BrainFreeze Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 No, that would me much-read. Well and much are two very different things. Actually I disagree with your oveall point - which was my original point. As has been repeatedly pointed out, it is a matter of perspective. How you perceive the term 'well-read' - some see it as a matter of quantity, some as a matter of quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freewheeling Andy Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Oh, and to an extent I think there's nothing wrong with being elitist. There's a reason that the canon of most famous books are the canon. It's generally because they're very good books. They have substance and writing style that's striking and worth reading for a wide range of people. I think it's different to being a snob - which would exclude reading trashy, easy, or just non-conventional books. But it appreciates that the best books are actually the best books for a reason. And that's why lots of people go back to them and refer back to them. Nobody has ever read all the books that get referred to, has read all the canon. Nobody has read all of the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Are Smote. But they do, collectively, offer you an insight and a common cultural background that often allows you access to other parts of literature and, even, general culture. Whether it's spotting "Boo Radley" in the pop charts or knowing what someone means when they describe getting a parking permit from Wandsworth Council as Kafkaesque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 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. No one argued with that, at least in the bit of the conversation I took part in. What happened was the conversation evolved from the original question. I for one branched out and stated my opinion that 'reader' and 'well read' are two different things. If you go back to my first post in this, you'll see that I very distinctly said that for me a reader is anyone who reads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Great point, BrainFreeze!! I think it's a combination of both quality and quantity. I think the aim is to be as diverse as possible and to expose yourself to many different kinds of books. But then again, that's MY opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainFreeze Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) No one argued with that, at least in the bit of the conversation I took part in. What happened was the conversation evolved from the original question. I for one branched out and stated my opinion that 'reader' and 'well read' are two different things. If you go back to my first post in this, you'll see that I very distinctly said that for me a reader is anyone who reads. LOL - and if you read through you'll see I haven't said otherwise. I'm fully aware the conversation evolved from the original question and you was replying to that part, as was I - which is why I said I disagree with your overall point. The bit you have quoted me on, was my reply to someone else and what they'd said, which was why I quoted them and not you. What I said, wasn't aimed at you. Edited February 2, 2009 by BrainFreeze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 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? Thank you Echo, that is exactly what I was trying to get across. One person's well read is someone else's not. Is someone who has read only classics better read than someone who has read one or 2 classics, not enjoyed them, but has also read many other genres? In my opinion, no. ii, while I said your statement was, imo, elitist, I never said that I thought you were under the impression that you are better than the rest of us, just that your statement was, again, in my opinion, elitist. If that offended you, then I apologise, but that was not my intention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infomaniac Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I like to think i'm a real reader, someone who is open to a variation of genres and reads anything and everything. However the other day i realised i had not read the true classic "Animal farm". I felt it was one book i had to read. I then thought of other books that you cant call yourself a reader if you have not read. For example "catcher in the rye" " to kill a mocking bird", " Curious incident of the dog in the night", " Rebecca" by daphane du Maurier, " memoirs of a Geisha", "Angelas Ashes" etc...... This is just in my opinion. What book woould you say must be read if you want to call yourself a reader? Memoirs of a Geisha? Really? I've read it but I didn't think it was good enough to not consider yourself a reader if you haven't read it. And Angela's Ashes is unofficially banned in my house haha Everyone here seems to be making a good point though. It's not the books you've read that make you a well-read individual, but the diversity in genres of the books you read. Though I'm not too concerned with being well-read. I read hopelessly trashy transgressive fiction out of pure enjoyment haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freewheeling Andy Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'll stand up in defence of elitism again. I genuinely remain surprised whenever I hear the term used as an insult. The stuff is of the elite. It's the best stuff. It should be admired, not scorned. I found it bizarre as an insult in the US election, and it's just as weird here. And I wouldn't consider someone who reads 500 novels a year, all of which are utterly shallow and vacuous, to be well read. Just that they read a lot. Reading the newspaper a lot also doesn't make you well read. Well read is a term that means you have read widely amongst decent quality books. Literary ones, for want of a better term. And, I'd add, there's a reason that certain literary books define "well read". It's because, basically, they're better books. I'm not a believer in some weird cultural relativism that gives all books an equal value. I read trash, but I know perfectly well it's trash and I don't kid myself when I'm reading some entertaining but shallow detective book, say, or comedy memoir, that it's just the same as reading The Trial. It's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Thank you, Andy. You said exactly what I was thinking of earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nollaig Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yup, I pretty much agree with you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 That's true, Andy. If one were to confine herself to reading only chick-lit novels (this just happens to be a genre I rather dislike, nothing else ) and nothing else, I wouldn't call that person "well-read". You have to be willing to expose yourself to things outside your comfort zone and read a variety of genres and authors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPAWN-X Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I think as you read more you fid yourslf wanting to try different genres and authors. There are books that I want to read that are "must read" titles. On my to read pile now are 1984, Catch 22 and Slaughterhouse 5. I think its a case as the more you read the more you want to get out of the material you choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Library Nook Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I agree, I don`t think it matters what you read, as long as you enjoy reading you are a reader. Seconded, thirded or whatever it is up to on this thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahsilet Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I guess I am not much of a reader since I refuse to read anything by Jane Austen. Hamlet by William Shakespeare I have read this play twice. This deals heavily with character. If you can understand the characters of this play, I feel you can handle any character you come across in any piece of literature that you come across next. Oedipus The King by Sophocles Talk about DRAMA! Sorry I couldn't come up with any novels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainFreeze Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Oedipus The King by SophoclesTalk about DRAMA! That actually did make me LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie2008 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl :D The real measure of civilisation is whether you've seen the movie or not. And that leads to another question that is bound to trouble the human kind for centuries to come: which movie is better? Not 'more like the book', but better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie2008 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The real measure of civilisation is whether you've seen the movie or not. And that leads to another question that is bound to trouble the human kind for centuries to come: which movie is better? Not 'more like the book', but better? The second one (the one with Johnny Depp) is miles better. It is very silimar to the books whereas the first is not. I can remember reading something with Roald Dahl saying he hated the first film as it's totally different to the film. I love the book though. I love all Roald Dahl books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 ii, are you going off topic by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimera Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The real measure of civilisation is whether you've seen the movie or not. And that leads to another question that is bound to trouble the human kind for centuries to come: which movie is better? Not 'more like the book', but better? Oh you just reminded me I haven't seen the old version. I'll have to get my hands on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GsdSheba Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I bought "To Kill A Mockingbird" as it was a classic and thought I really ought to read it. Got about a third of the way through and realised there were better books to be reading out there than struggling to get through it. I think you should try something new every once in a while but read whatever you fancy, it's your time and you should spend it happily reading whatever you want Just my humble opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 ii, are you going off topic by any chance? Who, me? Never! *laughs* I can argue it's remotely on topic if you wish... After all, we're talking about being a 'reader' and 'well read', so I merely pointed out that while reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory may make you a reader, the true mark of civilized person is having seen the movie. I wasn't off-topic, per se, you see. Only those who carried on talking about the movies. Oh you just reminded me I haven't seen the old version. I'll have to get my hands on it. *whispers* The oompa-loompas are better in the old one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimera Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I wasn't off-topic, per se, you see. Only those who carried on talking about the movies. Now that's what I call shameless suport! Thank you dear! *whispers* The oompa-loompas are better in the old one. That's what I heard (on this forum I think) and the very reason why I want to see it... Ok, back on topic! mmm actually I dont have much to say except read what you feel like reading... *runs off* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Who, me? Never! *laughs* I can argue it's remotely on topic if you wish... After all, we're talking about being a 'reader' and 'well read', so I merely pointed out that while reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory may make you a reader, the true mark of civilized person is having seen the movie. I wasn't off-topic, per se, you see. Only those who carried on talking about the movies. Good one, do you think she bought it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Now that's what I call shameless suport! Thank you dear! Anytime, Dahlin'! That's what I heard (on this forum I think) and the very reason why I want to see it... Willy Wonka's not that good, but the oompa-loompas are brilliant. Of course the scene where the kids come to the factory for the first time, that's waaaaay better in the new one. In fact, I have that song the dolls sing as my ringtone! Drives people crazy. *evil laughter* Ok, back on topic! mmm actually I dont have much to say except read what you feel like reading... *runs off* Well, ON topic... in my view, if you read more than one book, you're a reader. If you read, and have read, a variety of books which develop your mind and challenge your intellect, you're 'well read'. Good one, do you think she bought it? Thank you. I'm pretty proud of it myself. And so far, so good. Of course she could be off-line, so I'll have to get back to you tomorrow. Edited February 4, 2009 by ii 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.