Weekly Tea Discussion: What is “Well-Read”?

When I looked up the definition of “well-read”, Google gave me this:

That describes most of us, right?

But then through my search I found a website: a list challenge that asks you how many books have you read, from a list of 143. I checked off 54 books so I received a score of 38%. So according to this list I am not considered to be “well-read”.

I know this was a list made up by someone and I shouldn’t really take it seriously This list is seriously flawed and I am not saying this because I got a low score. First, it capped what I consider a low amount of books. Second, whoever compiled this list only chose the popular classics, for example only putting Pride and Prejudice and not Austen’s other works or only putting three of Shakespeare’s plays when he wrote so much more than that. Third, the person who compiled didn’t look it over correctly because they would have noticed that they put The Secret Garden twice on the list and Inferno by Dante is part of The Divine Comedy so both shouldn’t be on the list as separate works. That affects the margin of your score.

But what I really want to discuss today is the impression that I received from the title of the list:

I love reading the classics. Sometimes I find the stories well-thought out and more detailed. I prefer reading them compared to the books that are being published today. Some may find them boring but I only find excitement through the pages. But that’s my opinion.I understand that not everyone feels the same way that I do. So why does my reading material praised highly over someone who chooses not to read the classics? I am not saying people shouldn’t at least try to read the classics but that doesn’t mean I classify someone as not “well read” just because of their lack of classics on their reading list.

Let’s say one reader and myself are having both of our reading lists compared. We are both avid readers and our lists consist of 100 books. We both have contemporary and recent books on our list but I have more classics on mine. By comparison, I would be well read compared to the other read, not based on the amount but based on the content. Is this considered snobbery? Why should it really matter how many classics a reader has read? In my book they’re already well-read. Well-rounded describes a person who is fully developed in all aspects. Shouldn’t the same be applied to being well-read. Readers who read all aspects of books most likely know more about the world than a person who pontificates about his or her knowledge on Faulkner.

Author Lisa Kleypas said this:

A well-read woman is a dangerous creature.”

It doesn’t specify which type of books a person’s reads. I think it talks about all books.So I propose we come with up a new definition: well-read means reading to your heart’s content. You allow yourself to broaden your “reading horizon” by traveling to different worlds. You don’t allow yourself to confine yourself to one type of book. You are more than willing to try new things and by reading different types of books, you become a well-rounded person. That’s what should the new definition should be.

If you are an avid reader, don’t let anyone tell you “you are not well-read” based on the type of books you read. In fact, you have probably read can outdo any “well-read”list that is put out there. And that says something.

What do you think? Do you considered yourself to be well-read? How many classic books have you read?

If you’re interested in taking the “well-read”list challenge, you can find it here.