Katie at Never Not Reading wrote a great post on whether Literacy and Reading is inherently valuable, and while I was reading the post, a secondary question popped up: is it important that we are well-read?
Honestly, I think one major issue in any discussion about reading and the relative value of books is the existence of book snobs. Because we have people who think “oh only classics count” or “oh only literary fiction count” or “I only read nonfiction because it’s related to real life” or the myriad of people who look down on genres like fantasy and romance (ahem, Kazuo Ishiguro and his non-fantasy fantasy novel), book lovers can get very defensive of the books that they like.
“Fantasy can be deep!”
“Romance can teach us about life!”
“YA fiction can be used to reflect issues that we face in society!”
All these are valid arguments, but I think that this is how we can start with the idea that “all genres are worth reading” and end up with the idea that “as long as you’re reading you’re doing it right/better than people watching TV” comes about. But this ignores the fact that not all books are made equal (like how not all Netflix shows are made equal – some are made for you to enjoy and forget and some are documentaries that want to provoke thinking).
Sure, great fiction can be found in all genres: romance (Pride & Prejudice), science fiction (Fahrenheit 451), fantasy (Lord of The Rings, Earthsea Cycle), but all books are not made equal. And sometimes that’s okay. You don’t have to pick up every book expecting to be educated and/or challenged. Sometimes, all you want is some light fluffy fiction that helps you forget about things like a global pandemic. If you want to read literary fiction so that you can discuss various social issues through the way books deal with them, that’s great. You do you and I’ll do me.
Once we move past the book snobs, we can accept that not all books are equal and then we can move on to thinking that “not all reasons to read involve reading well and that’s okay”.
And what does it mean to be well-read? To be honest, I don’t know if there’s a definition of ‘reading well’ that’s going to fit everyone (or maybe it’ll be as difficult to attain as Mr Darcy’s definition of an accomplished lady). For me, reading well would involve reading challenging works – not just in terms of style or time period, but also ideas and language (I don’t want to digress too far but there is a great essay on how language is a tool for interpreting the world that you can read). I’ll admit, I read mostly for escapism, sometimes as research, and only occasionally to challenge myself, which is why I hesitate to call myself well-read. I am mostly entertained-read.
Is that wrong?
Well, I would argue not. This is how I choose to spend my reading time, and as far as I know, I am not mandated to read with the aim of improving myself as a person. That would be a nice side benefit, but primarily I read to entertain myself.
Summary of this messy post:
- There are different reasons to read
- Not all reasons to read involve critical thinking/reading well
- Whether you “read well” depends on why you read and you are allowed to read for whatever reason you want (be it as a form of escapism or to educate yourself).
I love this! I think about this a lot, and I think some people think the idea that “not all books are created equal/not all books are challenging” is the take of a book snob, but…it’s true! And it’s weird people in the book community don’t want to say so. We rate and review books. Surely sometimes when people give a low rating, they’re not just saying something like, “It wasn’t fast-paced” but sometimes something like “It wasn’t well-written” or “It wasn’t nuanced or though-provoking”?
I’ve been thinking about the YA arguments, too, and I’ve come to conclusion that while it’s true, as people constantly point out, that many YA books touch on relevant and sometimes difficult themes, the way those themes are presented are not always particularly challenging or nuanced. Often there’s a moral, and that moral is spelled out with a clear example and then speeches. Say, sometimes says something sexist. Another character must then call it out as sexist and explain why it’s ok. Bonus points if the sexist person ends up punished by the end and the non-sexist person has good things happen to them. Readers actually get mad if the lessons are not this obvious; if a sexist comment isn’t explicitly called out as sexist and said to be wrong, readers complain the book is sexist and no one should read such awful stuff.
Other books are not often as *straightforward* with how they tackle issues like this, and I think that’s what makes them more challenging, or why one might need to be a “better reader” to approach those books. The reader doesn’t get a narrator to tell that what behavior is wrong or why. It isn’t just that a tough or important topic exists in the book. The reader has to read between the lines, analyze and interpret, and figure out what the book is saying about the topic all on their own.
Good point about YA fiction! I think a lot of people have mistaken “this books has a sexist character” for “this author is sexist”, which possibly explains why a lot of books feel like thinly disguised ideological creeds (I even found traces of this in Blood Heir and it annoyed me).
We really need to be able to talk about books more objectively (not just “I liked it!” but also how it presented its message, was it spoonfeeding us, etc) but sadly I think a lot of people still take things personally (i.e. if it’s not 100% praise for this book I like, you are attacking the book/its readers).
I am curious to see an ARC of Blood Heir. I know the author said she revised it after the backlash, but I felt like the actual message was so in my face that I cannot understand how the initial reviewer ever misread it so badly as to think it was referring to the slavery if Africans in the US. So, did the author revise it to be that blatant about the message in response to the misreading, or was it always like that and someone still missed the point???
I would like to see the ARC for the same reasons!!
My understanding of the controversy was that the initial reviewer was reaching for the outrage, so I suspect that it probably was already mildly anti-slavery but someone managed to misread it so the author decided to be Really Clear about her stance on the whole thing while revising.
I love this so much! There are many different reasons to read, and none of them are wrong!
I do personally value being well-read, which to me means that I’m reading a variety of “kinds” or books, or possibly for a variety of the different reasons you brought up for reading. Yes, some books I read for escapism. Other books I read because they are outstanding pieces of literature and I think I’m a better person for reading them. Other books I read to learn, or read to see the world from a different perspective, or read to challenge me to think in a new way. I personally think this is incredibly valuable, and that’s why I often encourage others to read a variety of books and not just stick to their comfort zone. But I also recognize that just because *I* place value in it doesn’t mean others do or should.
Yes!! If everyone thought like you, I think we’d be having more productive discussions about books and the value of reading.
There is nothing wrong with reading for entertainment. But, even when we do that, there is often more to it than frivolity. Some authors are just amusing. Voltaire’s “Candide” comes to mind as a jolly romp. Others stretch the imagination and I read them with anticipation–not just about how the characters resolve their predicaments, but also for the surreal twists and turns the author may construct (Haruki Murakami). Still, other authors present us with stories that show us how their characters navigate the existential questions of life, successfully or not (Jean Kwok). There is almost always something to learn and appreciate in the stories, their lessons and how the author expresses herself or himself. I guess the moral is, “if it feels good, do it.”
I definitely agree that some authors write entertaining and thought-provoking work. At the end of the day, reading and what you get out of it is so subjecting (and that’s the great part of it, for me)
I agree with your points. For me, being well-read means having acquired a broad knowledge about all sorts of things through reading—whether that’s fictional books or not. Like a well-read person is someone who has an answer to everything because (s)he has ‘read it somewhere’. And somehow we think of well-read people as somewhat better educated or smarter. But that’s not necessarily the case. There’re people out there who either only read for enjoyment or don’t read at all and they’re just as educated. So long story short-I don’t think it’s important to be well-read at all.
Good point on “well read” not necessarily meaning “educated” (at least in the sense of formal education)!
I don’t think it’s necessarily important to be well-read. People read for all sorts of reasons, from obtaining information about a subject to relaxing to trying to fit in with a new crowd to trying to impress a girl they like. I doubt the vast majority of readers sit down with a book because they are consciously trying to be edified or otherwise improve themselves (unless, of course, they are reading a self-help book!).
As to your secondary point–I agree not all books are equal. Some simply are not well-written or are not thought-provoking or are flat-out dull. We may have different ideas about what makes a “good” book–perhaps some would say it’s “A relatable character and a fast-paced plot, more action than dialogue” and someone else might say, “A book that challenges me, that makes me think deeply, that makes me want to reread it.” We all probably have different criteria and that criteria will likely change based on what we are reading (what makes a “good” mystery story is probably different from what makes a “good” romance or a “good” literary fiction). But I agree that not all reading is equal and not everything we read is going to “improve” us in a meaningful and measurable way. That’s okay. Sometimes people just like to read because, gasp, they enjoy it!
Interestingly, I’ve just finished a book called Thrill of the Chaste: The Allure of Amish Romance Novels by Valeria Weaver-Zercher. The author examines Amish romance novels to try to determine their appeal. She speaks to a number of people who assume many things such as 1) Amish romance novels are the same as general romance novels and 2) all romance novels are badly written and poor literature. But when she examines the novels and speaks to the readers, it becomes clear that people have different criteria for what makes a “good” novel. The people who think Amish romance novels are bad (and who often seem not to have read any) seem to assume literary fiction is the ideal and that a “good” book will have the elements of literary fiction. It will make readers think and analyze deeply, etc. Because Amish romance fiction often shows instead of tells and never makes its readers interpret anything, but always clearly states the moral or interprets any imagery or symbolism for them, it must therefore, according to the standards of literary fiction, be “bad.”
But Weaver-Zercher examines how people are reading the texts and she argues that by not asking readers to do any involved interpretation they create a “welcoming environment” where readers’ minds are freed up to focus on the characters, the plot, etc. And she sees the readers using the texts in ways such as creating sisterhood, reaffirming their own (evangelical) faith, and more. For readers of Amish romance fiction, a “good” book is more likely to be defined as something like, “A book with a heroines who has relatable problems and whose journey helps me grow closer to God. It also is ‘clean’ so I feel comfortable sharing it with my daughters and other women in my life.”
I think there’s no one definition of a “good” book because different types of books serve different functions, and so we can’t really compare them to each other.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and talking about Thrill of the Chaste! There was a time where I was really into Amish-based books and I think you/the book hit it on the head: I didn’t read it because it was the pinnacle of literary fiction (I often shy away from literary fiction because it’s intimidating!) but it was comforting and it was easy to read.
I admit to never having read an Amish romance, but Thrill of the Chaste rather made me want to pick one up! One thing I found intriguing about the readers interviewed was that many of them seemed really drawn to the characters because they were going through relatable problems such as a troubled marriage or a miscarriage. It’s quite clear that the bulk of these novels are written by women and read by women, and so they seem to have created this space where the women can speak to each other about issues that come up in their lives and that are important to them. The books are being judged as inferior because they are not living up to the standards of literary fiction, but they are extremely meaningful to the women who read them because they are acknowledging realities of their lives that these other “better” books may not be addressing. So, yeah, maybe an Amish romance is not going to make sweeping statements about war and the nature of humanity or something, but is that the only standard for a book to be judged by? I think not!
This is such an interesting post! I love the fact that well read will mean different things to different people. When I was younger well read to me would’ve meant lots of English classics, and the old ones at that, with only a few modern classics. But present day me? Well I think being well read means looking across all genres, reading both from the modern day and from the classics of the genre, and also reading from a variety of languages! I have the privilege of so many books being translated into English and I should utilise this to enjoy literature from around the world. Whether that is a classic from the 18th Century or a sci-fi published last year.
Yes to everything, especially reading from a variety of languages! I enjoy the Western canon, but there’s so much more to it. Plus, I think we’re in a translating boom – for example I see so much more translated Japanese mysteries now then when I was younger!
Reading is so subjective. Even to the point that I would argue quality is subjective. Which is why I think I get frustrated with people who dismiss an entire genre as being frivolous or beneath them. We can come up with examples in every book category of quality literature, as you demonstrated. But even beyond that it all comes down to preference–we do not all like the same things. We do not all value the same qualities in what we read. And then add to that the reasons people read–it really does vary. I think for most of us it’s a combination or can vary depending on the book. One of my pet peeves is when I mention I am reading a nonfiction or serious/sad book and someone says they would never read that because they read for pleasure. Pleasure comes in all forms, not just in escape (which I assume they mean more often than not; although I often read for escape too–but not always–in combination with other reasons). That’s a tangent I can go on and on about. 🙂 Anyway, I am one of those people who is glad to hear people are reading at all. What a person gets out of their reading varies from person to person. Sometimes even that so-called frivolous romance novel can be life changing to a reader. We each may judge books to be better or less than and not always agree. We can’t even always agree on what is great writing. Not to mention that sometimes it’s all about timing too–certain books appeal to us more at certain points in our lives than they might at another time. I’m rambling, so I’ll stop.
To me well-read doesn’t have to be reading a lot of great literature (whatever that may be). It has more to do with reading diversely and widely, and that includes across genres, and being knowledgeable about many things.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Wendy! I agree, reading is so subjective but the most important thing is to enjoy your reading/that you’re reading the way you want to read.
Great post!
Funnily enough, I just finished The Buried Giant. It was my first Ishiguro … and, well … “did not like” about sums it up 😅 Definitely not my style. (Thanks for the link to the article!)
I think you’re hinting at the difference between “well-read” and “reading well” ☺️ My definition of well-read would be having read comprehensively within a given field/associated fields … both the classics as well as modern works. (So, in my work as a scientist, it would be both having read books by Bandura and Beck, as well as keeping up with recent research.) Applied to a non-specialist, I’d say it’s reading broadly and reading those “important” books that we’re all told we should read … philosophy, economics, politics, art, etc. Not just literature.
… and, most importantly, the person both reads and critically appraises what they read. To be well-read is to understand, integrate, and apply knowledge.
Reading well … I’d take as (a) reading things that bring you enjoyment, combined with (b) reading books that are a bit more elevated than “Netflix junk” … books that up your experience, challenge you, make you think of things a different way, etc.
Books like Jackaby, for instance 😉
“critically appraises what they read” – I think hits the nail on the head!
I hear you on the Buried Giant, but did you think it was fantasy? 😏😏
Hmm … I guess that depends on how you definite fantasy. Is dropping a magical reference or two enough to call it fantasy? – I don’t think so, or else Outlander would be classified as fantasy and not historical romance.
I’d probably classify Buried Giant as plain ol’ fiction – or literary fiction, if I had to be more specific. It acknowledges that it isn’t real; it weaves in some surrealism; yet its purpose feels like that deeper literary-style contemplation.
I’d be apt to say the same about Addie La Rue … though, in its case, it falls more on the fantasy than literary side. Fantasy elements fo sure … but the purpose of the book is deeper than just fantasy delights/entertainment/story.
That makes sense! Thank you for the answer!
This is interesting! I’d like to add an idea that I think suggests being well-read is relative to the reader, too. I think we all mostly agree that not all books are created equally. But, not everyone reads at the same level either. For me, I think being well read is less about reading the classics or only literary fiction, but about reading books that are challenging. But, what if the books I think are challenging are easy reads for others? Does that mean that I am not as well read?
That is a good point! What’s easy/approachable for you may be intimidating for others. So maybe anything to do with evaluating books is relative (except for typos. Judging typos is pretty much the only objective part of a review imo)
I agree with all your points as they apply to an adult who is reading for their own enrichment and pleasure.
However, I do believe that every culture has its own canon of Great Books, and that ideally everyone who gets an education in each culture should have read all of these, or at least the core of them.
Fair point about the canon! Although I have to admit I haven’t read all of the Chinese canon, so this point didn’t occur to me 😅😅
Yes. I have not read all the English canon either, even defining it rather narrowly. (Like, not only have I not read all the Russian novels in translation, I haven’t even read all of Shakespeare’s plays!) I mostly blame my educators for this. I could have read a lot more great works if I’d been forced to. However, I also have to take some of the blame for being lazy. 😉 But luckily, I at least got thoroughly soaked in the Bible (and biblical history and backgrounds) at home, and also got exposed to Greek myths, histories, and plays at one point during my high school years. I meet many people who are not familiar with these basics.
I will just say one thing. This post is LOVE. <3
Thank you! Glad you like the post!