Thanks for the recommendation. I'll have to check it out.
You've raised some interesting questions here. First let me say that I also think book lists can be fun. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have spent my whole boring work day fooling around with them! ; ) I just feel that it's important not to view lists like these as the be-all and end-all of good books. In my opinion, being well-read does not just mean that you've read all the books that the Modern Library Association, or the Pulitzer Prize Committee, or your professors, or whoever else say you should read. To me, someone who is well-read may have read quite a few of those books, but has also deviated from the lists in pursuit of his or her own taste, has thought thoroughly about what they have read, and is passionate about the books they love. Someone who reads because they love reading (as opposed to someone who reads for the sake of being able to check books off a list or impress people in conversation), will automatically seek out books by writers they love, books that deal with subjects they're interested in, books that are recommended by people they trust, etc. And in so doing, they're likely to find wonderful things to read that aren't mentioned on any list anywhere. I think the lists, or the idea of the canon, make a good starting point, but then you've got to be willing to experiment and follow you own taste. I'd much rather talk about books with someone who has done this kind of exploring than with somebody who can quote at will from every Pulitzer winner ever. So I guess my answer is, it's important to read the canon, but it's also important to branch out and exercise your own critical thinking abilities in selecting what you read.
Do I consider myself well-read? Good question. I guess I would say that I'm on my way there. Perhaps I could say that I consider myself well-read for a 25-year-old. I read all the time, and I'm usually pretty passionate and opinionated about what I read, as you know from reading this journal, but I don't have much of a plan to my reading. I've got lists of books to read coming out my ears, and I would consider most of what I read to be "literature" (almost as problematic a term as "well-read"), but it comes about rather haphazardly. I've read a lot of books that are part of the canon, although I'm much more well-versed in the modern canon than in the old stuff. As for what it will take for me to become well-read, I don't really know. I suppose it would help if I approached my reading from a more systematic standpoint, but it's of equal importance to me that I enjoy what I read as that I read books that will contribute to my being well-read.
And of course, it's important to note that the definition of well-read is quite personal, and differs for every individual. You may have entirely different ideas than I do, and I'd love to hear how you would define "well-read." Sorry for writing such a huge essay here; I hope it's at least a little bit interesting for you.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-31 07:06 pm (UTC)You've raised some interesting questions here. First let me say that I also think book lists can be fun. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have spent my whole boring work day fooling around with them! ; ) I just feel that it's important not to view lists like these as the be-all and end-all of good books. In my opinion, being well-read does not just mean that you've read all the books that the Modern Library Association, or the Pulitzer Prize Committee, or your professors, or whoever else say you should read. To me, someone who is well-read may have read quite a few of those books, but has also deviated from the lists in pursuit of his or her own taste, has thought thoroughly about what they have read, and is passionate about the books they love. Someone who reads because they love reading (as opposed to someone who reads for the sake of being able to check books off a list or impress people in conversation), will automatically seek out books by writers they love, books that deal with subjects they're interested in, books that are recommended by people they trust, etc. And in so doing, they're likely to find wonderful things to read that aren't mentioned on any list anywhere. I think the lists, or the idea of the canon, make a good starting point, but then you've got to be willing to experiment and follow you own taste. I'd much rather talk about books with someone who has done this kind of exploring than with somebody who can quote at will from every Pulitzer winner ever. So I guess my answer is, it's important to read the canon, but it's also important to branch out and exercise your own critical thinking abilities in selecting what you read.
Do I consider myself well-read? Good question. I guess I would say that I'm on my way there. Perhaps I could say that I consider myself well-read for a 25-year-old. I read all the time, and I'm usually pretty passionate and opinionated about what I read, as you know from reading this journal, but I don't have much of a plan to my reading. I've got lists of books to read coming out my ears, and I would consider most of what I read to be "literature" (almost as problematic a term as "well-read"), but it comes about rather haphazardly. I've read a lot of books that are part of the canon, although I'm much more well-versed in the modern canon than in the old stuff. As for what it will take for me to become well-read, I don't really know. I suppose it would help if I approached my reading from a more systematic standpoint, but it's of equal importance to me that I enjoy what I read as that I read books that will contribute to my being well-read.
And of course, it's important to note that the definition of well-read is quite personal, and differs for every individual. You may have entirely different ideas than I do, and I'd love to hear how you would define "well-read." Sorry for writing such a huge essay here; I hope it's at least a little bit interesting for you.