Man of Honour
I'd consider them particularly knowledgeable and rather intelligent. I don't think I'd use the term well read.
Whatit takes to be well read
- Thread starter aumz
- Start date
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.Balddog said:
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
Man of Honour
I listed authors I've read. Thats not an exhaustive list. Factual books with the same impact and influence would achieve the same IMO.Balddog 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
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
Soldato
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
i like the harry potters and the discworlds
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 )
Man of Honour
Its nice to have a break from heavy reading sometimes and hit Harry Potter or David Eddings or somesuch.
Yes, but just because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A.DJammyRasta said:i like the harry potters and the discworlds
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.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
I always thought it was someone who had a good grasp on the language, and could use pointless long words when needed
Soldato
I've always associated the term 'well-read' with breadth of knowledge as opposed to depth of knowledge.
Suspended
Someone who was truly well read would know that the word he was searching for was 'synonym' and not 'antonym'.Gilly said:
Man of Honour
I'm blaming my workloadArcade Fire said:Someone who was truly well read would know that the word he was searching for was 'synonym' and not 'antonym'.
Suspended
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
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: