21st Century Literature discussion

When you hear the phrase "well read" what does it mean to you? Do you apply the same definition to others as you do to yourself? What does it mean to be well read in today's world? Is being well read important in any way to you?

I think in today's world it means to be familiar with important works from books not only across different time periods but a diverse amount of genres as well, where as maybe in the past it was more so being familiar with some of the well-known classics exposed to us in school or college. As much as I'm a fan of classics, I think it is important for me to go out of my comfort zone sometimes and branch off into other areas. I think it is important to be well-read in terms of understanding different points of view and different perspectives, even if it is one I do not necessarily readily identify with those perspectives.

I used to define such based on a bunch of highfalutin lists à la 1001 and whatnot. Then I thought about what parts of the world put out the most writing that is the most read and what the world actually looks like outside of that. These days, I'm content to hold myself to rather rigorous reading regimens and let everyone else do what they want. I will admit, though, it tickles me pink whenever someone comments on the latest GR article about new book releases and complains about "too much diversity", as those are the kinds of folks that don't get enough "well read" fiber in their diets, whatever that may prove to be for them.

These days I might define it loosely as someone who reads often and enjoys reading, mainly books (but could also include magazines and some newspaper reading, oral traditions, and more), especially/mostly fiction. A person who enjoys musing about what they are reading (whether that is thinking on your own, investigating rabbit trails of additional info, discussing with a group, comparing/contrasting it with other things you've read, etc...).

I think well-read includes a variety of books from authors of all types from around the world, stories old and new, the familiar and the different, children's or adult's, traditional and innovative works, .... Basically a curiosity and willingness to immerse yourself in a story, being open to experiencing or learning something new. And repeating that as often as you can throughout your life.

Storytelling has been such an integral part of human development that knowledge of, appreciation for, and love of stories is what I see as well-read. It is extremely important to me and I hope the well-read of today inspire and encourage others to be the well-read of the future.

I recently did some cognitive testing. We got to the voccabulary that no one knew, but I just kept going. I told the doctor is was due to reading novels. Does that mean I am well read, Probably not. At this stage, any reader is well read. I mean...I don't read comics, but there are people who could be well read in that realm....or other realms. We should think outside the usual literary box.

For me someone well read is a person who reads across all genres in both fiction and non-fiction, has read the classics and current faves and is able to apply that knowledge gained from reading them when the situation arises. It's too easy to say 'I read that, I read that' but to say 'how does this novel mirror my situation or the global situation and what can I do about it' is, I think, a sign of a well read person.

I'm loving the answers to this question. Back in the ancient days of my high school years, there were plenty of people haughtily declaring a list of 'classics' which were a requirement for one to be "well-read". The idea of reading widely and diversely is a much better one.

Robert wrote: "It's too easy to say 'I read that, I read that' but to say 'how does this novel mirror my situation or the global situation and what can I do about it' is, I think, a sign of a well read person."

Yes. I love this view/idea.

I don't regard myself as well read because I am all too aware of the huge gaps in my knowledge. And reading is one thing, but understanding and remembering long term are very different. I am probably more generous when applying the term to others.

My immediate response was someone who not only reads a lot of books but who has read the classics, reads a variety of newspapers and news magazines, and, a more recent addition to my personal definition, reads translated literature as well as literature in the person's native language.

Then I decided to look up the definition and Merriam Webster tells me "well read" means: "well-informed or deeply versed through reading." I think that definition on one hand is very general but on the other could be very specfic. An example given of the use of the term "well read" was -- he is "well read in history." I keep adding to that sentence things like "but ignorant in science and religion." I do think one can be well read in one area and ignorant in others and I think that is probably more common that not.

I suspect that folks in the GR group are well read in fiction, including one or more genres (e.g., science fiction) and likely some classics. To be well read in English, I think one must have read or have knowledge of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible in the King James Version given how much literature reflects the Bible and its themes.

I read a lot but do not consider myself particularly well read. I am quite deficient in the classics, especially those written over 100 years ago. I try to read a few classics in audio every year, and I'm also trying to expand my reading of translated literature. My reading has become broader over the past ten years, as I focus more and more on the longlists for various literary prizes. I cannot think of a single topic I am well read in!

Kind of a question for Hugh and LindaJ....

Can anyone actually be well-read? Even if someone did nothing their entire lifetime but read, they still would have only scratched the surface of materials out there; there will always be gaps in a person's knowledge. And considering that a component of being well-read (probably) is to be able to analyze the info, put it to use, etc..., it would mean you need to devote a certain part of your life not just to reading, but also experiencing and understanding a plethora of things (thereby further reducing reading time).

Obviously some are more well-read than others. But can anyone ever truly achieve well-read status?

I think of this as an epithet that I probably once thought of as meaningful but no longer do. Public intellectuals or arbiters of taste were traditionally thought of as “well read” and were the ones likely to bestow that description on others like them. (Whatever that meant)
But there aren’t that many influential public intellectuals around anymore. We’re living in an age where readers are perfectly capable of pursuing their their own reading choices without relying on professional critics, should they so desire. Look at GR- it’s built on the power of word of mouth recommendations as well as the power of readers with niche tastes being able to find each other to share their enthusiasm for ...whatever. With that level of granularity, how do we ever reach agreement on what constitutes “well read”?

For myself, I’d rather graze, going where my enthusiasms take me. And I have my favorite book critics that I still read. I’m just not sure “well read”ness means what it might have once meant.

I think there is still value in the term "well read." There are certain works, at least with regards to literature, that provide readers with a common basis of understanding. GR provides an opportunity for folks to meet up with others who share their tastes, but being "well read" can provide a common understanding that todays polarized leanings make difficult. The core books for this may vary somewhat form one nationality/culture to another but certain tombs are important.

In the 21st century we have unprecedented access to literature from every century, culture, country and POV of view. I do think a solid grounding in the classics, the works each culture or country considers foundational, is essential. There’s nothing new under the sun, and my ability (or lack thereof, I certainly haven’t read everything and obviously have my preferences and biases) to compare contemporary lit to what came before enhances my understanding and appreciation of the work.

A thoughtful question and answers that make me think too.

The term "well-read" is like many other adjectives, in that it sort of depends on who you're standing next to. :-) Many of my friends who don't read much think of me as well-read, though I know I'm not.

It needs to be constantly evolving, but I like the idea of a canon, of trusted sources who can steer me to reading that is "important." Those sources vary from person to person, which is sort of contradictory but maybe not? Maybe we have our personal evolution as well. Maybe if we have those evolving trusted sources, and we are beginning to follow their reading guidance, then we are on our way to being well-read. More a journey than a destination.

At the start of the 20th century Harvard released a list of works that, if all were read, would make the reader ‘well read’.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...

They sold the books as a compendium that measured five feet (in several volumes.)

From that list, it looks like well read means well rested, since I’d be falling asleep reading all the philosophy.

I think well read means digging deeper than the classics, or the recommendations. Trying to understand others through their literature and having empathy for them and their experiences. Researching a topic that interests the reader to increase knowledge. Or, as Robert says above, acting on the lesson from the reading or changing a viewpoint to make a difference.

Tracy wrote: "From that list, it looks like well read means well rested, since I’d be falling asleep reading all the philosophy."

Indeed. Besides, anything that claims a well-read status without inclusion of the Four (or Six) Classic Novels, The Tale of Genji, or the The Popol Vuh is hardly credible.

Well the Harvard list might make someone well read in the 19th century with all those works by dead white men but in the 21st century do not think so. The Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books of the Western World, the 60 volume set published in 1990, might work for the first half of the 20th century, but still very white. A search on the Internet brought up this list of 143 books that seems better rounded and fun to see how many you've read - there are a couple of repeats. Average score is 42. I scored 88, so I've a way to go!

I agree. So many lists that promise a well read person are full of dead white straight Christian men. That’s why those lists are reference points to me, and I do my best to read as many points of view as I can. I’m nowhere close to well read- there’s way too much to learn!

I meant for my comment re: the Harvard list to be tongue in cheek- sorry if it came across as serious.

Tracy, I got that your reference to the Harvard list was tongue in cheek. This list itself makes me wonder if Harvard meant it as tongue in cheek!

LindaJ^ wrote: "My immediate response was someone who not only reads a lot of books but who has read the classics, reads a variety of newspapers and news magazines, and, a more recent addition to my personal defin..."
This tallies with my understanding of ‘well-read’; particularly that one can be well-read in one area and know very little about another. More of a depth than a breadth. Somewhat similar to ‘well versed’.

Does the meaning of "well-read" change after the internet? Not just because there is so much more to read, but also because there is so much less reason to have read it, since the knowledge is right at our fingertips at all times, vs. back in the days when 'well-read' people served a function in society, through their literacy and their access to books, of being both the wise arbiters and the gatekeepers.

lark wrote: "Does the meaning of "well-read" change after the internet? Not just because there is so much more to read, but also because there is so much less reason to have read it, since the knowledge is righ..."

All the Internet did was weed out those who became "well-read" (or bought walls of those fake books for their home offices) for the status symbol and retain those who devote time engaging with these sorts of things out of legitimate interest, and that legitimate interest amongst enough people who have a history of being formally barred from the halls of the gatekeepers has led to enough complications of what it means to be "well-read" that the usual status quo arbiters would rather throw the whole thing out than lose their power over it. Besides, if knowledge really were at everyone's fingertips at all times, misinformation plagues wouldn't be at all time highs these days, the results of which we see all too often on a national scale. The tendency towards cults/celebrity worship/bandwagoning hasn't decreased with the onset of technological connectivity: the connectivity has just served as an excuse for a mass devaluing of critical thinking skills and information literacy (aka, anything that doesn't directly pertain to STEM and whatnot) amongst those who have enough money to make themselves heard in Forbes articles and other mainstream venues.

well I don't think the internet makes people 'well-read' automatically...just that it's so much easier to be an autodidact than ever before.

The lack of any gatekeeping element--the lack of any filter whatsoever--the lack of any reasonable or rational standard of what's worth becoming well-read about, or not--are all still issues to be resolved.

I'm still on the side of the internet being a huge positive in democratizing knowledge, I guess.

Tracy wrote: "At the start of the 20th century Harvard released a list of works that, if all were read, would make the reader ‘well read’.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...

They sold ..."

Haven't these lists always been aspirational? Aren't we always torn between reading the "Should reads/Must reads" and the "I want to read" ?

This is a really interesting question.
I would say that the more you read the more aware you are of how little you have read, and are less likely to call yourself 'well read'.

You might call someone well read if they are an expert in a particular topic because they have read widely around it. Lets say, for example, you are an authority on Virginia Woolf. You have read all her novels. Then you have to read her short stories, her essays and her diaries. Beyond that you should have read biographies of her and criticism of her work. But then to understand her own writing you should read the works of others that she wrote about - the fifty different chapters of The Common Reader and The Second Common Reader that take us from the Greeks to Elizabethans, Austin to the Russians, George Eliot to Thomas Hardy. By then you are an expert not only on Woolf but literature up to 1940. Add to that all the works of the famous writers she knew and you are starting to be well read.

But you might not have read a single work of fiction published in the last eighty years.

So my conclusion: The more books you read the more aware you are of all the books you haven't read. The more you try to do something about that, the better read you'll be.

Marcus wrote: "So my conclusion: The more books you read the more aware you are of all the books you haven't read. The more you try to do something about that, then better read you'll be."

The road goes ever on...

Funny you should pick Woolf, Marcus, as it's rare that I go a year without reading at least one new thing by/about her. I don't see myself reading absolutely everything that is defined by those relations to her, but will I ever think that I've read enough of such? Probably not.

Aubrey wrote: "Funny you should pick Woolf,..."

Many years ago, when I lived in England, I had the pleasure of meeting Quentin Bell, Woolf's nephew and biographer. It was an amazing moment to meet someone who knew one of your literary heroes so well.

There was a time, really not long ago when books and reading were a luxury for the well to do. Now with our public libraries and the push for literacy over the last...60 years, and the overwhelming choices we have...can't we all just consider ourselves better read? I have not read many of those classics...

I know my son struggled with To Kill a Mockingbird, for him a white lawyer providing cousnel for a black man was ...a no brainer and it was boring. The teacher should have provided the cutlural context and the why they were reading it rather than, this is a classic and its on the must read list for high school...

I've been mulling over this question for a little while now--I think Jennifer's post at #29 clarified a few things I was trying to come to grips with.

I think it's difficult to talk about the term 'well-read' without talking about numbers of books read, or particular books that fit a certain preconceived notion of 'necessary', though I'm not sure either of those categories are the essential part of it.

I would expect a young reader today to have difficulty understanding the cultural significance of To Kill a Mockingbird--in a large part because I would not expect him to be 'well-read'. Thinking about it this way, well-read to me comes to mean more about gaining perspectives that we can bring to more and more disparate works, which then cast a reflecting light on one another. So one can read Ulysses without ever having read Homer, yet one might say the experience is deeper if you have. On the other hand, skipping Homer but reading Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man prior to Ulysses might give a different slant to the whole thing. Neither is wrong, but the more of these other works that I've read, which are often reflected or given an homage somewhere else, can be especially enjoyable when I pick up the reference.

So there is no ultimate 'well-read'--just a kind of sliding scale that really never ends. There's only so much one can absorb--I'm likely to miss some arcane joke that appears in Moby Dick ("violate the Pythagorean maxim"), unless it's pointed out to me--but I was lucky enough to be hanging around while someone well-read explained it to me.

To Kill a Mockingbird is probably a fine example of how what is considered to be required reading for one generation doesn't necessarily mean it's required reading for the next. Younger people don't resonate with the book the way many of us did. That's not necessarily misunderstanding or lack of context; it's probably, in most cases, actually a better understanding. The problematic white savior narrative that many of us needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to see is probably glaring to any high schooler reading it today.

This article is an excellent discussion for those who are recoiling at criticism of this most sacred of books, and most sacred of leading men. Just know this is how classics teachers probably reacted when it was suggested that maybe Plato doesn't need to be required reading anymore. https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/tra...

Well, I may have completely misread what Jennifer was trying to say. I took it to mean that the young man reading the story didn't see why in that time and in that place that Atticus' actions were out of the ordinary--not that he was bored by another white savior story. In our culture today, it would not seem out of the ordinary for a white lawyer to defend a black man, and so I assumed (maybe incorrectly), that the reader didn't have the context to supplement his reading of that particular text.

Before this becomes about To Kill a Mockingbird, I'd say I don't have a dog in that fight--I know a lot of people really, really like it, and that's fine. I think it has its charms, though I don't know that I'd ever feel the need to read it again. But a book like TKAM can be a good example of a book that would help someone toward the 'well-read' definition I was trying to get to before--no matter how one interprets it today. For one thing, for good or bad, it's certainly carved a place in American literature. For another, it's a snapshot of a particular time and place, which can be a helpful platform when reading other books from the same period. If one interprets it as primarily a white savior narrative, then it can be a good example of a bad example. If one interprets it as a narrative of someone who tried to stand up for what he believed was right, then its a neat little morality tale.

But I certainly agree that times change, and 'required' reading should probably change with it. The benefits of reading something like TKAM are not so unique that other texts can't supersede it. That's why to me, being 'well-read' can't simply be about the quantity of certain books one has read.

I'm coming back to this question after having just read The Child by Norwegian writer Kjersti Skomsvold, just published in the UK by Granta, and to be published in the US by Open Letter in the fall.

I felt 'well read' when I came to a section where the narrator describes her experience with the art of Agnes Martin, and I knew who Agnes Martin was and had seen her art myself on the wall of the museum that the narrator sees it at. I feel 'well read' is a destination in our intellectual life where we begin to see the interdependencies and the influences of artists and intellectuals and writers on one another. When we've read widely enough that we understand these relationships, and can feel what's almost a harmonic vibration between the work of art on the wall, and/or the work of literature in our hands, and other human experiences, discoveries, and creations.

lark benobi wrote: "I feel 'well read' is a destination in our intellectual life where we begin to see the interdependencies and the influences of artists and intellectuals and writers on one another. When we've read widely enough that we understand these relationships, and can feel what's almost a harmonic vibration between the work of art on the wall, and/or the work of literature in our hands, and other human experiences, discoveries, and creations. "

I Love this definition.

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Well, I may have completely misread what Jennifer was trying to say. I took it to mean that the young man reading the story didn't see why in that time and in that place that Atticus' actions were ..."

I just love all the resonable discussion we are having. I mean that sincerley.
Honestly , I feel that he read it as a morality tale, but he just thought is was a no brainer...he just could not wrap his head around the controversy. He also hated the use of the N word. It was worse than saying Fuck. I can also say by any defination as mentioned above he is not well read. It has been my heartbreak that he has not embraced reading.

Jennifer wrote: "Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Well, I may have completely misread what Jennifer was trying to say. I took it to mean that the young man reading the story didn't see why in that time and in tha..."

I didn't mean to imply that I was referring specifically to your son in my comments. It just reminded me of how I'd heard about teachers who were disappointed that their students failed to connect with a book that had meant so much to them. I also thought of all the angry pushback against the essay Malcolm Gladwell wrote in the New Yorker about how Atticus Finch wasn't the civil rights hero so many liberals considered him to be.

Over a decade later, and most people (myself included) have come around to Gladwell's view, aided by the release of Go Set a Watchman and its fuller picture of Atticus Finch. For me, it was an object lesson in how it feels to have something YOU consider a must read to have its timeless validity challenged.

Referring to kids who don't relate to the book today, I purposely said I thought "in most cases". Everyone has their own reasons for how they respond to a book, and I certainly can't speak for any individual.

Whitney wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Well, I may have completely misread what Jennifer was trying to say. I took it to mean that the young man reading the story didn't see why in tha..."

Oh I was tracking 100% what you were saying Whitney. Maybe if he was better read he might have had a different view point. 😊, But alas...he read the Spiderwick Chronicles but never anything after that...of wait, Maze Runner...he read that. Sigh. That sums of my sons reading....

Jennifer wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Well, I may have completely misread what Jennifer was trying to say. I took it to mean that the young man reading the story didn'..."

I'm reminded of the episode of Cheers where Carla does things like slowly drive past the baseball field with her son on the way to the library, in her futile attempts to interest him in sports instead of reading. Kids, man.

Jennifer wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Well, I may have completely misread what Jennifer was trying to say. I took it to mean that the young man reading the story didn'..."

My younger sister lived on a diet of Mad Magazine and Archie comics as a kid. When we went to Europe for the first time (she was middle-school aged), it was astounding how much history and knowledge she had of places. We kept asking how she knew about various things and the answer was always that it had been in a comic book. So there's knowledge to be found everywhere! Lol.

Jennifer wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Well, I may have completely misread what Jennifer was trying to say. I took it to mean that the young man reading the story didn'..."

Don’t give up! He might surprise you someday. My boys hated to read as children, but now that they’re adults, they love to read. They now recommend books to me all the time.

I used to teach a 1-credit small seminar to 1st year college students, and on the first day, one of the icebreaker questions was for each student to share the name of their favorite book. So many students (over the years!) said Great Gatsby, One Hundred Years of Solitude, or To Kill a Mockingbird. It was a bad news/good news thing - it showed that they didn't read much outside of the assigned books in high school, but they also said that they were surprised at how complex and interesting a novel can be when you take the time to analyze it. They genuinely liked the books. So maybe that's the hook that gets them to be a reader later in life.

lark wrote: "I'm coming back to this question after having just read The Child by Norwegian writer Kjersti Skomsvold, just published in the UK by Granta, and to be published in the US by Open Le..."

In this vein, does it count as 'well-read' if one immediately understands 18th c. French sexual innuendoes? :P

Aubrey wrote: "In this vein, does it count as 'well-read' if one immediately understands 18th c. French sexual innuendoes? :P.."

I don't know, but it sounds like a great dissertation topic :)

Aubrey wrote: "In this vein, does it count as 'well-read' if one immediately understands 18th c. French sexual innuendoes? :P ..."

I think this counts as "eclectic" :-)

In terms of the Mockingbird discussion and some people (not here, obviously) thinking that being well-read means you've read all the usual books on the US school curriculum: one also needs to be careful not to thereby declare pretty much the rest of the world not well-read.

E.g. I'm European and it's happened to me several times that people from the States quizzed me on my knowledge of e.g. The Scarlet Letter or Mockingbird (two books I've never read) and dismissed me for this reason as practically illiterate. Later it turned out that none of them had read any Shakespeare (I've actually read all of his works due to a teenage obsession) - nor any Austen, George Eliot, Gaskell, Henry James, Goethe, Schiller, Thomas Mann, Grass, Flaubert, Forster, Pushkin, Gogol, Fontane, Moliere, George Sand, nor any Asian classics, and so on... even though two of them had degrees in literature and one of them was a professor! How do you even teach English-language literature without any knowledge of Shakespeare and Austen?

Anyway, I wish more people were aware that other countries have different textbooks, different criteria, and prioritize even US American literature very differently based on what "the deciders of what the canon is" valued in their countries. E.g. where I used to live, everyone read Roots by Alex Haley, and nobody had heard of To Kill a Mockingbird except for fans of old movies. Other countries also select different works by the same authors, e.g. most Americans who've read James seem to have read Turning of the Screw and Washington Square or perhaps The Ambassadors, whereas Europeans (at least at my old uni) never read those, all they know is Portrait of a Lady, Daisy Miller, and The Golden Bowl. It's the same thing for many other writers - various countries select the works that speak most strongly to them and then end up considering each other ignoramuses. 😄 (Again, not saying anyone in this discussion did that, you're all very lovely people and your recommendations have greatly expanded my TBR.)

In terms of "knowledge about the background and dialogue between different works of fiction" - this is also highly genre-specific, I think. It takes a while to become well-read in a genre or even a sub-genre, to know the inspirations, references, etc. or just to be able to tell which works are derivative and which ones are very unique and original. Some works also require some familiarity with certain tropes they then subvert, because one actually needs to have some sort of expectation for the subversion to be surprising and delightful.

Eva wrote: "In terms of the Mockingbird discussion and some people (not here, obviously) thinking that being well-read means you've read all the usual books on the US school curriculum: one also needs to be ca..."

I remember responding to someone complaining about the state of high school literature reading in the US, specifically how students weren't engaging with the "classics" (Scarlet Letter, Catcher in the Rye, The Sun Also Rises, etc) with the fact that my US high school's student population was about 80% Asian American, and that, later on, the high school students that I taught English Lit to were practically all Asian American. And yet, in both cases, 98% of the books assigned were written by white authors, and if teachers didn't fit The Joy Luck Club in somewhere, there was practically no representation for most of the students (throw in the fact that the Asian American population was perhaps only 30% Chinese American, with the rest being of various East/South Asian descent, and it's even more of a debacle). So, even if you confine it to US high schools, the whole 'well-read' thing completely falls apart in terms of giving these students the opportunity to engage with the kind of literature that not only provokes critical thinking and builds information literacy, but also allows them to begin to develop a deep and abiding awareness of the richness of their own cultural heritage, with all its allusions and connections. Otherwise, being 'well-read' is nothing more than the entire world being subjected to a Euro/Neo-Euro copy-paste, and that's hardly going to encourage the development of culturally competent, critically thinking citizens that are so desperately needed these days.

lark wrote: "I think this counts as "eclectic" :-)"

Ha. I've developed an allergy to that word due to how egregiously it's saturated the jargon of anyone who thinks visiting a used bookstore one time in their life makes them a venerable patriarch lounging by the fire, complete with smoking jacket and nightcap.

Also, I wasn't able to post this comment on desktop (endless loading circle), but I was able to through the app. Doesn't bode well.

Yes, exactly! I've also heard Rushdie speak on this topic when he said that many budding writers from all over the world receive the message that they have no business writing anything before they've read "the canon" - meaning not their own country's canon, but some form of the Western canon, so that their own work will then be "informed" (or influenced?) by this and properly marketable, etc.

So then this young writer, instead of coming up with a fresh new voice without much worry, will feel that their own school education was a waste of time and that they should basically go back to basics first and get the right kind of education (the Western kind). So they'll take a full-time job somewhere to pay the bills, and try to read the Western canon in the evenings. It will take them several years to make a bit of a dent in it. Meanwhile, their competitors in the West are already out there publishing books. Their governments see this and decide "we were wrong to have our own canon, we should switch the standard Western one" - and suddenly you've got billions of kids all over the world reading the same books that sometimes don't even make sense to them because the world they are set in is so different to their own.

Eva wrote: "Yes, exactly! I've also heard Rushdie speak on this topic when he said that many budding writers from all over the world receive the message that they have no business writing anything before they'..."

Eva - you perhaps can't hear it where you are, but that rumble is my applause and foot-stomping agreement with your posts. I've nothing to add after reading them.