[ansible]

amphibian, on 10 March 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

I think "well-read" needs to shift to a concept of "Have you read about things outside of your wheelhouse that challenge your opinions and potentially change your worldview?"

That can relate to your perceptions of history, human interaction, ways to live or future.

What you're describing is basically the point of categorizing things under umbrellas such as "Western canon." That's not a new way of looking at the term; that's what we used for the basis of the term for in the first place.

[King Lear]

Funnily enough I think the term "well-read" was actually a synonym for "well-educated" (at least in the 19th century).

Which makes it a bit tricky (for me anyway) to really define what "well-read" means in the modern sense. I guess I'd say I read pretty widely - classics and historical literature, non-Western literature, across genre (which isn't really much more than a rather useful marketing tool, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of minor irritations) and so forth, but I don't know if I'd say I'm well-read partly because people who focus more narrowly than I do, on classical books for example, have a much deeper understanding of the area and can talk about it a lot more in depth than I can. Additionally, they tend to engage more fully with the media that surrounds the initial media, like what the authors are doing, and related projects and that sort of thing. But because my more engagement is more superficial (I don't often have much interest in authors as people any more than most other strangers, unless they catch my attention in some way not necessarily related to the books they write, for example) I don't have the background and depth of knowledge.

Basically, I dabble

[QuickTidal]

ansible, on 10 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

If you disagree on a higher level than that, then there is something to discuss.

I do.

In fact, I flat out guarantee you that we could sit in a room with multiple well-educated (to use your phrase) individuals, and would NOT be able to come up with a consensus on what should be "included" on a list of works that help to educate enough that they would be worthy of a list of books that would make on "well read".

For every person who feels that WAR & PEACE (for example) is a brilliant, important book, I could find you at least as many who find it pretentious, boring twaddle that doesn't improve the world for existing. Who is right? Who decides? Why do they get to decide? What are the parameters of that decision? Prose? Sentence Structure? Story structure? Character design? All of the above? Why?

That someone, somewhere decides/decided what those parameters are. I'm calling bullshit on that.

[Grief]

I would venture that it doesn't have all that much to do with the volume of books read, but rather with some sort of engagement with a reasonable number/variety of culturally and historically significant works.

As a phrase, I just think it's very tied in with ideas about literature and the western canon.

You can have read all the romance, or genre, or contemporary fiction under the sun; if you've never read any Shakespeare I wouldn't use the phrase to describe you.

Is this coloured by current trends in literary fashion, and has certain definite biases? Of course. I'm not saying that this definition is "fair", just that I think this (roughly) is what the definition is. "Well read" and "has read a lot" are very different.

[Grief]

QuickTidal, on 10 March 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:

ansible, on 10 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

If you disagree on a higher level than that, then there is something to discuss.

I do.

In fact, I flat out guarantee you that we could sit in a room with multiple well-educated (to use your phrase) individuals, and would NOT be able to come up with a consensus on what should be "included" on a list of works that help to educate enough that they would be worthy of a list of books that would make on "well read".

For every person who feels that WAR & PEACE (for example) is a brilliant, important book, I could find you at least as many who find it pretentious, boring twaddle that doesn't improve the world for existing. Who is right? Who decides? Why do they get to decide? What are the parameters of that decision? Prose? Sentence Structure? Story structure? Character design? All of the above? Why?

That someone, somewhere decides/decided what those parameters are. I'm calling bullshit on that.

That group probably would be able to agree on certain books though. Sure, there would be disagreements about whether it was sufficient to make someone "well read", and shouldn't X be included, and so on. However, I doubt there would be much argument about whether certain books could not be included on the list.

The key to your other questions, imo, is that it's not a question of some individual sitting down and deciding whether a book should, or shouldn't be "a classic" or whatever. Instead, a book is discussed. Maybe someone puts forward an article discussing it's merits and present their argument for it (be it prose, sentence structure, or whatever). Anyone interested who has read the article can then respond - that's who "they" are. Maybe people think the argument is compelling or maybe they don't. The parameters can be anything, depending on the argument, new suggestions might be made for parameters that hadn't been considered before.

It's not a question of matching works with a set of aesthetic criteria, it's an evolving debate. Books disappear and re-appear from consideration.

If someone's only argument against War and Peace is just that it's pretentious twaddle, they're not going to get very far in arguing against the large academic body of work analysing the book and presenting various arguments for why it's important.

The fact that literature is subjective doesn't really mean it can't be evaluated/analysed, just that it's not a very simple thing to do.

[Shinrei]

I find what ansible and amphibian are saying rings true in my mind. I think to grow in knowledge and experience (not to mention more basic things like styles of prose and vocabulary) you need to read outside your favorite genres from time to time.

And by having some experience reading the types of writing and stories that have directly shaped and developed literature as a form, I feel that can't but help serve as a greater understanding and enjoyment of almost anything else you read. I absolutely hated studying music theory, but I can't deny that it has directly contributed to my appreciation of music.

In the Hemingway book I just finished he constantly mentions other authors of the time period writing books telling "good stories". A lot of the classics are 'good stories', and have contributed much to the English language and world in general. It's just that it can be a bit of a slog to go through language we're not used to in this day and age, but many times it's worth it and I can't help but feel I've come out the other end with a greater understanding of the world. Not only that, but I also have achieved something like a connection with generations of others who have read those same works.

In this day and age we have this forum to connect with other people who have read SE. I have little doubt that if Facebook were available in the 19th century, there would be Poe* and Bronte and Dickens message boards alive and well.



*After his death at least.

[Shinrei]

Oh, and I think anyone reading classics simply to become "well-read" is probably pompous and unpleasant. I mix in classics from time to time because I like to read different things. I almost always enjoy a fantasy novel so when I pick one up I expect to have fun. But I also get bored if I don't challenge my brain with something else from time to time, and although I sometimes start a classic with a feeling of taking some medicine, I end up enjoying them usually. Kind of like exercise.

Probably everyone has some classic from high school that they hated. Mine's "The Great Gatsby". Hated that book.

[D'iversify]

QuickTidal, on 10 March 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:

ansible, on 10 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

If you disagree on a higher level than that, then there is something to discuss.

I do.

In fact, I flat out guarantee you that we could sit in a room with multiple well-educated (to use your phrase) individuals, and would NOT be able to come up with a consensus on what should be "included" on a list of works that help to educate enough that they would be worthy of a list of books that would make on "well read".

For every person who feels that WAR & PEACE (for example) is a brilliant, important book, I could find you at least as many who find it pretentious, boring twaddle that doesn't improve the world for existing. Who is right? Who decides? Why do they get to decide? What are the parameters of that decision? Prose? Sentence Structure? Story structure? Character design? All of the above? Why?

That someone, somewhere decides/decided what those parameters are. I'm calling bullshit on that.

War & Peace is in my opinion a pretty good book, though from what I've read I prefer Dostoevsky over Tolstoy. I admittedly did read W&P for the wrong reasons though - I wanted to see if I could finish a dense 1,400 page book in a month (this was when I was 15 going on 16, I think, so this kind of shallow motivation seemed less stupid at the time). I did finish it 'on time', and I did enjoy myself along the way, though I admit meeting the challenge did keep me going through some bits of it.

[Shinrei]

QuickTidal, on 10 March 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:

ansible, on 10 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

If you disagree on a higher level than that, then there is something to discuss.

I do.

In fact, I flat out guarantee you that we could sit in a room with multiple well-educated (to use your phrase) individuals, and would NOT be able to come up with a consensus on what should be "included" on a list of works that help to educate enough that they would be worthy of a list of books that would make on "well read".

I don't think that's the point. There is no such thing as a definitive list and I don't think there are many people who suggest that there is. Hell, great writers themselves were dreadfully critical of other great writers - lots of fun biting quotes out there.

To quote the wikihow I found about being "well-read":

"What's important is that you pick books that are lively, challenging, and which broaden your horizons."

[QuickTidal]

Shinrei, on 11 March 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

To quote the wikihow I found about being "well-read":

"What's important is that you pick books that are lively, challenging, and which broaden your horizons."

That was exactly my point that Ansible was arguing with/contending. Those things are MY choice, not someone elses. Therefore I decide if I'm well-read and if my choices in reading material make me so.

Ansible appeared to be saying that someone else, or a collective opinion chooses what's in the "well-read" curriculum. And that, is bullshit.

If a person who has issues reading anything singularly complex, then they might read only YA...but those YA books are still challenging them.

[Shinrei]

ansible, on 10 March 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

I do think "well-read" is a generally accepted term used to apply to classic literature (primarily Western canon) and if approached from that context, does have a definite meaning and application. Most people read less than a single book a year, so I think reading at all is a pretty big win from a larger perspective, but being "well-read" does have academic implications. It means a study of or knowledge of the history of literary thought and criticism that informs the way literature should be read and interpreted. There is a reason they make you study Shakespeare in school - it's because he was so damn good at what he did.

I don't think he's suggesting there is an Absolute list. Rather, he's suggesting that you have been versed in the classics in some manner and have a basic knowledge of how those gave rise not only to modern literature but modern thought. Personally, I think I'm rather well-read, but I haven't read War and Peace and I would challenge anyone who said I am not well read based on any short list of books I haven't yet curled up with.

My father told me how he discovered sci-fi in high school, and read something like 30 sci-fi books over his summer vacation. I don't think that qualifies as well-read, because it's too narrow.

[QuickTidal]

Shinrei, on 11 March 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

ansible, on 10 March 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

I do think "well-read" is a generally accepted term used to apply to classic literature (primarily Western canon) and if approached from that context, does have a definite meaning and application. Most people read less than a single book a year, so I think reading at all is a pretty big win from a larger perspective, but being "well-read" does have academic implications. It means a study of or knowledge of the history of literary thought and criticism that informs the way literature should be read and interpreted. There is a reason they make you study Shakespeare in school - it's because he was so damn good at what he did.

I don't think he's suggesting there is an Absolute list. Rather, he's suggesting that you have been versed in the classics in some manner and have a basic knowledge of how those gave rise not only to modern literature but modern thought. Personally, I think I'm rather well-read, but I haven't read War and Peace and I would challenge anyone who said I am not well read based on any short list of books I haven't yet curled up with.

My father told me how he discovered sci-fi in high school, and read something like 30 sci-fi books over his summer vacation. I don't think that qualifies as well-read, because it's too narrow.

See, the last bit about your dad is the part that rankles me as a reader. I don't think an elitist-type phrase like "well read" should ever be employed. As long as someone is reading copious amounts, what does it matter what subject they choose? Can varied sci-fi reads not (with enough of them) give you some of the very same things that classical literature could? I'd wager they could.

Look, just because someone reads only from one genre, does not mean that in said genre they can't discover different types of challenges, and broadening of their horizons.

Is it good to be more widely read in other genre's? Probably. Is that a provable thing? I doubt it. Sci-fi is merely a setting. Look at ANIMAL FARM and DUNE....two totally different types of SFF books. Both have wholly different messages and things to learn from, one is allegorical, one is not...but both have something to teach me.

I'm saying it's not cut and dried and I don't like the term.

[Stormcat]

I haz read cheezburger.

Edited to say...
(Yep I read this entire thread and that was my contribution.)

This post has been edited by Stormcat: 11 March 2014 - 04:09 PM

[ansible]

QT:

I don't want to argue with you line by line, so I'll just say this. Any literary academic will disagree with you about your interpretation about what it means to be "well-read". It does not in any way mean that you've just read a lot of books you like. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read books you like - it just means you need to understand that the the term "well-read" has a much larger and accepted meaning outside of your view of it.

I would emphatically disagree that "just reading" is more important than reading certain books. If you only read a lot of really bad books, you are absolutely not getting the real, qualitative "value" that you would get if you were reading and studying Shakespeare instead. You may be enjoying yourself, but you are wasting your time from a literary perspective.

I think the real issue is that you are more angry that the generally accepted term "well-read" doesn't apply to you (your words) than you are interested in discussing what it means to be "well-read."

I have also never read War and Peace, for the record.

[HiddenOne]

It's boring to me, couldn't finish, but I was probably more interested in XMen and Forgotten Realms at the time, middle school age I think.

QT does seem to have some underlying anger about this topic. Just sayin'.


I used to feel well read, but this forum has shifted my perspective. Compared to the rubes that I work around, I am a mad professor of reading and culture, but in comparison to the educated majority here, I move down to average Joe.

[QuickTidal]

ansible, on 11 March 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

QT:

I don't want to argue with you line by line, so I'll just say this. Any literary academic will disagree with you about your interpretation about what it means to be "well-read". It does not in any way mean that you've just read a lot of books you like. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read books you like - it just means you need to understand that the the term "well-read" has a much larger and accepted meaning outside of your view of it.

I would emphatically disagree that "just reading" is more important than reading certain books. If you only read a lot of really bad books, you are absolutely not getting the real, qualitative "value" that you would get if you were reading and studying Shakespeare instead. You may be enjoying yourself, but you are wasting your time from a literary perspective.

And this is decided by...? You? Is this a well-known fact?

Apologies. Can I have the list of accepted books...so's I know in future which ones I'm getting the most from...from a literature perspective?

We've probably said all we can to each other on this topic Ansible. I guess you can mark me down in the non-"well read" category. Not because I've not read Western Classics...but because I don't wish to belong to that group.

HiddenOne, on 11 March 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

QT does seem to have some underlying anger about this topic. Just sayin'.

Oh, I definitely do. All stemming from that bastard English teacher. He was a real shithead. LOL

[ansible]

QuickTidal, on 11 March 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

ansible, on 11 March 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

QT:

I don't want to argue with you line by line, so I'll just say this. Any literary academic will disagree with you about your interpretation about what it means to be "well-read". It does not in any way mean that you've just read a lot of books you like. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read books you like - it just means you need to understand that the the term "well-read" has a much larger and accepted meaning outside of your view of it.

I would emphatically disagree that "just reading" is more important than reading certain books. If you only read a lot of really bad books, you are absolutely not getting the real, qualitative "value" that you would get if you were reading and studying Shakespeare instead. You may be enjoying yourself, but you are wasting your time from a literary perspective.

And this is decided by...? You? Is this a well-known fact?

Apologies. Can I have the list of accepted books...so's I know in future which ones I'm getting the most from...from a literature perspective?

Ok, can you not read? Reading comprehension is important in any context that might arise here. I, along with several others, have pointed out that there is not a definitive list of books that magically makes you "well-read". Stop asking for it. The literary world itself is not in consensus on this issue. Get that into your head and stop ignorantly repeating yourself.

If you are genuinely interested, go to a decent college and major in English. You will at least get a good start.

QuickTidal, on 11 March 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

We've probably said all we can to each other on this topic Ansible. I guess you can mark me down in the non-"well read" category. Not because I've not read Western Classics...but because I don't wish to belong to that group.

Yes, we all get it, you are self-identifying as someone who is not "well-read". Again...you've said this many times. I don't see the point of repeating it.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

I actually agree with the more academic sense of the term "well-read", even though academically speaking it probably wouldn't apply to me (I didn't go to university, although I was studying English Literature up to that point). Of the books likely to turn up on a list, I've read a fair bit of Shakespeare, Byron and Chaucer, and I went through a stage of ploughing through a fair few classics. There were quite a few I enjoyed (Jane Eyre, most of Jack London, Arthur Conan Doyle and Jules Verne) and some I appreciated why they are classics and their contribution to literature as a whole, but still didn't enjoy them (Wuthering Heights, Le Morte D'Arthur, Notre Dame de Paris)

It was for a long time synonymous with well-educated, and I think there's a chasm of difference between being able to appreciate something at a literary analysis level (my inner English Lit student never completely switches off even seven years after ceasing study) and actually enjoying it.

On an enjoyment level - Byron, Dickens and Hugo I would gleefully love to punch, and particularly the latter but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate them to some degree.

[amphibian]

I think the current, somewhat amorphous "canon" of books that are presented as a good start towards being well-read fail to actually challenge the worldviews and voyeuristic experiences of the readers (usually kids and younger adults). Poe, as fun as he can be, doesn't do anything other than show the development of horror. It's why teachers keep going to Austen - that despite her fascination with the half-idiotic British life of then, she provides a perspective of a woman who can actually do things - and risking the disaffection of the boys in the class.

The history of "white-man-splaining" and actual history overlap far too much in the Western world and only recently has there been an effort to start trending away from that. I'm sure there's quite a bit of ethnocentrism within Asian and African countries, but the nature of media/pop culture is such that they're co-existent with the Western perspective.

I just saw Frozen, which is actually a mediocre movie in a vacuum, but since it's driven by two empowered women and that massive song, it's a smash hit - especially among young girls. Part of their love for it comes from that there are so few movies like this.

There does need to be some sort of loose grouping of great books, but it also has to overlap with a loose grouping of books that can challenge, inspire and make people aware of things outside their (hopefully initially) limited worldviews and scope. This is especially valuable for dealing with the jerks that teenagers are and getting their empathy machines running and into higher gears faster.

I think taking a few of the classics off the table in favor of putting in new ones is a good idea. I'd drop Canterbury Tales, Jack London, Jules Verne, Mice and Men and Gatsby. I'd add Midnight's Children, Number 1 Ladies Detective and so on.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 11 March 2014 - 07:38 PM

[QuickTidal]

ansible, on 11 March 2014 - 07:04 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 March 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

ansible, on 11 March 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

QT:

I don't want to argue with you line by line, so I'll just say this. Any literary academic will disagree with you about your interpretation about what it means to be "well-read". It does not in any way mean that you've just read a lot of books you like. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read books you like - it just means you need to understand that the the term "well-read" has a much larger and accepted meaning outside of your view of it.

I would emphatically disagree that "just reading" is more important than reading certain books. If you only read a lot of really bad books, you are absolutely not getting the real, qualitative "value" that you would get if you were reading and studying Shakespeare instead. You may be enjoying yourself, but you are wasting your time from a literary perspective.

And this is decided by...? You? Is this a well-known fact?

Apologies. Can I have the list of accepted books...so's I know in future which ones I'm getting the most from...from a literature perspective?

Ok, can you not read? Reading comprehension is important in any context that might arise here. I, along with several others, have pointed out that there is not a definitive list of books that magically makes you "well-read". Stop asking for it. The literary world itself is not in consensus on this issue. Get that into your head and stop ignorantly repeating yourself.

If you are genuinely interested, go to a decent college and major in English. You will at least get a good start.

QuickTidal, on 11 March 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

We've probably said all we can to each other on this topic Ansible. I guess you can mark me down in the non-"well read" category. Not because I've not read Western Classics...but because I don't wish to belong to that group.

Yes, we all get it, you are self-identifying as someone who is not "well-read". Again...you've said this many times. I don't see the point of repeating it.

Are you done chastising me for attempting to engage in the discussion with you about this?

You've made no clear point. You seem to be under the impression that "well read" is a useful and needed phrase with regards to literature...but that it has no set parameters or curriculum to abide by...regardless of that, it exists nonetheless and most modern authors/books are not part of it?

You've basically brow beat me into not wanting to talk about this with you anymore because...I guess my opinion on the subject doesn't matter? Or is wrong? Or some variation thereof. I'm actually not entirely sure.

I should paraphrase Ricky Gervais here: Just because you think I'm wrong, doesn't automatically make you right.

Enjoy the thread, I'm not sorry I weighed in.