What makes someone "well-read?"

[Stephen]

OK I added to your list but in doing so I think I've refined my definition of what it takes to be well-read...

The books I decided to include were those that have or will come up in conversation and/or been referred to in movies I've seen or books that I've read. (Also some like Julius Caesar have been included because so much of their contents have been incorporated into other cultural references)

The second criteria for my voting for them is that I would loathe having to admit that I've not read them or am not familiar with them. e.g. The Bible and the Quran are both on my list even though I've read neither in its entirety. I do feel that I know enough about them to engage in any conversation that arises among my associates. I can also say the same thing about Tom Sawyer. I've read "Illustrated Classics" versions and know the basic story but have never read the original text in its entirety.

I've NOT included books that I WOULD recommend to others that I think are worthwhile but which society generally ignores or pans. Sorry Stephenie Meyer.

I'm not suggesting that these books aren't worth reading, (quite the opposite in fact) just that I'd NOT be embarrassed to have to admit that I hadn't read them.

[Rachel]

Stephen wrote: "OK I added to your list but in doing so I think I've refined my definition of what it takes to be well-read...

The books I decided to include were those that I know have or will come up in convers..."

Thanks. That's exactly the definition I am looking for. What books do you need to be familiar with to understand cultural references and what books do you think people ought to have read.

[Víctor]

Emily wrote: "I think of it as someone who has read most if not all of the classics and has read some of the popular contemporary books too. Basically a librarian - if by passion and not profession."

It's this, typically. There's an elitist element to the term.

[Stephen]

Víctor wrote: "...There's an elitist element to the term. "

Too True! and it's been that way for over a century. Check out this snippet from Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen where the Bingley Sisters are looking to put down Lizzy Bennet but she's defended by Darcy.

"It is amazing to me," said Bingley, "how young ladies can have patience to be so very accomplished as they all are."

"All young ladies accomplished! My dear Charles, what do you mean?"

"Yes, all of them, I think. They all paint tables, cover screens, and net purses. I scarcely know anyone who cannot do all this, and I am sure I never heard a young lady spoken of for the first time, without being informed that she was very accomplished."

"Your list of the common extent of accomplishments," said Darcy, "has too much truth. The word is applied to many a woman who deserves it no otherwise than by netting a purse or covering a screen. But I am very far from agreeing with you in your estimation of ladies in general. I cannot boast of knowing more than half-a-dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance, that are really accomplished."

"Nor I, I am sure," said Miss Bingley.

"Then," observed Elizabeth, "you must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished woman."

"Yes, I do comprehend a great deal in it."

"Oh! certainly," cried his faithful assistant, "no one can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half-deserved."

"All this she must possess," added Darcy, "and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading."

[Laura]

Agree with the themes of reading multiple genres and time frames. Also, I think those who are well-read are more aware with how much they haven't read yet, instead of how much they've already finished.

[DOLLY]

someone who has read a least 1-3 iconic works of the majority of conventional genres (eg. gothic, horror, philosophy, romance, science fiction, etc.), has a grasp of the criteria of each genre and why they are classified the way they are, has read/has knowledge of history of written word and its evolution to the modern style we know today...
hmmmm... pretty much an even balance of quality and quantity - a well-rounded, eclectic collection of written works.

[Paula]

B wrote: "I think that to be considered a well-read person, you have to be the type to always be continually reading, the type to catch references in books and conversations, the type to know what the teache..."

I like your thoughts here.

[Betty]

Lisa wrote: "In my opinion, it is the diversity of subjects and genres that determine how well-read a person is ..."

Michael wrote: "I believe well-read means reading not only much fiction (including classics, pop and stage plays) but also much nonfiction ..."

I agree. The term "well read" is a close cousin to "well informed." You cannot be well read if you stick to fiction only.

[Trisa (Absolute Bookishness)]

This is a pretty good question--one I've really neglected to give much thought too before. After reading a number of comments (some of which seem pretty passionate) and reflecting a bit, I did what I always do when I'm curious about something and want to give it some deep thought.

...I looked it up. I looked up "well-read". Why? Because I only "knew" its implicit meaning. You know, what you get from other people using the term, but not its actual definition. (I know, I sound so GRE...and Verbal Advantage . But I'm a logophile, or lover of words, so I can't help it.)

According to Merriam-Webster, well-read is "well-informed or deeply versed through reading". I took that to mean that those considered well-read gain a great deal of knowledge from reading, and regularly practice and are skilled at reading.

So, I suppose that how you read and what you gain from reading is more important than the classification of your readings (classics, mystery, horror, and so on) or the amount of reading you do. (Notice I used the word more. I'm not saying that the subjects and the number of references are irrelevant. I also didn't just limit this to books. What about journal articles, newspapers, magazines, and other sources? You can learn a bunch from them too. ) In other words, reading thousands of books (or other material) and/or reading a specific genre (or a wide range of genres) may not help you become or distinguish you as well-read if you don't hone your reading skills or actually learn anything from what you read. (Mmmm...now I sound like The Thinker's Guide to How to Read A Paragraph: The Art of Close Reading.)

Just something to think about.

[Abhinav]

I think a well read person is someone who catches the essence of the book or the message the author/novelist wants to portray in his/her book.I guess it comes from a lot of reading experience.

[Chaya]

People who love to read, and are "good" at reading

[Michael]

Here's a interesting, maybe, story. I was at a dinner party and there were only three big readers in the group, not including myself. Out of the three, one openly considers himself well-read. One of the readers is into sci-fi bigtime and outside of that he had no idea what we were going on about as we argued about Kennedy. We discussed the first volume of Making of a President, and when the book 1000 Days came up, and the excite "well-read" lawyer guy asks, "Sure, but have you read 100 Days?" We were a little speechless. The books shared similar titles, add or take away a digit, but 100 Days is about the Battle of the Bulge (WWII) and 1000 Days is about Kennedy's term as president. We changed the subject to sci-fi, thinking we could all get into that conversation, but the "well-read" fella did not read fiction, any kind fiction and the sci-fi reader was way ahead of us on the current novels. My point is that well-read, to me, is a subjective term and i don't think that the dictionary can do that term justice, just as it's definition of many terms, Zen as an example, falls short in the 10-20 word definition.

[Lisa]

It's relative. It depends upon whose opinion you're asking. :) You cannot be well-read without reading fiction, in *my* opinion. You can be well-learned, but not well-read. :D

[Paula]

Fun, Michael.

[Paula]

Laura wrote: "Agree with the themes of reading multiple genres and time frames. Also, I think those who are well-read are more aware with how much they haven't read yet, instead of how much they've already fini..."

Good point.

[Chrisl]

... using classics and sacred cows in the same sentence

[Stephen]

I forgot to mention in my last post that there are several really good reference works that someone who's looking to become "well read" should look into.

Masterpieces of World Literature is great for getting the characters and plot-lines and major themes of any number of "classics". Certainly it's best to have read the originals but THAT is a major undertaking. This reference can help fill in the gaps nicely.

Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature is also good for more specific detail questions

The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy is also a great source in this regard.

[surfmadpig]

A person who has read more than about a hundred books (Yes, I know that's not a lot) AND exhibits actual mental processing, emotional response and/or original opinion on said books instead of blindly loving them or copying others' opinions is well-read to me.

I wouldn't respect someone who has read a million books but hasn't really experienced (mentally or emotionally) any of them on a deep level. It's not like collecting pokemon, you know. The pokemon you have collected mean nothing if you haven't used them.

So not the quantity of books, nor the quality of books. The quality of the actual READING.

[Harley]

Diversity.You're 'well read' if you do not restrict yourself to a limited genre. Read some classics. Read some popular fiction. Read books that are interesting. Read some just because they are entertaining. Read some older books that are not considered to be classics. And, read some non-fiction.

[Arielle Rae]

Ethan Librivore Nixon wrote: "It occurs to me that people who worry about becoming well-read have entirely missed the point of literature. Only those who enjoy literature for itself will ever have the chance of becoming well-re..."

Exactly! People should read for enjoyment and because they want to read what they're reading

[Stephen]

Honestly, I think that there is something to be said for a bit of striving toward the goal of being well read. It helps the reader understand (and enjoy) more of everything that they experience.

Also trying to read a bit of things that aren't immediately enjoyable is one way to find hidden value in things that you might otherwise miss.

For example, one might not enjoy Shakespeare, but a bit of time spent pondering what it was that makes so many folks consider him great would be time well spent. If you don't think so, check out the "recitation in the rain" in the film "Renaissance Man" with Danny DeVito. Henry V meets the U.S. Army.

[Mitali]

Stephen wrote: "Also trying to read a bit of things that aren't immediately enjoyable is one way to find hidden value in things that you might otherwise miss."

I agree. While most of the time, I do read for entertainment, I also regularly try to read something out of my usual comfort zone. There are many books that are at best 'difficult' reads - but sometimes they are worth the effort it takes to get through them. For example, I am currently reading 'War and Peace' - not an easy read by any means! Yet, I'm pleasantly surprised to find it a lot more fun and a lot less ponderous than I expected, considering its reputation.

[Rachel]

Mitali wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Also trying to read a bit of things that aren't immediately enjoyable is one way to find hidden value in things that you might otherwise miss."

I agree. While most of the time, I d..."
I love War and Peace. I think it gets a bad rap because a) Russian names and b) it's so long for a single book. What got me over being intimidated by it was realizing that many of the series I love are longer, they're just more broken up.

[Emerald]

I personally think someone well-read is someone who has read lots of books, of different styles and genres. To me, just reading classics or just reading fantasy or whatever, no matter how many of them you've read, doesn't necessarily make you well-read, because you've had no diversity in your reading. So in order to be well read I think you have to try lots of different books.

[Hannah]

♧ Sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ wrote: "Oh, I do know some people who read some classics, but didn't enjoy any of them."

Really? I find it hard to believe they have read EVERY classic ever written. So therefore they can't really say they would hate them all.

[****Kelly*****]

It's not the about the amount of books one has read, its about how much knowledge the person has gotten out of the stuff he/she has read.

[William]

Many good points here. I agree with everyone. I've read whole sets of encyclopedia and many classics yet I do not consider myself well read. I loved Crime and Punishment but never finished The Brothers Karamazov. I love all Dickens but hated a Cather in the Rye. 1984 is a favorite as is Catch 22. Given all that I still very much enjoy Fantasy along the lines of Terry Pratchett and Piers Anthony. Everyone is different so why would our taste in reading be anything but a product of who we are?

[****Kelly*****]

William wrote: "Many good points here. I agree with everyone. I've read whole sets of encyclopedia and many classics yet I do not consider myself well read. I loved Crime and Punishment but never finished The Brot..."

Wow it takes a lot to read all the Dickens books........ I tried reading the book oliver or something when i was in %th grade and i couldn't get through it!!!

[我不要咖啡]

****Kelly***** wrote: "It's not the about the amount of books one has read, its about how much knowledge the person has gotten out of the stuff he/she has read."

Well said, I think. :)

[****Kelly*****]

Gee thanks!!!

[Lariela]

I think it is both the quantity and quality of books, as as well as variety.

Personally, I have a few main genres for fiction, and subjects for non-fiction. I try to read something new as well, even if it's just a different series or author.

[William]

****Kelly***** wrote: "William wrote: "Many good points here. I agree with everyone. I've read whole sets of encyclopedia and many classics yet I do not consider myself well read. I loved Crime and Punishment but never f..."

Oliver Twist. It was not hard since I enjoyed everything he wrote. But something like Les Misrebeles (Or however you spell it.) I've tried at various times in my life, never made it. I guess my point was Classics are like modern fiction in that it very much depends on the author.

[K]

Reading a variety of books is important, and having the ability to judge and asses these books also counts. Anyone could chug through 500 classics if they wanted, but I think comprehending and judging these works counts a big deal.

That's not to say you have to be super critical and knowledgeable of every book you read! Lord knows I've begun many a classic and could not finish it or even understand why it was supposed to be so great.

I think the most important keys to being well read is being able to enjoy a variety of genres, be somewhat critical of the works you're reading, and having a desire to read often.

[****Kelly*****]

William wrote: "****Kelly***** wrote: "William wrote: "Many good points here. I agree with everyone. I've read whole sets of encyclopedia and many classics yet I do not consider myself well read. I loved Crime and..."
At least you seriously tried!! i tried reading that book but then ended up watching part of the movie! :)

[Joanna]

James wrote: "I believe that being a well read person is someone who reads many different types of books besides the genre that they normally read."

I agree. It doesn't matter what your favorite genre is, but you have to have read a wide variety.