To wonder what exactly you need to have read to be 'well read'?

[joogle]

I read a lot of books but not sure I would be considered 'well read'.....

To have read a good proportion of the classics & be fairly up to date on the quality contemporary stuff. I don't think you just need to have read all of the current chick-flicks on the market to be classed as well read not that I am particularly well read so I shouldn't really be commenting

I like quality contemporary stuff, can't stand chick flicks.
By classics do you mean Jane Austen etc? I read Emma and didn't much like it to be honest!

Some people consider me 'well read'... i'm not, I just know how to fake it. And i'm not the only one.

I think you need to have read a bit of lots of genres/eras. For example, knowing a fair bit about Shakespeare/Chaucer, a good knowledge of poets over the years, as well as the 18th and 19th century novels (Austen, Dickens etc). A little bit of foreign lit (Russian/French/American) maybe. I'd say that was well-read. I have a degree in Literature, and I still don't consider myself to be well-read at all

Oh and some Conan Doyle obviously

Maybe if you've read a good proportion of the books on this list? Though that one is 'most popular', so includes a lot that probably wouldn't strictly be seen as 'well read' material - Harry Potter, Terry Pratchett etc.

Or there are various other top-100-books-you-must-read lists floating around the internet. Basically I would say it just means having read broadly, and read a fair number of classics, including 20th century classics like Orwell, and not just sticking to a particular popular genre.

Classics to me don't have to be shite romantic books, I would say books from George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, the Lord Of the Rings and the like are classics.

The just have to not age with the telling, what about Dracula? Brilliant!

Well read to me would be to have read a lot of books in more than one subject, so (and in no way a comprehensive list or anything) Brit, Greek, Roman history/classic romance/religion/perhaps the world wars, those kind of subjects.

I think being well-read implies that when you come across an allusion to an idea/plot/quotation etc., you stand a reasonable chance of spotting the allusion, know what they are talking about and may even have read the original. This applies to films and TV, as well as books, cross-referencing each other.

I think it's like a game of dominoes. I read a book, it gets me interested in something so I read a book about that and so on and so on.

I'm currently trying to read 'the thousand autumns of jacob de zoet' and I'm not getting it after 50 pages,sounds good when you say it though...

I read all sorts of books but am not afraid to put my hand up and say I found it shit or didn't understand any of it.

DH is a Terry Pratchett freak exexpat, I've read a couple and 'get' him, but just can't 'get into' him for some reason.

Loved the hogfather on telly though, esp deaths sense of humour

You're supposed to have read not only modern classics but also the Greek stuff and not only novels but plays....

The Western Canon is "supposed" to be where you're meant to be looking...but some people say it is inherently sexist as there are not enough (any?) female authors on it...it's basically a list of important works.

But really...consdering women haven't had the same educational opportunities until fairly recently I'm not sure that this holds sway weh considering the worthiness of the Canon.

dh only reads terry Pratchett or Anne Rice.

I went through my Pratchett phase when I was in my teens.

war and peace

shakespeare

chaucer

austen

dickins

some booker prize winners

good quality non-fiction eg political stuff

I consider myself well read as I have read widely since I was a child. Despite poor teaching at school, I've used these books to educate myself and as such, I'm better educated in English than I would have been.

In Pride and Prejudice, Darcy doesn't specify books, but just says you need to read widely:

``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.'' (Chapter 8, volume 1)

Reckon that pretty much describes me (and my current diet of trashy fantasy novels and teenage fiction).

I always think of myself as reasonably well read and have read lots of classics etc including some of the foreign stuff, but in real life I find myself reading mostly crime fiction. I'm always really surprised when I come back to proper capital L literature by how good it is and wonder why I don't read it all the time. Then I go back to the supermarket and buy whatever gory stuff is on offer. Plus I really, really hate Charles Dickens. What does that make me?

Oh, so Heat, Closer, OK and Hello don't count as widely read then? With the odd Jackie Collins for my really highbrow moments.

I hate Dickens too

I can't flipping stand Austen (unless it's a glorious beeb adaptation)

'Well read' to me means you can read for pleasure and possibly be educated by it. And it doesn't matter what you read, as long as you enjoy it.

I've never liked Dickens, so have hardly read any, but Paradise Lost was SO good I missed piss-ups in the student bar to finish it (I was 19 years old) and don't even get me started on Nostromo, the best book ever written until the Shopaholic series!

Me and all thingumy, too many irrelevant/flowery bits but good to iron to on a Sunday afternoon (if I were the type of person who didn't dodge the ironing ).

I consider myself to be both 'well read' and 'widely read' and because of this feel that I can offer a considered and fairly educated opinion that Dickens is, indeed, crap.

However: I do think that to be considered 'well read' one should probably have read a couple of Dickens' novels and a couple (at least) of the lovely Jane's plus some Shakespeare, some of the more 'modern' classics such as Waugh, Nabokov, Greene, Orwell etc. Oh and probably bloody Middlemarch but I just can't get on with it and therefore fail my own criteria.

I think a few contemporary-ish writers/prize winners need to be there too - not necessarily to enjoy but at least to be able to offer an opinion on them!

amother as long as you read Heat, Closer, OK, Hello and other lit eg Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday, you are well read

Seriously though, just by being on MN you are reading different people's views on many everyday matters, understanding other people's situations and communicating your own views = well read in my view.

I think it means having a good broad general knowledge from reading many different types of books over a wide range of subjects , it would to be mean understanding how in a british context our literary history and the importance of greek, latin texts the huge influence of king james bible ( see melvyn bragg|) I do not mean religiously here; but how it shapes our history etc, shakespeare the major poets the general classics not necessarily reading all of them. you can hate dickens and still be well read! I agree with aliitlebigpregnant on that one!
Also understanding history politics etc so you do not mix up battle of trafalgar with waterloo and know who oliver cromwell was a bit about the renaissance reformation the enlightenment the empire how it grew and how it was slowly broken up and independence etc, these are examples

i think it also means in educational terms reading more widely than the bare minimum to pass the exam, history did not start in 1914 it is knowing how it all fits together as well, in political terms it means going way beyond the soundbites and being able to cross reference sources and build your own picture from these, I think the term "well read" hints that being well read means/encourages free thought and conclusions

I'm sort of well-read as I have read lots of books but I enjoy anything from Harry Potter - yes! I know it's for kids - to Kafka, Hardy or Austen. Sarah's point about encouraging free thought pretty much sums it up: anyone can read Kafka for example, very few will understand its multiplicty of meanings. Feel free to ignore my pretentiousness and twattery