What does "well-read" mean?

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A lot of the classics would not be read if the term classics was not used with them. A lot are rubbish and don't deserve to still be read.

Please supply examples of what (in your opinion) is rubbish.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by PeterT

Please supply examples of what (in your opinion) is rubbish.

A Passage to India
Books by Charlotte Brontë
The Brothers Karamazov
Ethan Frome
Lolita
King James Bible
Slaughterhouse-Five
April Morning
Vanity Fair
The 39 Steps
Canterbury Tales
Sanditon

That will do for now.

[PeterT]

Geez. And you think Harry Potter deserves to be a classic!

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think you can be considered to be well-read if you can read Finnegans Wake by James Joyce .

I disagree.

Finnegans Wake is an experimental book lauded by many literary critics but not, I think of particular interest to people in general.

I find many literary critics to be snobby, elitist who look down on people who enjoy reading what the critics think are trashy books.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A Passage to India
Books by Charlotte Brontë
The Brothers Karamazov
Ethan Frome
Lolita
King James Bible
Slaughterhouse-Five
April Morning
Vanity Fair
The 39 Steps
Canterbury Tales
Sanditon

That will do for now.

I have not read most of the above as they do not arouse my interest

I have read

The King James Bible is a rip off of the Wycliffe Bible. I also do not consider it a work of "literature" as such (even though I consider it a work of fiction). It does however contain some ringing phrases and passages (usually Wycliffe's work).

The Canterbury Tales, in a modern day translation, I read and enjoyed. I do consider it a work of literature as it was book which helped create and define what English literature was. There are also some cracking stories in it. I do not think reading the original text to be worthwhile unless you have an interest in Linguistics and/or how the English language evolved.

I think I read The 39 Steps as a child but cannot remember anything about it. I must have found it that memorable.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

The King James Bible is a rip off of the Wycliffe Bible. I also do not consider it a work of "literature" as such (even though I consider it a work of fiction). It does however contain some ringing phrases and passages (usually Wycliffe's work).

The King James Bible is rip-off of the Old Testament as someone decided to add content in order to create a new religion.

[tomsem]

‘Well read’ is pretty meaningless these days without some qualification. In past there was some consensus as to what it meant, but I think those days are long gone.

[haertig]

The King James Bible is rip-off of the Old Testament as someone decided to add content in order to create a new religion.

I must say, I haven't heard the New Testament called "added content" before. At least you didn't call it "filler material". But when you called the older writings the Old Testament, you implied that there is a New Testament. Otherwise these writings would have just been called the Testament. I'm surprised that you trapped yourself like that. Tanakh might have been the better term for you to use. But the Tanakh and the Old Testament, while very similar for the most part, are not the same either - and they are interpreted differently (different emphasis) by their respective followers.

I guess I am more "well read" than I thought I was.

[DiapDealer]

I think "well-read" is term that is neither meaningless, nor elitist. No more so than describing someone as being "tall", "wise", or "genial" anyway.

Why does it have to suggest anything other than someone being a well-rounded reader?

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think "well-read" is term that is neither meaningless, nor elitist. No more so than describing someone as being "tall", "wise", or "genial" anyway.

Why does it have to suggest anything other than someone being a well-rounded reader?

I totally agree.

However in the past (60 years plus), in the UK, the term did have a more nuanced and generally accepted meaning. To wit-

"Had read a lot of books well regarded by "polite society" and could take part in discussions about them'

Technical and scientific books did not usually count towards being called "Well Read". There could also be a definite class overtone to the the way the term was used.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

[B]"Had read a lot of books well regarded by "polite society" and could take part in discussions about them'

So in plain English, you are well-read because you can take part in the book club discussions.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There are a lot of modern classics. Classics don't have to be moldy oldies.

Please see the other thread for a discussion on classics.

I should expand my original posts to also include modern books that a well read person would read. (that's a joke).

I would say modern books that are potential classics, or considered influential, or well regarded, ...

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So in plain English, you are well-read because you can take part in the book club discussions.

Jon

At the time I am talking about "Book Clubs" were not really a thing in the UK. It was a case of the people in a social circle who were readers would tend to gravitate together. Books and literature would probably only be a minor part of the general conversation. Also unlike a book club not everyone had necessarily read the same books although there would probably be a fair overlap.

However dropping quotes from books or capping such quotes was a game played by some.

[DiapDealer]

Is the entire objection to the term "well-read" predicated on the notion that it might not be accurate to describe yourself (that's a rhetorical you) as such? I don't consider myself all that "well-read", but don't feel maligned in the least by others being considered so.

[pwalker8]

Well, if one was well read, one could go to the source and define well read.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary well read means

1) Well-informed through reading; having read widely and attentively; learned, erudite.

2) In predicative use. Well-informed in a subject through reading.

3) Of a book, etc.: attentively or (now chiefly) frequently read.

The traditional meaning is the first, well-informed through reading. A well read person is a person who has read or studied a wide variety of subjects and can engage in an informed discussion on those subjects. This is opposed to someone who only has a superficial knowledge, though that rarely stops such a person from loudly expressing their opinion and dismissing anyone who disagrees with them as ignorant.

The second meaning is what the previously mentioned SF writer meant, i.e. someone who is well read in SF is well informed on a wide variety of SF authors and books.

I rarely sees the phrase used in the third sense.