Whatit takes to be well read

Balddog said:
Ive always taken well read to mean knowledge and understanding in a number of subjects...IE something along the lines of traditional wisdom.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about the wisdom bit, but I agree with the rest, and I don't think it has anything to do with university, either.

A well-read person is one that has read widely, is knowledgeable and erudite. The term originates, or at least was popularised by Shakespeare (Henry V Part 1 IIRC) ...... but then, anyone that's well-read would know that (or would know how to use Google to find out ;) :D
 
Gilly said:
I'd consider them particularly knowledgeable and rather intelligent. I don't think I'd use the term well read.
Click to expand...

I dont know why its a prerequisite to have read lots of fictional works...
 
I would consider it to be the breadth of your reading with some reference to the quality.

For instance harry potter may not be considered high quality (perfectly fine in my eyes though) but equally if you had only read the works of shakespear you have a very limited scope.

If you enjoy reading you will naturally read all sorts of authors on all sorts of topics and genres from moderd fiction to ancient greek myths.

I just read discworld novels, as I am uncultured :)
 
Telescopi said:
I would consider it to be the breadth of your reading with some reference to the quality.

For instance harry potter may not be considered high quality (perfectly fine in my eyes though) but equally if you had only read the works of shakespear you have a very limited scope.

If you enjoy reading you will naturally read all sorts of authors on all sorts of topics and genres from moderd fiction to ancient greek myths.

I just read discworld novels, as I am uncultured :)
Click to expand...

i like the harry potters and the discworlds :D in fact so does my dad, and i would consider him one of the smartest and most well read people i know (he also reads lots of historical and political books but we wont mention those :) )
 
DJammyRasta said:
i like the harry potters and the discworlds :D in fact so does my dad, and i would consider him one of the smartest and most well read people i know (he also reads lots of historical and political books but we wont mention those :) )
Click to expand...
Yes, but just because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A.

He may be well-read and enjoy Harry Potter/Discworld, but that doesn't mean Harry Potter/Discworld help to make you well-read. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't, either.
 
Gilly said:
Its nice to have a break from heavy reading sometimes and hit Harry Potter or David Eddings or somesuch.
Click to expand...
Quite so. You can't be reading War and Peace, Paradise Lost or Story of the Artist as a Young Man (etc) all the time.
 
I always thought it was someone who had a good grasp on the language, and could use pointless long words when needed ;)
 
Pumpkinstew said:
I've always associated the term 'well-read' with breadth of knowledge as opposed to depth of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right, usually they have quite a depth of knowledge as a resuilt.
 
I consider well-read to be broadly similar to widely-read although there are obvious differences. Widely-read imples a breadth of reading that isn't necessary to be well-read. You could be well-read in history, but that wouldn't make you widely-read.

Someone who is well-read in a specific subject would have a depth of knowledge (as opposed to a breadth) garnered from extensive reading into that topic. Reading a lot of popular history books (I'm thinking Simon Schama here) does not make you well-read in history. Reading in-depth analyses makes you well-read - someone who is well-read in Tudor history would certainly be familiar with the work of Geoffrey Elton, for example. I would consider myself to be well-read in mathematics (although I've had a formal education in it as well) but not in any other subjects.

Someone who is widely-read would have read a significant number of books both non-fiction and fiction, on a broad range of topics. I would say that Gilly is widely-read, for example. Being widely-read does not entail having the same depth of knowledge as someone who is well-read, but rather it entails breadth of knowledge. To consider yourself as widely-read you would probably have at least flirted with many of the authors that Gilly listed, as well as having dabbled in philosophy, history, politics, theology etc.

This is, of course, only my way of looking at it. I've never tried to look up a formal definition of the terms.

Edit. People may find the following page interesting:
http://www.eisu.bham.ac.uk/johnstf/revis031.htm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom