Does anyone want to be "well-read?"

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by 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.

I just want to finish The Sound and the Fury.

[kennyc]

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!

http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100...st-nonfiction/

[Assassin]

To each his own. I read Hemingway and was bored nearly to death. I prefer fiction with action and don't care for the simplistic interactions of many of the classics. I won't put them down because it is obvious they wouldn't be "classics" if many people didn't rate them highly.
I would prefer to reread Atlas Shrugged for the fifth time rather than some of the highly rated classics that I've sampled and put down.
As far as the people who prefer to read and reread the classics mentioned; I applaud the fact that you have found books you truly love. That's the ultimate goal of reading.

[Barty]

I read Les Miserables when I was 11 not knowing it was supposed to be "good for me" and loved it. I read Scarlet Letter and loved that too. I read Catcher in the Rye and thought why would I want to read about an annoying kid when I was an annoying kid myself? Then I read Moby Dick and that thing almost killed the classics for me. Why why does anybody think it's a good idea to put that in the juvenile library?

Currently, my favorite classic author is Henry James. I also love Asimov(*) and Stephen King's (older stuff). It's not about classics vs contemporary vs genre fiction for me. There are different modes of enjoyment to be had.

(*) who is most like Asimov? I keep looking and never quite finding.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by BenBanned

Honestly I think people should feel ashamed of buying (most) romances, it's porn for old ladies.
.

1) romance is for women of all ages. 2) it may serve somewhat the same guilty pleasure for women as porn does for men, but that does not make it porn. For one thing, no one is exploited to produce it.

I think romance is analogously closer to the action genre and comic books. Twilight is more X-Men than Playboy. I don't think girls have an equivalent to Playboy. (I assume Playgirl is read mostly by gay men)