What does "well-read" mean?

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by 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.

Definition #1 is pretty much what I think of as "well-read".

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, while I did read some classics in the past I wouldn't really consider myself truly "well-read" per the Oxford definition posted above. As an adult, I've mostly stuck to my preferred genre. Therefore, I don't feel maligned if others don't consider me truly well-read. If I placed importance on it I could do something about it by reading a wider variety of books, but honestly at this point in my life I read mainly for escape.

[issybird]

I think of being well-read as a journey rather than as an achievement; that said, it helps a lot to have gotten an early start.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by 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.

I am glad the dictionary matches my understanding of the term, sad that elitists have weaponized it, and dismayed that the uninformed have corrupted it into uselessness.

I know that dictionaries can not keep up with language evolution, but not all evolution is in a good direction, especially when it results in meaninglessness.

I also do not see how reading only Finnegan's Wake can convey breadth and depth of knowledge. Maybe I should move it to the top of the TBR list.

[JSWolf]

If #1 is the best definition, given that I've read a lot of different text books and learned from them, can that count as well-read?

[DiapDealer]

Nothing's stopping you from considering yourself well-read if you want to, Jon. There is no commission that's going to officially bestow the honor upon you (or anyone for that matter), though.

[astrangerhere]

Princeton's English Lexicon defines well-read as follows:

S: (adj) well-read (well informed or deeply versed through reading) "respect for a well-read man"; "well-read in medieval history"
S: (adj) knowing, knowledgeable, learned, lettered, well-educated, well-read (highly educated; having extensive information or understanding) "knowing instructors"; "a knowledgeable critic"; "a knowledgeable audience"

There is a massive difference between being well informed in one topic versus many, but someone can be well-read in both senses, of course. I would argue it is the difference between being an expert and a polymath.

I think all the negative connotations we put on the phrase are, as stated above, due in great part to wanting to be considered well-read, but know others wouldn't (due to perceived elitism).

I'd honestly go for the polymath method every time, with a good Zettelkasten to help me relate ideas and thoughts from across a universe of topics. I am an expert in my particular field, but it does not bring me the same pride as when I connect a phrase from a world war I memoir with a 2018 novel.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Princeton's English Lexicon defines well-read as follows:



There is a massive difference between being well informed in one topic versus many, but someone can be well-read in both senses, of course. I would argue it is the difference between being an expert and a polymath.

I think all the negative connotations we put on the phrase are, as stated above, due in great part to wanting to be considered well-read, but know others wouldn't (due to perceived elitism).

I'd honestly go for the polymath method every time, with a good Zettelkasten to help me relate ideas and thoughts from across a universe of topics. I am an expert in my particular field, but it does not bring me the same pride as when I connect a phrase from a world war I memoir with a 2018 novel.

One can be well-read in both senses of the phrase. Being a polymath does not preclude being an expert in one or more areas. Indeed, many famous polymaths were also experts in certain fields. Equally obvious, being a polymath does not preclude ignorance in a specific field.

I suspect that some consider a certain core knowledge is needed to be considered well read. There is likely some truth to that.

[barryem]

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.

Terms like "rubbish" are just opinions and what's rubbish differs from person to person. I think the same is true of terms like "classic". I enjoy reading books by some writers who are considered classic writers, such as Thomas Hardy, whose books I've read and re-read since I was young.

I read John Steinbeck's books as contemporary novels, eagerly awaiting the next one. Today they're classics although they still seem fresh to me.

I find it hard to imagine a book that doesn't deserve to be read. There are books I don't choose to read but others do and that's fine. My tastes aren't the only tastes. I'm glad there's something for each of us to enjoy.

Barry

[barryem]

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 haven't read anything by any of the Bronte's. I may someday. But "A Passage to India" was one of the most impressive stories I've ever read. "Lolita" was awfully good as well. And I loved the "Canterbury Tales". I managed to read them in Middle English, which took quite a while and wore out my glossary. I learned more about the English language from that than from anything else I've ever read. And I still have fun telling some of those stories to my friends. The Miller's Tale is probably the most fun story to tell at a party of any I know. Of course you have to be careful which parties you choose to tell it.

"Slaughterhouse Five" was one of the most unique and original novels I've encountered. I love telling the stories of Kilgore Trout to my friends. This is just a fun book to read.

Oh yeah, do you know the story of the alien, whose language consisted of spitting and farting, who landed his flying saucer in a park and the house across the street caught fire as the saucer flew over. The alien jumped out and ran into the house to warn the family and began to shout at them in his native language. Come on, Mr. Wolfe. You have to admit that's fun!

I'm not sure I'd call "The King James Bible" a classic. That's too small a word for it. It, more than anything else, is the foundation of Western Civilization. That's got to make it worthwhile!

I haven't read the others on your list. At least not yet, but I'll bet there are some good things in them as well.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

Actually the early Christians ignored the Old Testament until they began to realize that being part of a new religion caused them problems with the Romans, such as being drafted into armies and special taxes, etc. So they began to present themselves as having forked from Judaism, which made them seem to be an old religion, at least to the Romans, who didn't know much about either at that time. To make this believable they began to adopt the Old Testament. As I recall from my reading most early Christians weren't even aware of the Old Testament before they did this. This all took place in the first 100 or so years of Christianity.

Barry

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by barryem

Actually the early Christians ignored the Old Testament until they began to realize that being part of a new religion caused them problems with the Romans, such as being drafted into armies and special taxes, etc. So they began to present themselves as having forked from Judaism, which made them seem to be an old religion, at least to the Romans, who didn't know much about either at that time. To make this believable they began to adopt the Old Testament. As I recall from my reading most early Christians weren't even aware of the Old Testament before they did this. This all took place in the first 100 or so years of Christianity.

Barry

Thanks for that Barry. I had not come across that before.

Re Thomas Hardy. We were forced to analyse his books in Secondary School (Ages 11-16). This ended up with me and the rest of the class disliking his books.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by barryem

Actually the early Christians ignored the Old Testament until they began to realize that being part of a new religion caused them problems with the Romans, such as being drafted into armies and special taxes, etc. So they began to present themselves as having forked from Judaism, which made them seem to be an old religion, at least to the Romans, who didn't know much about either at that time. To make this believable they began to adopt the Old Testament. As I recall from my reading most early Christians weren't even aware of the Old Testament before they did this. This all took place in the first 100 or so years of Christianity.

Barry

I hadn't heard of it either, very interesting.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

Actually the early Christians ignored the Old Testament until they began to realize that being part of a new religion caused them problems with the Romans, such as being drafted into armies and special taxes, etc. So they began to present themselves as having forked from Judaism, which made them seem to be an old religion, at least to the Romans, who didn't know much about either at that time. To make this believable they began to adopt the Old Testament. As I recall from my reading most early Christians weren't even aware of the Old Testament before they did this. This all took place in the first 100 or so years of Christianity.

Barry

I'm not sure where you read this theory. Certainly, the founding figures of Christianity were well aware of that it was a Jewish offshoot, though it's quite possible many of the adherents were not. The early Christian church was more of a loose collection of individual churches with many individual writings and beliefs. The early history of the church is an interesting and fairly controversial subject.

[John F]

Originally Posted by barryem

I haven't read anything by any of the Bronte's. I may someday. But "A Passage to India" was one of the most impressive stories I've ever read. "Lolita" was awfully good as well. ...

Damn you barryem, you've just expanded my already too long TBR list.