Reading is a simple enough task but reading to understand is a different matter altogether. It requires a complex skill-set, facility in the use of which varies from person to person. But like any other skill, it needs to be learnt. The process of learning consists of picking up its abstract principles (or fundamentals) and then applying those principles to specific texts that one comes across depending on one’s interests and needs. No matter how much one may have honed this skill however, one is expected to still slip up occasionally. Also, there will be the inevitable differences among various individuals when it comes to understanding the same text, because in varying degrees we are all different from one another.
In many cases however, provided there is consensus on the principles, it can be shown (at least a worthwhile effort can be made to show) that an error has been committed while applying those principles. Even if the other party is not ultimately won over, the discussion, at any rate, is meaningful in its own right. If, on the other hand, there is no agreement on the principles themselves, it is futile to debate somebody on what a particular text actually means (application of principles) before first developing a consensus on what those principles are or ought to be.
Knowing the fundamentals of text reading, then, are indispensable if one wants to avoid the endless frustration of getting the author’s intent wrong, and/or finding oneself in situations where discussions with those who do not see eye-to-eye with one on the intended meaning of the author bear no fruit at all. Way too frequently though, nearly not enough care or effort is expended, which means that either these fundamentals are not known at all, or are known only in a vague sort of way– in a form where they can be expected to be of little help.
Over the decades, the author has had the misfortune of encountering numerous individuals who deliberately wanted to misunderstand things. But he has also come into contact with many others who sincerely wanted to figure out the author’s intent while he produced the text. For whatever it is worth, it is for this latter category that a brief review of some essentials of text reading and understanding are being presented here:
The first principle of text-reading is so obvious that in a perfect world it wouldn’t even require listing. Way too many mistakes are made in this regard however, reminding us that this is not a perfect world. There is, for instance, a long and unfortunate history of private (or esoteric) interpretation of religious texts, although secular texts are routinely misinterpreted this way too. The principle is this: At all times, one needs to be faithful to the words used by the author. This means that whether verse or prose, an arbitrary meaning cannot be assigned to any of its words. This rules out any ‘meaning’ unfamiliar to native speakers of that tongue; in other words, anything that has origins in the imagination or wishful thoughts of the reader.
There is no shortage of Christians, therefore, who have built intricate religious philosophies based on words in the Bible reported to have been uttered almost exclusively by the devil-possessed folks. Not ones to be outdone, there are countless Muslims who insist that certain events must have happened because the Quran quotes certain people making allegations to that effect. They fail to note that after quoting them, the Quran not only rejects the assertions but explains why they are false.
Languages are dynamic things. Words have a way of evolving, taking on new meanings with the passage of time, and/or ceasing to be used in some of their older meanings. One failsafe recipe for getting the meaning of a text wrong is giving today’s meanings to a word written (say) 300 years ago or vice versa. This is also a common error that needs to be looked out for.
So much for what a certain word cannot be (must not be) taken to mean. Figuring out what it does mean instead requires some additional work. For in all languages, there are multiple meanings of any given word; which one of them is intended by the author is something that needs to be figured out. No dictionary can settle this question. Nor can it tell whether a particular word has been meant by the author literally or figuratively. Elaborate theologies have come into existence on the basis of literal interpretation of words of revealed texts– words that were quite obviously used metaphorically. It is the construction of the sentence (idiom, figures of speech, etc) as well as the context that will decide issues such as this. The context can be anything ranging from what immediately precedes the sentence at hand to the larger scheme of the work.
This is how words, sentences, paragraphs, sections and chapters are understood if it is prose (words, lines, couplets, stanzas, and finally the complete poem, if it is verse). When it comes to poetry, the creator’s poetic licence must also at all times be recognized. One does not give a good account of oneself when one takes a poet’s exaggerations, which serve a legitimate poetic purpose, too literally in order to attribute to him a silly outlook.
Finally, it is vitally important to note while reading a text, whose lips a certain set of words emanates from and whom it is addressed to. Without an explicit disclaimer to that effect, it is generally understood (correctly) that characters in a play or a novel do not necessarily reflect the author’s opinions– not all characters at any rate. Nobody therefore takes something said by a criminal to a policeman in such a work to be the author’s philosophy or his message to the world at large. Unfortunately, all bets are off when it comes to divine texts, those poems and non-fiction prose works in which the author chooses the dialogue form– a popular device in philosophical texts.
There is no shortage of Christians, therefore, who have built intricate religious philosophies based on words in the Bible reported to have been uttered almost exclusively by the devil-possessed folks. Not ones to be outdone, there are countless Muslims who insist that certain events must have happened because the Quran quotes certain people making allegations to that effect. They fail to note that after quoting them, the Quran not only rejects the assertions but explains why they are false.
Reading to understand is not a piece of cake. But it can be done if one tries hard enough. And If one wants to understand, of course.
