On Reading

Since I lack the time to read novels right now because of school, I have been listening to novels in my car on the commute (about 45 minutes one way). I read Chuck Palahniuk's new book "Rant", and just started Michael Chabon's "The Yiddish Policeman's Union".

I remember once hearing someone else who read a book by listening. It was funny, because, even though they understood it, they said, "well, I read that, but it didn't count, since I listened to it." This is curious to me, and makes me wonder: since I listened to "Rant", did I actually read it?

What does it mean to say I've "read" a book? In the ancient world, to "read" something always meant to "read aloud", usually in a group context. What would they say about having "read" a text, if they were in the group that listened? Would they have said they read it? I'm sure I could find some textual evidence, maybe in Augustine or Epictetus that would attest to this.

In any case, the ancients had a different way with language. Even the way they learned language was more oral than we do. For instance, the "unit" they learned was actually the syllable, rather than the "word." Learning this way made sense to them, because you primarily hear syllables, whereas words are comprehended as a number of "sounds elements," i.e. syllables. We see words as units because we think of words on a page.

This reminds me of that discussion Wittgenstein has about reading. Reading is not clear at all he thinks. Try to think about it - when do you say reading has happened? When I have passed my eyes over a line, read them in my mind, and thereby comprehend? Or is it rather when I "reproduce", or derive a reproduction from the "original" line? I like this example Wittgenstein gives: "Try this experiment: say the numbers from 1 to 12. Now look at the dial of your watch and read them. - What was it that you called 'reading' in the latter case? That is to say: what did you do, to make it into reading?"

The point, of course for Wittgenstein, is that we think of reading, or any activity, within a family of other terms (that's why he can say: "the look of a word is familiar to us in the same kind of way as its sound."). That's why its weird for some people to think of "listening" to a book on tape as the same activity of "reading". We listen to music, to the tv, etc., but we never listen to "novels". Actually, when we say "I've read such and such a book" we use that term in a different sense than when we say "I'm reading this sentence." It didn't "count" for that person I talked to because it wasn't the "activity", but the result was the same.

So, the question is: if I am in a social situation, talking about literature, and someone says, "oh, I've read "The Yiddish Policeman's Union", should my response be, "me too?" Would I be lying?