data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4c13/f4c13541a1cb700521d9049f634856d76631d6f5" alt=""
So, when I was listening to the critiques of all the stories in the latest short story contest, if a judge didn't seem to understand a certain passage, he or she might qualify their opinion by saying "maybe I am not a good reader."
So that got me thinking. What makes a good reader? Is it a person who is well-read? Does a good reader necessarily have to be a voracious reader of the classics? Or should a good reader be one that reads widely on a certain subject? Or maybe a good reader just understands a subject without having widely read in it?
As for myself, I have widely read a lot of Asian-style fiction be it fantasy, mystery or general literature. I have read non-fiction, historical books, books about Chinese society and Japanese society, books about geisha, books about Chinese mysticism - quite a bit in fact (just look at my library for an idea of what I have read).
But outside of this preferred area of obsession, I am not so widely read. I don't read hard science fiction. I haven't read all of Shakespeare's plays and don't understand Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Dickens is a mystery to me and Jane Austin has held no interest. I fly through certain books (ie Harry Potter) and slog through others (anything by George RR Martin and China Mieville) but I still enjoy them even though they are difficult. And I don't necessarily understand all the underlying metaphors inherent in those stories even if I do read them.
Does that make me a bad reader? I don't know. What is a "Good Reader?" Opinions, anyone?
---
Edit: After some discussion, it was suggested that being a "good reader" was short hand for apologizing for not necessarily understanding what a writer meant. Could be, could be.