Or is it having a subscription to Cosmopolitan and reading bodice-ripping historical romance novels.

Hey, for some of us (like me) we consider being well read as anything beyond Farmer's Almanac, Reader's Digest (does it even exist anymore other than the 20-year-old copy at the bottom of the bathroom bin?) and the headline titles of the National Inquirer at the check-out counter!

No, seriously, I consider a well read person as someone who reads a wide variety of material which would include the literary classics along with perhaps some serious news sources such as WSJ and others, not that I do. I was curious and looked at a list of top 100 classics to see how many of them I had read and although I did read quite a few, I came to the realization that I wasn't as well-rounded as I thought I was.

Interesting topic. I looked at a list of the top 100 classics and I have read about 70 of them. I have no interest in Frankenstein or Dracula and I don't think I am missing anything there. I read fiction, historical fiction, mysteries and a few autobiographies. I dislike magazines. Am I "well-read" ? Maybe.

Good question. When I was young, I was "well-read" I read all the Classics

known to man (well, it seemed that way). Today, I read anything I want to...

mostly novels -old and new...but a lot of history, biographies, etc., too. Does that mean I was once well-read, but have now fallen? "Well-read" to me, is reading everything and anything that you want to,

for whatever reason you want. (Unless you are still in school, of course. Schools seem to want to tell you what to do. ;))

Having read ALL 100 of the classics is my idea of "well read". I've read 5 off the list....but who can say they've read ALL 23 of Anne McCaffrey's Dragons Of Pern books? lol See? Being able to read and reciting the classics...yes...you must understand and remember what you read....in my opinion....is the difference.

I think being well-read means reading a variety of sources. Classic novels, modern novels, different genres, different mediums (magazines, newspapers), current events.

I also think being able to discuss what was read factors in, as it shows not just reading but comprehension. That's why I will never consider myself to be well-read because while I read a lot, I have a terrible memory and often can't remember book titles, authors and plot points.

When a contestant on Jeopardy! says, “I’ll take Literature for $800, please, Alex,” do you cringe? If not, then you’re probably “well-read.” ;)

P.S. Hopefully the mug says “well-read,” not “well read.”

My first degree was in German/English, and I took 27 literature courses, including Russian and French literature. I took 10 literature courses in German, and so I am somewhat well-read in German. I've met Germans who are less familiar with certain parts of German literature, but I did specialize in the Romantic period. I also have a fascination with folk tales, epics, and legends. Today I tend to read more non-fiction, and I am especially interested in anthropology and archaeology. I've studied philosophy quite a bit as well. I started out in college majoring in Physics, but I soon learned that I did not want to spend the rest of my life in that field.

I took English lit courses in college so I've read a lot of the 100 list but I mostly prefer current fiction books with all the new political ones mixed in.

One can be well read in singular categories. I had a college roommate who was a doctoral student of geophysics. She had a vast collection of bodice rippers...er.....romance novels but nothing else. She wasn't much fun to talk to.

My brother is a polymer physicist and chemist. His reading material is wonderfully diverse, including fiction, history, science, biographies, magazines, graphic comics and novels, and a wide variety of news publications. He reads in English, German, and French, and Spanish. Now, he IS fun to talk to! I consider him enormously well read and well rounded.

I consider myself a well read person, open to most genres. Most of my reading is non fiction of one category or another, though I love those old classics. I was the one in high school English classes who devoured Dickens, George Eliot, Austen, the Brontes, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, and so many others. I re-read them to this day.

I always check the NYT lists will sometimes read from the top 20. I also love short stories, what incredible gems they can be. Some magazines publish great pieces of journalism and creative writing. Some of the best can be found in sports magazines, in my opinion.

I read one of my roommate's soft porn (a Harlequin novel, as I recall). ;-) Nope, not a big fan!

This would depend on the 'standard' at play. I usually feel 'adequately-read' in that I recognize quotes or allusions to history or classics when I come across them, However, I'm not living within academe or reading especially challenging books or essays, and I would be entirely out of my depth with enthusiasts of specific fields -- from poetry to classic comics!

To me, saying someone is "well read" is close in meaning to calling someone "well educated". For both, it's not a counting of books, or a counting or assessment of college degrees.

Instead, I think of these as implying someone whose understanding and approach to life and to others has been influenced by the experiences. Such people should have gained a pensive approach and enlightenment, understanding, and insights that others might not have.

There are plenty of people with a list of impressive degrees, or tickmarks on a list of all-time classics of literature, who struggle with many things in life and have trouble putting two and two together. And, probably accurate to say, are often clueless. Someone who has a lot of degrees many not be well educated and someone who has read the Great Books may not be well read. Conversely, there are plenty of people with less numerous or impressive academic credentials, and some even none, and others not well read who produce profound thoughts and insights about their world and people in it.

Don't count books read by yourself or anyone else, it's misleading.

The mug does say well-read. Sorry that I didn't.

Merriam-Webster.com: well-informed or deeply versed through reading

MacmillanDictionary.com: someone who is well read has read many books and has a lot of knowledge

Dictionary.com: having read extensively (sometimes followed by in): well-read in oceanography

A 'well read" person, IMO, is one who reads a variety of subjects in a variety of ways.

I've read the classics. I don't consider myself well-read just because I did that. For me a well-read person is a person who is open-minded and will thoroughly and extensively research any subject they are interested in with an awareness to their own biases.

If one dictionary describes it as one having read many books, that's me. I joined my library in 1971 and go every Wednesday. My husband and I have at least three books out each in any given week. I'm not sure how smart that makes us but we like reading books for entertainment mostly the exception being the newest political books like Becoming and Blowout.

I prefer to think it means having an open mind towards attempting to read all types of literature, including poetry. I am very eclectic in my tastes, having found "treasures" in mysteries, biographies, histories, non-fiction, and poetry. I frequent two libraries, one of them academic. I grew up reading the so-called "classics" but my reading taste has expanded well beyond them. I read the occasional magazine, but most especially "The New Yorker", often from cover to cover.

lily, I just read "Becoming" also. What did you think of it?

I read Becoming months ago. I was first on the library list. I liked it a lot and apparently many others did as it has been on the New York Times best-seller list ever since it came out. For many weeks, it was number one.

YOU! When I read the title and who was posting, you. Seriously. Keep your mug, you're the bar. Remember, I've known you a really long time.

Someone who reads widely and with lively curiosity. Some classics, some literary fiction, some history, some science, some arts, some biography. One could delve more deeply in topics of particular interest but still range far afield. I think ongoing curiosity might be the key. And nothing wrong with including plenty of genre fiction along the way.

I think that a reader who questions whether or not they are well read has to be because who else would ask them selves such a question. I cant fly either.

I agree with Rosefolly on lively curiosity Anyone can read five/ten books a week; it doesn't make them 'well-read'. And I don't think it is just books, but what we call over here the broad-sheet newspapers, articles in magazines (even sometimes the ones found at the hairdresser) programmes on the TV/radio . . . and we are lucky in the UK to have quality stuff from the BBC and independent TV co's. Well-read should included knowing 'stuff' about where one lives, about the geography and history of one's country and of what is/has been going on in the surrounding world.

It must be an on-going process, if for no other reason than to prevent our brains from ossifing/stagnating . . .and, of course showing off when we get answers to questions on quiz programmes or can fill in the clues to general knowledge crosswords.

Which list of 100 classic books did anyone go by? There are several on the net...

I've been sort of working my way through the list at the Great American Read though many of those would hardly ever be considered classics and I know I won't read them all as some just don't interest me.

Elizabeth, I would recommend you read Frankenstein though as it is nothing like the movies...far more about a study in human character than it is anything else.

Yes, what Annie said ^^about Frankenstein being a study in human character. I've read it in the last couple of years--would never have selected it but it was in a 'clean up' pile of books that needed to be moved on--donated. I think DS must have brought it home or perhaps I picked it up at a rummage sale? (I just noticed Dracula in a new clean-up pile--haven't gotten to it yet.)

Anyway, Frankenstein is far from being a worthless read...and bonus points for being a quick read, too.

#1DD did better than her siblings on the ACT over all reading score. I attributed it to her being "well read". Me I read mystery novels.

Upvote for "lively curiosity."

LOL arcy I was thinking about mystery novels, a favorite genre of mine. Quite a few expand my mind by making me think, 'what if I were in that situation'. Some authors set their books in historical situations they have researched extensively, so I pick up facts just by following the action. I also enjoy "mind candy": fun to read, but not particularly enlightening; you don't have to be serious 100% of the time :-)

I think reading fiction of all sorts can indeed contribute to our personal knowledge of the world. My whole life I have come across facts in novels that lead me to research further. When I was growing up, it took me to the World Book Encyclopedia. As an adult, it takes me to the internet and the public library.

This habit has given me great respect for those authors who research their books well, as some do. And annoyance with those who do not, and they are many.

I tried to read Frankensteinwhen I was very young and threw it down quickly. After all, I had watched the movie as a kid a million times already. I had no idea that the subject was actually deeper than some creepy guy walking around with a rod in his neck. Then about 10 years ago I happened to sit through the movie Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde on TCM. I hadn't seen it since I was a kid, and was shocked at how deep that story actually was. I remember they played it on the horror movie slot when I was a kid and I remember watching it but only remember the parts where he changed into Mr. Hyde. I guess that was supposed to be scary. - (?) Funny how we perceive things so differently at different times of our lives.

I call quick and easy reads "potato chip books" You cant read just one. I have a friend who sends me mystery books that have cats in them-How could I have called myself well read before that?

I have read War and Peace almost five times. The first time I was very young-seventh grade I think and decided I must have missed everything so I read it again in a couple of years and so on till I finally decided it was just ghastly crap. I cant call myself well read because I haven't read much modern literature. I have read some as a friend was getting a masters in English and passed her books on to me but as for putting them into a literate context I cant. Oh well. I can put in a plug for Frankenstein or Dracula as being completely different books from the movies. If you want to enjoy Jane Austen stop reading them as romances which they are not. They are life stories and are actually fairly desperate representations of the limited options of women back in the day-your best being marriage and god help you if you don't nail down a husband because dependence and penury is in your future. My dead favorite literature is short stories. I love the concentration of thought you have to have. It is a great pity that there isn't much of a venue for them any more.

Ah, arcy, but you can learn a lot from reading mysteries other than just many ways to kill people. There are some really good mystery writers, and many are set in exotic locales. I think my love of travel came from reading Mary Stewart.

What a fun thread.

I sort of consider myself well read, until I run across someone who truly is.

A wise woman once told me that being well read meant having read about current situations around the world, within your country, your state and city you live in. Have read the classics, and any new Hot book. Then you must be able to converse on all of the above at an event or cocktail party.

I would hope that I'd be so busy reading all those things that I would not have time or interest in any "events" or cocktail parties ! ( that would be a given for any well-read person in my world )

I only read War and Peace once, but I read Gone With the Wind three times - the first time when I was ten. As a teenager, I became fascinated with Thomas Hardy novels, partly because I always identified with his tragic heroines, and I tried to figure out why I could not identify with any of his male characters. I did not identify with any character in GWTW, and the only character I really liked was Mammy and maybe Rhett Butler. I read a lot as a teenager because I grew up on a farm, which I hated, and there was little else to do.

When I was taking a graduate course in History of Architecture, I checked out three copies of Alberti's Ten Books on Architecture, one in the original Latin, one in archaic English (from from 1755), and a modern Italian translation, so that I could compare them. I found the Italian translation to be closer to the original Latin (and I did not want to try to read the entire book in Latin), and so I returned the Latin and English versions and read it in Italian. I read a couple of architecture books in French, but they weren't as good as the ones I could find in Italian. When I studied Ancient Greek Art, I found more books in German than in English, and I also read articles in Die Zeit from the 1930s that the library had on microfilm. I never did learn Greek beyond the alphabet, which is somewhat similar to Cyrillic, with which I was familiar from having studied Russian.

At one time I considered going to graduate school to get a degree in comparative literature, but I would have had to go to Buffalo or Berkeley; Buffalo was too cold, and Berkeley was too expensive. I also realized that this degree would not have been very good for a career, other than teaching, and I really did not want to do that.

Elmers description is how I imagine well read...