Does anyone want to be "well-read?"

[Henry Flower]

Originally Posted by faithbw

I
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).

To answer your first question literally, you and I - each individual reader - is to say. Little Dorrit may edify you, but not me. If not, that's my bad luck. I'll take the chance (I'm a daredevil that way).

At the risk of being a tease, David Copperfield is one Dickens novel that I'm sure did make me a better person, but we don't know each other well enough for me to tell you exactly how.

And I'm still not a good enough person to resist the linguistic nitpick - it raises the question, it doesn't beg it.

[bZkindle]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

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.

haha. alrighty then!
Brown and Twilight are mere examples. There are others, as well as many exceptions.
I never stated that I don't read contemporary literature. I do.
I never stated that it's all 'derivative and watered-down', only that "too much" of it is.
Your criticism makes no sense.

Oh and by the way, you're talking to an huge Philip K. Dick fan here, so perhaps you should put your brush away.

[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.

Your statement here is extremely condescending.

Originally Posted by bZkindle

haha. alrighty then!
Brown and Twilight are mere examples. There are others, as well as many exceptions.
I never stated that I don't read contemporary literature. I do.
I never stated that it's all 'derivative and watered-down', only that "too much" of it is.
Your criticism makes no sense.

Oh and by the way, you're talking to an huge Philip K. Dick fan here, so perhaps you should put your brush away.

I think that –based upon the statement that I was replying to – my criticism makes perfect sense.

And you’re the one making broad generalizations about a large portion of the books being read by the general public.

[Henry Flower]

I can't find the edit button, so I'll add this as a new post.

Originally Posted by faithbw

How will I become a better person by reading The Satanic Verses or Little Dorrit?

For an example, I'll take The Enchantress of Florence, because I read it more recently than Satanic Verses. Here's a quote from Rushdie talking about the book:

In the book there is the constant question of how we come to mean something. So there are two kinds of characters in the book. First, there are characters who think that your life acquires meaning as the consequence of a journey -- that you go somewhere, do something, conquer something or realize some achievement. That's how you become somebody: by leaving home, traveling. The Mughals came from what is now Kurdistan to India and established an empire, and that's what they meant.

On the other hand, there are characters in the book who think that's kind of absurd. They think, "Why would you leave home?" -- because for them, home is the place where you mean something.

This is an abstract presentation of one idea presented vividly in the book - two contrasting character types. One can understand the abstract idea, intellectually, in a minute or two by reading the quote. But by reading the book itself, one understands it in a different way - the speech, behaviour, and thoughts of the characters which Rushdie relates bring home the idea of the contrast. (The same way that meeting and talking to homeless people, for example, might bring home to you aspects of their lives which you hitherto understood only in an abstract way.) The reader can therefore come to understand a group of people (whichever of the two groups he doesn't belong to) which he might not meet in real life (or which he might not have thought about in this way). He can become a better (in this case, more understanding) person.

[Janette55]

I think that part of the problem here is that, like on any forum, the naunces get in the way. I say something meaning something, and someone sees it as a different way, unfortunately the way it is discerned creates a wrong impression. Did that make sense?

I know what I want to say and even hint at something else, but instead it is perceived differently. This happens on any forum, in any conversation.
And that can be th problem many of us are having of our perception of what the classic represent to us and in expressing it.

For me reading material has always represented food for the mind. And using that, I go with that the ego and superego want classics, something that has substance to it. The id wants what many see as drivel, pure pleasue that provide no substance, just an a a piece of candy has no use except to provide pleasure to the senses.
Many of the romance novels that I read would be considered drivel, and I would in all honestly agree with them, for the most part. But the difference is that just as in the classics I can find books that make me think, to stop and ponder and expand my horizon (a a college instuctor stated), but so can some of the drivel. But I will in no way state it should ever be considered in the same category as classic books are.

I guess what I am thinking is, I don't want to limit myself to one type, only classics, only romance, only non-fiction, and the list can go on.
And there can be this same attitude of what is well-written even within genres. Romance is a good example; some who read historical see those who read paranormal as if it is they are from the dredges of society.
I am rambling here, thinking of the how and whys of it all.

Or I could be going off the deep end and somone needs to throw me a rope.





nuance

[Salgueiros]

I'll just say that my life is too short to read all the books that i would like to read.

So, having to be selective, and quite frankly with most of what is published today being rubbish i must say that i my pile of books to be read is filled with a lot of books that someone would consider classics, old or modern. Of course there are exceptions to this "rule" but they are few.

I read a lot of nonfiction and in that field the modern books are way more represented.

I do have a critic however to the list the author presents. I am Portuguese, so a not so small chunk of my classics are of Portuguese language authors, and i think some of them are worth the label of universal classics, so i am surprised that the list is so full of english authors. I could say the same about french, or spanish or any other language. I do think we have to look beyond our own personal, cultural and mental borders to find the best of the best.

Do i think some books are much more worth my time than others? Definitely. Do some books provide me more substance, more sublime pleasure, more enlightenment, more artistic delight? For sure!

Do these books more often than not fit in the list some critics say "classics"? A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y.

[Poppaea]

The book of Disquiet. Could not live without it.

Just started José Saramagos The Elephants Journey. Wonderful language even translated it has a certain timbre and if it were a smell, it were a mixture of roses, citrus and plums.

[Sweetpea]

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".

And not all classics must be from before the 1900's either.

I am reading Asimov now (the Foundation series). And I think his robot stories should be a must-read for everybody. But you won't see Asimov on any "classics" list.

Originally Posted by bZkindle

For edification?

As nobody cares to explain what it means, I still keep my statement: if you don't read for entertainment, why read at all? I read to quiet my thoughts before going to bed, I read to pass the time, but mostly I read because I like to read. And thus read for entertainment.

[Anke Wehner]

What really gets on my nerves is the attitude of "if you don't like this book, you are just too stupid to get it". Because the opinions of critics and scholars are absolute truths, and someone who doesn't agree with their tastes is defective, apparently.

I'll stick to genre-fiction, thanks. I haven't been labelled stupid for disliking one of those yet.

@Sweetpea: Wiktionary says, "a building up, especially in a moral, emotional, or spiritual sense; moral, intellectual, or spiritual improvement; through encouragement and instruction".

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

What really gets on my nerves is the attitude of "if you don't like this book, you are just too stupid to get it". Because the opinions of critics and scholars are absolute truths, and someone who doesn't agree with their tastes is defective, apparently.

I get the same impression...

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

@Sweetpea: Wiktionary says, "a building up, especially in a moral, emotional, or spiritual sense; moral, intellectual, or spiritual improvement; through encouragement and instruction".

That still doesn't clarify the problem to me. Whenever I read a book, I learn. I even learned from the latest Dan Brown book. And I read that book for entertainment. Even though it wasn't really written very well, it did point to some interesting facts, which made me look further.

So, I keep standing to my statement, if you don't read for entertainment, why read at all? (naturally, I'm not counting those books you must read for education)

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I even learned from the latest Dan Brown book. And I read that book for entertainment. Even though it wasn't really written very well, it did point to some interesting facts, which made me look further.

So, I keep standing to my statement, if you don't read for entertainment, why read at all? (naturally, I'm not counting those books you must read for education)

And if one is looking for or getting out the same entertainment and broadening of ones horizon in a well written book it does not fit in your concept and is therefore to be dismissed by you.

Those who like the classics have all stated to be entertained by them. I said I like my entertainment to engage my brains and this is what classics can do all while being entertaining.

So why do you stubbornly repeat this rubbish?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

And if one is looking for or getting out the same entertainment and broadening of ones horizon in a well written book it does not fit in your concept and is therefore to be dismissed by you.

Those who like the classics have all stated to be entertained by them. I said I like my entertainment to engage my brains and this is what classics can do all while being entertaining.

So why do you stubbornly repeat this rubbish?

It's not rubbish. It's the fact that people think that only reading accepted "classics" will stretch your mind that is rubbish.

[astrangerhere]

As this is an issue that utterly subjective and different for every person, i think Poohbear is worth repeating. I happen to agree with all of her comments. But my partner hates reading "classics." She finds her ideas and meaning elsewhere...and that is just fine.

If Twlight or Dan Brown or whatever other popfic of the week provides you the mental and spiritual sustenance you need and/or want, fine. I don't look down on you, and I certainly don't condescend to you through mocking. We just choose to spend our time in different places. Perhaps if we all took a week and traded books we'd all learn something about one another and this thread would not have gotten so hateful sounding.

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

Why does one want to be well-read? Why are the authors listed in the article listed there? Why read them at all?

Well ...

Perhaps to discover a compelling story that you will never forget, and will want to return to and relive again and again ...

Perhaps to marvel with widely opened eyes at an author's dexterity and expertise with language -- making it sing or speak in ways totally unexpected or beautiful to eye & ear ...

Perhaps to find yourself with tears coursing down your face as you are unable to tear your eyes from a page ...

Perhaps to meet people you might never meet ... or ever want to meet ... in person

Perhaps to find a new world of experience, sensations, thoughts, humor .... a boundless universe to explore

These are a few reasons I have, and will continue to, read authors in that list.

[and yes - being forced to read them in school can sour you for life ... but recovery is possible. Throughout college & grad school, I "had" to read Moby Dick at least 5 times, and was always glad to reach the final scene of the sinking Pequod. I read it again last year ... as if for the first time ... and discovered just how funny parts of it were ... and how tragically sad other parts were ... it was a different book]

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

And not all classics must be from before the 1900's either.

I am reading Asimov now (the Foundation series). And I think his robot stories should be a must-read for everybody. But you won't see Asimov on any "classics" list.

Not now but I'm sure it'll happen.

Asimov was great in tech and social development predictions, as was Verne in his times.

Both show descriptions of tech, which after reality followed, turn out to be half fitting and half far too archaic. So both authors have dreamt too cautious
Remember the scanner-pen used by academics which Asimov described in one of his shorts?
It was said the pen works with microfiche.
Now we have a pens with ARM-processor built in and doing OCR on-the-fly:
cpen.com

His laws of robotics are now afaik seriously accepted and taken into consideration by AI scientists.

His predicted decay of human abilities due to rising tech-level are known concerns too.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

What really gets on my nerves is the attitude of "if you don't like this book, you are just too stupid to get it". Because the opinions of critics and scholars are absolute truths, and someone who doesn't agree with their tastes is defective, apparently.

I'll stick to genre-fiction, thanks. I haven't been labelled stupid for disliking one of those yet.

@Sweetpea: Wiktionary says, "a building up, especially in a moral, emotional, or spiritual sense; moral, intellectual, or spiritual improvement; through encouragement and instruction".

+1

Me too! It's such an elitist attitude and yet people who think this way will become very angry if you point this out. We tend to treat literary critics' opinions as being 100% completely objective truths that we must never, ever disagree with.