Ben Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That BBC thing sound ludicrous. Everyone has different tastes, and there are different genres and so many books out there! So how can anyone possibly say you aren't a reader if you can't quote from certain authors? That's ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainFreeze Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm willing to bet that, like me, there are others who don't mention every book they read, for the very reasons brought up in this thread. I think that's really sad:cry2: No one should feel like they can't 'admit' to what they've read - reading anything is great in my opinion and is something we need to encourage more of. I agree with the majority - it's all about personal taste. I've read some of the classics (some of which I liked, some I didn't) but I don't think it makes me more, or less, of a reader than the next person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie2008 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I agree with this. I use reading as light entertainment so most of my books are chick-lit novels. I feel that they are classed as "easy" and I should have read more classical novels. To be honest, I don't really like classical books (except Dickens). I hate having to concentrate too much on reading a book, and if I don't understand the way it's written I just give up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freewheeling Andy Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I think there's something to be said for the question. I'm not sure there's anything in particular you need to have read, but lots and lots of books reference other ideas or thoughts or plots. And as a result you lose those references and you miss large parts of what an author's trying to tell you. I'd think the stuff most referenced, and therefore most important, are things like Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm; along with Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol by Dickens. And possibly Pride and Prejudice (which, incidentally, I've never read). Not just the best books, but the touchstone books that are always referred back to. Possibly, I'd add Huckleberry Finn. There aren't many that are really, really widely referenced. But there are lots that some authors will assume knowledge of, which make up a second tier. I wouldn't say "You can't call yourself a reader unless", but you will certainly miss some of the substance of lots of books if you haven't read a fair amount from what might be described as The Canon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 No, see I don't buy that comment, Freewheeling Andy. Huckleberry Finn is the only one on your list that I have read (it was a requirement at school) and I don't feel as though I am losing anthing, or not "getting" anything that an author is trying to tell me simply becuase I haven't read the others on that list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freewheeling Andy Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Do you never read references to 1984, or mentions of somebody being a bit "Snowball", say? If something talks of Bob Cratchitt or "Ghost of Christmas Future" in a book, does it pass you by? I've not read any Jane Austen, and I only know Christmas Carol from film versions (the Muppet one remains my favourite). But I know I'm missing out in the books I do read because of the ones I haven't. If I think about it, the most referenced on of all, which I also haven't read more than fragments of, is the bible. And again, I know I'm missing important stuff as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueK Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That BBC thing sound ludicrous. Everyone has different tastes, and there are different genres and so many books out there! So how can anyone possibly say you aren't a reader if you can't quote from certain authors? That's ridiculous. It was a quiz on the BBC website a while back. I tried answering some of the questions but because I couldn't quote some Dylan Thomas or Samuel Becket (sorry, not my sort of read), I didnt get very good marks. The comment quoted was I should start to learn to read..... I was quite taken aback! If I was in my "disgusted from Tunbridge Wells" mood, I would have written back, but I didn't:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I would've written back?! Learn to read? just because you haven't read what they necessarily want you to, doesn't mean that they can say that. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggiesfan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 [quote=Echo;210723]I would say, you can't call yourself a reader unless you've read something by: Charles Dickens Ernest Hemingway Jane Austen or at least ONE of the Bronte sisters. Well in that case there is no way i can be a reader then lol i haven't read any of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Do you never read references to 1984, or mentions of somebody being a bit "Snowball", say? If something talks of Bob Cratchitt or "Ghost of Christmas Future" in a book, does it pass you by? I've not read any Jane Austen, and I only know Christmas Carol from film versions (the Muppet one remains my favourite). But I know I'm missing out in the books I do read because of the ones I haven't. If I think about it, the most referenced on of all, which I also haven't read more than fragments of, is the bible. And again, I know I'm missing important stuff as a result. Of course I have read things that referenced most what you have said, but it doesn't pass me by. I'm not thick & those things have become part of common popular culture, so one doesn't necessarily have to have read 1984 to know what it is about & I think you'd have to have been living in a cave to not know who the Ghost of Christmas Past or Bob Cratchitt was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainFreeze Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Freewheeling Andy, I can see your point but I have to disagree with you - while I'm not saying that some people may not have a clue what another person is talking about if they make reference to a part of a classic book, does that not happen in everyday life anyway? Regardless of how 'well read' someone is? Someone can read a lot of the classics, but have not read a particular book, and if a character (for example) was referred to in conversation, they'd not have the faintest idea what that person was talking about. As I have said, I have read some of the classics but not others - and don't for a minute think I'm missing out, in any way, shape or form, when I'm reading by not having read certain other classics. In truth, I think that's where the power of the internet is so useful - if you do read something and have no idea what it's about, you can very easily find out where it originated from, who it originated from etc. In short, you can figure out why the reference is being made, without having read an entire novel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I think Andy has a point, as in sometimes I read something and think (for example) "oh, so that's where so and so gets its name from...". E.G, until I read To Kill a Mockingbird, I had no idea why the pop group The Boo Radleys were so-called. That's not exactly an example of what Andy's trying to say, but you get the gist - often things are referenced from other books which one doesn't 'get' if one hasn't read the book. It doesn't necessarily spoil the enjoyment, but perhaps means more if you 'get it'. Personally I quite like those lightbulb moments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 E.G, until I read To Kill a Mockingbird, I had no idea why the pop group The Boo Radleys were so-called. But by the same token, just because you've read the book it doesn't mean you'll necessarily get the reference, either. As above, I've read To Kill a Mockingbird (twice) & it never for a millisecond occured to me that The Boo Radleys got their name from that book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KW Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 First of all, I couldn't get through To Kill A Mockingbird. And I'm still a reader. This is a subjective question, like all art: what appeals to one may not appeal to another. If you enjoy reading fiction, I think that is a broader umbrella for the whole: you're not a reader unless you read idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I never said one has to have read To Kill A Mockingbird to be a reader - my initial post says I don't agree that one should have read certain books to call oneself a reader - I was merely posting one example of something taking reference from something else. There are 100s of examples out there - The Darling Buds of May by H E Bates being another example. I was merely saying that I like those moments when you read something and realise its connection (either forwards to backwards) to something else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I know what you're talking about, Andy. I find myself constantly confused by allusions made to other books, so I have tried to read as many of those kind of books as possible because it connects me with a part of our cultural consciousness. I do believe that there is something to being "well read", not that I think it means you have to read certain books. I think it comes down to the different ways people approach reading. Some read purely for enjoyment, and nothing else. I read for enjoyment (of course...otherwise, what's the point?) but also to try to enrich myself intellectually. There are books and authors that are national and international treasures, and I try to read as many of those as I can. Still, if I'm not enjoying it, I'll give up. There's no point in reading a book you're not enjoying! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I have to say I agree with Andy, Janet and Echo. Also, I think the terms 'reader' and 'well read' are two different things. Reader is anyone who reads. Full stop. 'Well read' refers to one who has read and reads to improve his mind. Reading The Confessions of a Shopaholic will make you a reader, but not well read, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Sorry ii, but that statement just smacks of elitism. A person who has read 1 book is a reader, a person who reads multiple books each year is well read. Whether the book is a classic or not is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Sorry ii, but that statement just smacks of elitism. A person who has read 1 book is a reader, a person who reads multiple books each year is well read. Whether the book is a classic or not is irrelevant. Would you call a person who ate a ton of below-par food well-eaten? Or rather someone who's enjoyed a first-class meal? I'd call the first one full, and the other well-eaten. 'Well' is not a neutral term, it takes a stand, makes a comparison. Saying 'well read' implies that there is a way of doing it 'not-so-well', badly even. So to be well-read, you have to have read something of quality. If that makes me elitist, rest assured, you're not the first one to call me such names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 We don't allow any name-calling here. Let's keep it civil, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainFreeze Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Would you call a person who ate a ton of below-par food well-eaten? Or rather someone who's enjoyed a first-class meal? I'd call the first one full, and the other well-eaten. Personally I wouldn't call either 'well-eaten'. Plus, in all honesty, if someone is full, they're well-fed, no matter the quality of the food surely? You could also apply the term 'well-read' to people who read a lot, irrespective of what they've read, in comparison to people who read comparatively less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I think the point is that books like the Shopaholic ones have their place in reading - I'm sure most of us like something light occasionally - but I don't think anyone would think that the Shopaholic books give anything intellectually - unless it's a bit more knowledge about kitten heels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) You could also apply the term 'well-read' to people who read a lot, irrespective of what they've read, in comparison to people who read comparatively less. No, that would me much-read. Well and much are two very different things. I think the point is that books like the Shopaholic ones have their place in reading - I'm sure most of us like something light occasionally - but I don't think anyone would think that the Shopaholic books give anything intellectually - unless it's a bit more knowledge about kitten heels. All the knowledge one needs about kitten heels is: they make your legs look fat. There, no need to read the book now. *laughs* But yes, that's exactly the point, Janet. There is a difference in reading much and reading well! Edited February 2, 2009 by ii merged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainFreeze Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I think the point is that books like the Shopaholic ones have their place in reading - I'm sure most of us like something light occasionally - but I don't think anyone would think that the Shopaholic books give anything intellectually - unless it's a bit more knowledge about kitten heels. I agree (and there's nothing wrong with knowledge of kitten heels!), but the original question is about what makes a reader. Whether the subject matter be light, weighty, intellectually stimulating, factual, a classic, a debut novel whatever - if someone is reading it, they are a reader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) I think the point is that books like the Shopaholic ones have their place in reading - I'm sure most of us like something light occasionally - but I don't think anyone would think that the Shopaholic books give anything intellectually - unless it's a bit more knowledge about kitten heels. I agree, and I guess this didn't come across in my post. Everyone approaches reading differently, and I don't know that it's useful to get into a semantic argument about it. And I actually read Confessions of a Shopaholic. I hated it, yes, but it's still a part of my internal library. I would think that "well-read" means that one has read a variety of books of diverse genres and authors. That could include Sophie Kinsella...why not? Edited February 2, 2009 by Echo apparently, I can't spell. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.