I actually enjoy it. It entertains me. Yes, a novel like Minaret by Leila Aboulela or The Space Between Us by Thrity Umrigar are serious but the stories are also very engrossing.

Sometimes, I even read fiction that definitely wouldn't be on the reading list of any literature class just because I want to read something light and entertaining. I didn't read a book like Anna and the French Kiss because I expected some revelatory story with morals about life and human nature. I read because it was fun to read.

I hope you don't feel I'm attacking you. I'm not and I apologize if I come off that way. I just think if we want people to read more and want them to read out of their comfort zone (reading Steinbeck in addition to Stephanie Meyer), we should also stress that these works can be entertaining in addition to edifying. That people can actually enjoy them. Right now, people get exposure to "classics" in their English classes and they're expected to read them looking for different literary devices they just learned and it often ends up not being an enjoyable experience for many people. So many people see these books as being stuffy novels they were forced to read in school and never look back at them as adults.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by bZkindle

IMO, it's better to read to be edified rather than entertained. No one will be 'well read' by reading the 'Twilight' trilogy or Dan Brown books.
I don't read much contemporary fiction. Too much of it is derivative and watered-down; not much different than television.

I've not even a clue what edified means, but if you don't read to be entertained, why read at all?

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by faithbw

Classics may not speak to everyone.

Sure, but "classics" is not a genre. There is the common impression that a "classic" must be something serious, profound, philosophical, dealing with the eternal fears of the human being, etc. But I believe this is more what the later critics have said about the "classics". You can find adventures, mysteries, light romance, humour, and almost anything among what we know as "classics".

[orlok]

One thing I don't understand is people who won't read fiction. I actually believe there is something "wrong" with that, in the same way that I view people who don't read at all as a bit suspect (my brother, for one).

Maybe it's me that has something missing, which I need to fill with fiction? I read non-fiction as well, but not nearly so much.

[Henry Flower]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I've not even a clue what edified means, but if you don't read to be entertained, why read at all?

Er, to be edified? You might find a dictionary somewhere on t'Interweb to help you.

Entertainment is great: it's pleasant, and if you have gaping voids in your life it can momentarily paper them over, which is better than nothing. But it doesn't make you a better person. It doesn't increase your knowledge, your ability to empathise, your command of the language. Reading literature can do these. Sometimes it will entertain you at the same time (Dickens, Rushdie); sometimes entertainment is not the point of that particular work. Surely we can all agree that these things are also great?

If Pop Idol and Dan Brown float your boat, that's dandy. But if there's nothing else in your life, you really are missing out.

[bZkindle]

Originally Posted by faithbw

I hate Twilight as well but why is it wrong to read Twilight to be entertained? When people read Dickens, Gaskell, Trollope, etc. in the 19th century, they read them, in part, to be entertained. They were published in magazines and their novels were often published in serial format before being published as the novels we have today. No one back then would be ashamed to say "I read Oliver Twist because it's entertaining." Yet, now this is now seen as a negative.

...snip...
I hope you don't feel I'm attacking you. I'm not and I apologize if I come off that way. I just think if we want people to read more and want them to read out of their comfort zone (reading Steinbeck in addition to Stephanie Meyer), we should also stress that these works can be entertaining in addition to edifying. That people can actually enjoy them. Right now, people get exposure to "classics" in their English classes and they're expected to read them looking for different literary devices they just learned and it often ends up not being an enjoyable experience for many people. So many people see these books as being stuffy novels they were forced to read in school and never look back at them as adults.

I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong - you won't go to hell for it- only that I personally rather read something that enriches my life and makes me think. Twilight isn't going to do that.
I don't have the time or inclination to be merely 'entertained'. If I wanted that, I'd watch TV (which I don't).

Now I'm not saying that something like Dostoevsky isn't entertaining. Allah knows I'm entertained by him! Any good writing should grab you and hold you to it. I just abhor shallowness.
As far as people being forced to read them in school...well, they'll just have to make the effort and 'un-learn'- hit the reset button in their minds, so to speak. Reading 'the Da Vinci Code' is not going to help.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I've not even a clue what edified means, but if you don't read to be entertained, why read at all?

For edification?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by bZkindle

IMO, it's better to read to be edified rather than entertained. No one will be 'well read' by reading the 'Twilight' trilogy or Dan Brown books.
I don't read much contemporary fiction. Too much of it is derivative and watered-down; not much different than television.

This statement can be considered offensive on different levels. Dan Brown and Twilight are NOT the only fiction books in world. Have you ever heard of Samuel Delany? His books are the opposite of “derivative and watered-down.” Maybe you should widen your horizons before painting all fiction with the same brush.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Sure, but "classics" is not a genre. There is the common impression that a "classic" must be something serious, profound, philosophical, dealing with the eternal fears of the human being, etc. But I believe this is more what the later critics have said about the "classics". You can find adventures, mysteries, light romance, humour, and almost anything among what we know as "classics".

ITA! There's lots of classic (older) works that didn't aim to be serious at all. You're right. We do have the impression that all classics must be cerebral and that people who live long ago were less interested in entertainment and different genres than we are.

Originally Posted by Henry Flower

Er, to be edified? You might find a dictionary somewhere on t'Interweb to help you.

Entertainment is great: it's pleasant, and if you have gaping voids in your life it can momentarily paper them over, which is better than nothing. But it doesn't make you a better person. It doesn't increase your knowledge, your ability to empathise, your command of the language. Reading literature can do these. Sometimes it will entertain you at the same time (Dickens, Rushdie); sometimes entertainment is not the point of that particular work. Surely we can all agree that these things are also great?

If Pop Idol and Dan Brown float your boat, that's dandy. But if there's nothing else in your life, you really are missing out.

But who's to say that reading Dickens or Rushdie will make you a better person or increase your knowledge (which also begs the question "knowledge of what?")? How will I become a better person by reading The Satanic Verses or Little Dorrit? Maybe reading those works will make you a better reader in the sense that you will more than likely be exposed to different vocabulary, sentence structure, etc. Still, there is the chance you'll read Dickens and want to throw the book at the wall when you're done (yes, I really felt that way when I finished Great Expectations).