What's with the Paranoia?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But the thing is, these days it's possible to be well read without actually reading books. You can learn a lot online without the need to read books to get this information.

I'd disagree. You have to know where the good stuff is on the Internet and most is self opinionated drivel and shorter than traditional magazines. Much is shallow and/or too short. But despite being a keen and fast reader I can't read decent length articles on a tablet or laptop. If I do encounter them, I copy and paste to the wordprocessor, fix up the often atrocious styles and heading levels, images and make an ebook. I'd paste relevant links either inline or as an appendix. Even decent content is often poorly presented on the Web. Too often CMS templates/themes designed to sell the theme, not designed for readers. Clueless graphic design.

You can be well read in some areas just with ebooks, but in other areas the information is still in paper books.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But the thing is, these days it's possible to be well read without actually reading books. You can learn a lot online without the need to read books to get this information. That's why well read is actually an obsolete term.

Nope. Well-informed ≠ well-read. No one can read everything, but well-read still implies a familiarity with literature. Facts are important, but someone who’s only read the Wikipedia entries on various great books is not well-read. Well-read necessitates engaging with a text, following a sustained narrative or argument, not getting a plot summary and a list of main characters.

I do find it bizarre that on a forum dedicated to reading and means of reading, that someone would argue that the concept of being well-read is obsolete. I think it’s another case of arguing from the personal and making it the standard. Any person might decide that being well-read is not something they care to pursue, and why not? As I said, there’s no test on Monday and in any case, it’s a goal that keep receding. But you can’t jump from, “I don’t wanna” to “It’s obsolete” and hope to persuade.

[DNSB]

So what types of books are suggested to be read to be well-read? To me, well-read has been rather vaguely defined. I've seen definitions from reads a lot of classics together with arguments over what classics along with reads Greek and Latin classics in the original language, has read authors that most people have never heard of, will never hear of and don't care to hear of, has a head full of miscellaneous bits and bobs that few care about but can be produced like a party trick, etc.

When you consider the total number of books available now compared to the number available through most of history? At one point in time, the majority of books published were theological whether books about theology or fiction based on theology. How many people in this forum has read a book of sermons in the last decade?

I consider myself as on the way to be being well-read but there is no place where I can see myself stopping and saying, "Well, self, we are now well-read", it's more of a death march.

[JSWolf]

If you've not read The Hobbit and The Lords of the Rings, you are not well read.

If you've enjoyed any books by L. Ron Hubbard, you can never be well read.

[Sirtel]

I don't consider myself well-read, although I've read many classics in my younger days. Nor do I care a whit about such a label. I read for pure escapism and am perfectly content to admit it. For this reason my reading material is almost entirely genre fiction nowadays, with an occasional nonfiction thrown in. A word "literary" (as in literary fiction) makes me run without looking back. I even avoid genre books which have that dreaded word stuck in their description. The story and characters are vastly more important to me than the quality of writing.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If you've not read The Hobbit and The Lords of the Rings, you are not well read.

If you've enjoyed any books by L. Ron Hubbard, you can never be well read.

I do so love gatekeeping.

[fabricalado]

Originally Posted by issybird

I do find it bizarre that on a forum dedicated to reading and means of reading, that someone would argue that the concept of being well-read is obsolete. I think it’s another case of arguing from the personal and making it the standard. Any person might decide that being well-read is not something they care to pursue, and why not? As I said, there’s no test on Monday and in any case, it’s a goal that keep receding. But you can’t jump from, “I don’t wanna” to “It’s obsolete” and hope to persuade.

Notice that the person making these claims is the same who came up with the "not registering your ereader on the company who sold it makes you paranoid and good luck trying to disprove that" argument.

[haertig]

I probably should have not used the term "well read". I should have said "reads a lot". My feeling is that people who read a lot, no matter what it is they read, are generally on the more intelligent side of the genius/idiot scale.

I read a lot. I am slow, but I keep chugging along. However, I do not consider myself "well read". Reading about underground monsters, while entertaining, is not going to elevate my mind to the elite tiers. I am well read in technical books, but not in literary works. I have not read Moby Dick. I have read only a handful of the books typically called "classics". I find them stilted, formal, and boring. Underground monsters rule! But that's just me. BTW, one of my favorite movies - I love the comedic banter between the characters - is "Tremors!" "Galaxy Quest" is right up there too. I highly doubt these are well respected by movie elitists. But I can be an elitist too if required - when performing piano recitals, I play Chopin, Liszt, Schubert, Brahms, etc. and not rap music. I readily admit that I look down on rap music when compared to my personal choices of what to play. I guess that means I am "well read" in musical performance.

Sorry, I should have said "reads a lot" from the get-go. But it has been interesting to see others thoughts regarding what "well read" means.

[barryem]

I'm not sure I'd use the word "obsolete" but I've always felt that "well read" meant something like "read a lot of the stuff I like". It's not a term that I've ever considered very meaningful. However, "obsolete" implies it was once meaningful and I'm not sure it ever was.

I read a lot of westerns and mysteries and I also read a lot of classics and best-sellers, especially those of earlier times. But well read? I don't think so. There's too much good stuff I haven't read and much that I won't read because I'm just not interested. A couple of examples are Joyce and Faulkner. No thanks. But I've read a lot of Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Pearl S Buck, etc. Maybe I'm half well read. Really though I don't think the term means anything very useful.

Barry

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by barryem

Maybe I'm half well read. Really though I don't think the term means anything very useful.

I would agree that the term is not as meaningful as it once was. The sheer number of books on any topic now far exceed the number that even a university library had on any topic in the mid-1800's.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by DNSB

The sheer number of books on any topic now far exceed the number that even a university library had on any topic in the mid-1800's.

Just out of curiosity, I think the longest written work in the world is a fanfic around 4.5 million words.

(There used to be another fanfic that was technically over 7 million words but it...really shouldn't count.)

[Larla]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If you've not read The Hobbit and The Lords of the Rings, you are not well read.

If you've enjoyed any books by L. Ron Hubbard, you can never be well read.

I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I have also read a lot both in depth and breadth. However, I am utterly heartbroken to find out that I can never be well read since I have just finished Battlefield Earth for the 4th time and thoroughly enjoyed it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Larla

I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I have also read a lot both in depth and breadth. However, I am utterly heartbroken to find out that I can never be well read since I have just finished Battlefield Earth for the 4th time and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I did read Battlefield Earth once. It started off OK but got progressively worse as it went along. Ended up being awful. It was too long, too wordy, and had too many places it could have ended. It's like Hubbard decided to keep going after he ended the story.

[Larla]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I did read Battlefield Earth once.

At least I am glad that, like me, you can never be well read either.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I did read Battlefield Earth once. It started off OK but got progressively worse as it went along. Ended up being awful. It was too long, too wordy, and had too many places it could have ended. It's like Hubbard decided to keep going after he ended the story.

Blame the El Rons
(and yes, I read all 10. ONCE)
It got so bad (long) that other Authors poked fun at the series/Author in their books.