Does anyone want to be "well-read?"

[Poppaea]

This is still bothering me. You read what you thought I'd said only because you find me arrogant.

Why does this happen, when I say I prefer to use the gift of reading and the gift of being intelligent for books that are intelligently written?

I don't watch TV-shows either and nobody thinks it is arrogant to say one does not watch Germanys next Topmodel of Get my out of here - I am a Star because it is brainless trash and one prefers to engage ones brains for entertainment?

Why are different standards applied to reading/watching TV/movies?

[JDK1962]

In the book A History of Reading, Alberto Manguel wrote something I always liked, and that was that we as individuals read everything through the lens of what we've read before. The implication is that no two people experience any book in the same way.

I'll read classics or books published last week, as long as I have some hope that they'll be good (which for me implies some sort of literary merit). When I dislike a book, most of the time I try to remind myself that it's probably more my fault than the author's, and that there are plenty more books on the horizon. I don't beat myself up if I find some "classic" or a modern prize-winner to be mind-numbingly tedious and set it aside. I've done the English degree, I'm reading for pleasure now.

[PG4003]

I saw a little quote once that said something like "If you read a lot of books you are considered well read. Does that mean if you watch a lot of TV you are considered well viewed?"

Just a little humor here

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by PG4003

I saw a little quote once that said something like "If you read a lot of books you are considered well read. Does that mean if you watch a lot of TV you are considered well viewed?"

Just a little humor here

Karma for that coming your way!

[lila55]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

In the book A History of Reading, Alberto Manguel wrote something I always liked, and that was that we as individuals read everything through the lens of what we've read before. The implication is that no two people experience any book in the same way.

I would even like to expand that ... not only do we read through the lens of what we have read before, but also there is the additional lens of what we have experienced in our lives before, so that a book with a particular topic or written in a particular style might appeal strongly to one reader whereas the other cannot relate to it at all.

[MrsJoseph]

I read very well.

The "classics" are well and good but they are not the end all of good books that can change/enrich your life.

I have a degree in Lit, I've read quite a large quantity of those works. Do I feel enriched for it? Not really. I felt I received more enrichment from books like "Their Eyes Were Watching God," "Kindred," and "Things Fall Apart." Much more enriching than "Moby Dick." In fact, I loathed "Moby Dick" (but really enjoyed Gilgamesh, go fig).


These books are not considered "Classics" and I really don't care if some book snob decides I'm not intelligent enough because I pick my own poison.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by lila55

I would even like to expand that ... not only do we read through the lens of what we have read before, but also there is the additional lens of what we have experienced in our lives before, so that a book with a particular topic or written in a particular style might appeal strongly to one reader whereas the other cannot relate to it at all.

Jein, there are only as many topics in fiction as there are motives for murder: money and love. So where would that different experience fit in?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

Jein, there are only as many topics in fiction as there are motives for murder: money and love. So where would that different experience fit in?

I think that would fit in with non-fiction as well...

But the actual topics in both fiction and non-fiction are:

man vs. man
man vs himself
man vs environment (or nature)
man vs machine (technology/magic, etc)
man vs society

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It really kind of disturbs me when people imply that an arbitrary list of authors in an article needs to conform to some Politically Correct distribution model that equally highlights gender and/or nationality/religion/culture.

Roger Ebert is an older, English-speaking, male reader. What classic authors did you think he would mention?

It seems that every time something like this comes up, it invariably gets examined with an Affirmative Action microscope.

Sorry faithbw, I wasn't singling you out, my post just happened to follow yours.

Ebert's dire list made me get Harold Bloom's "Genius" from my bookshelf. Harold Bloom is a "white male" - born in 1930 - and as a literary critic he is probably as conservative as it gets. Yet even he looks at a much wider scope of authors whom he considers as literary genius, encompassing Muhammad and Murasaki Shikibu. You don't have to hold the opinion that no literary canon is complete unless it also features a female, Marxist writer with a disability from Guatemala to consider Ebert's list as parochial and limited. His college reading list from the 1960s doesn't even meet the criteria of the traditional canon as it does not feature any of the ancient authors.

[DiapDealer]

Yet even he looks at a much wider scope of authors whom he considers as literary genius, encompassing Muhammad and Murasaki Shikibu.

See, that's just not fair. I would love to read non-english works, and judge for myself whether or not their authors are literary geniuses. But unfortunately, English is my first and only language--and I refuse to read translated works. So how could I possibly put an author that I can't read (translated as any non-english speaking person) on my personal list of "classics?" Couldn't Roger Ebert (or anyone for that matter) be of the same opinion as me?

And I'm not being culturally biased by choosing not to read translated works, I just have no way of knowing exactly whose prose I'm reading if the authors themselves didn't do the translating. That bugs me...

I don't know what I'm trying to say anymore. Ignore me.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

See, that's just not fair. I would love to read non-english works, and judge for myself whether or not their authors are literary geniuses. But unfortunately, English is my first and only language--and I refuse to read translated works. So how could I possibly put an author that I can't read (translated as any non-english speaking person) on my personal list of "classics?" Couldn't Roger Ebert (or anyone for that matter) be of the same opinion as me?

Well, Ebert did include Kafka (German), Simenon (French), Chekhov (Russian), Borges (Spanish), Mahfouz (Arabic). That would make him a pretty accomplished linguist if he were only reading books in their original languages.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Well, Ebert did include Kafka (German), Simenon (French), Chekhov (Russian), Borges (Spanish), Mahfouz (Arabic). That would make him a pretty accomplished linguist if he were only reading books in their original languages.

I hope you are talking languages here, not countries

[Freeshadow]

To answer the question - yes I want to. Why?

• for my own pleasure
• for being able to share a common basis of symbology
• and finally - because we learn and develop while we suffer and master our personal quests - to find solace and strenght in the fact that none of the sufferings I endured or will in the future is neither new nor unique to me.

[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!

[Pomtroll]

I've read books by a lot of those authors. Most in school & some later because as an adult I have a different perspective. BUT there are many good authors today & they are writing tomorrow's classics.

I read many different genres & mostly read for entertainment now-a-days. Still there are some classics worth reading again.