Comprehending text is a skill. Like any other skill, it needs to be learned. It remains a rare capability, despite the rise in the school-going population globally. Most schools, it seems, are no longer interested in teaching reading comprehension, or are not capable enough.
What many fail to understand is that in any text, each sentence needs to be understood, first and foremost, not just through the meaning of its words but also via its turn of phrase or idiom. A great many people struggle to grasp the intended meanings of texts despite dictionaries now being merely a click away. This is because text comprehension takes much more than knowing the meaning of words. It is the construction of the sentence including the figure of speech employed that determines which one of the many dictionary meanings is intended by the author.
Next, because the sentence itself could have multiple meanings if taken independently, each sentence must be seen in its context– both the immediate one as well as the larger scheme of the work. It is the context that often decides what (out of the many possibilities) exactly a sentence is talking about and whether something is meant literally or figuratively. The same applies to paragraphs, passages, sections and chapters.
Another aspect that escapes many is the crucial consideration of the speaker of any part of the text, whether it is the author or is a character inside the work of literature who is doing the talking. Equally important is considering whom any speech is addressed to. Of course, the entirety of the narrative is intended for the reader but not everything is necessarily a maxim or a moral lesson for him. Nor is everything the author’s stance on any given issue or his message to the world at large.
To ignore or not appreciate any of the above is a certain recipe to misguide oneself and others. Reading text therefore demands utmost meticulousness. Extracting the true essence out of a text to any degree, then, is quite an exercise in care and caution. Which is easier said than done– at any rate, for a wide section of human beings who keep quoting texts to make absolutely the wrong points. There is no dearth of folks who are fond of mechanically repeating certain couplets or excerpts from prose to prove some point that the poet or the author could not possibly have meant in his dreams.
To keep careful track of who is saying what and to whom is crucial not only in fiction but also in non-fiction and poetry. The dialogue form has always been a popular format with many philosophers and serious poets, who use some characters to represent the various views held on the subject and one character as a vehicle to put forward their own views. The revealed texts also prodigiously quote dialogues between various entities.
Without due consideration of the context, any sentence or passage can be given any meaning under the sun, which defeats the very purpose of any text. Without taking into account the speaker of any portion of speech, exactly the opposite of the writer’s intent can be extracted. Without taking into consideration the addressee of those words, it is very easy to make a fool of oneself trying to punch ridiculously above one’s weight.
Poets are especially hard done by in this regard. Javed Akhtar was blasted heavily for his ‘London, Paris, New York’ song. The criticism was that after penning poetic gems such as ‘Ye kahaan aa gaye hum’ and ‘Tum ko dekha to ye khayaal’, he was ruining his legacy by producing such stuff. To which Akhtar pointed out, correctly, that those were the sentiments of a happy go lucky ladies’ man in a nightclub, not his own. For it would hardly be appropriate for a playboy-type character like that to suddenly start sounding like a Ghalib or a Bedil.
While it may not matter much if somebody, owing to this incorrect approach, mistakes a blockbuster character’s world view as that of the lyricist or of the filmmaker; this type of person is likely to get the message of any work of literature wrong, including higher poetry as well as revealed texts. The Bible, the Quran, Baal-e-Jibreel, Dajla, you name it… no work can be immune from it. For instance, an elaborate theology has been constructed based on words uttered by the enemies of Jesus (AS) in the Bible, completely neglecting what Jesus had to say in response to those claims.
It is usual for playwrights to add a disclaimer at the start of their plays that they do not necessarily agree with the views of the characters – not all the characters, at any rate. TV channels do the same before the start of opinion shows. I knew a man who jokingly used to start discussions by declaring that he did not necessarily agree with his own views. Since serious poetic works and works of non-fiction understandably cannot include such disclaimers, way too many people are wont to quote anything from such works as the author’s message for the world. In the text it may have been expressed by Satan, for all they care.
Without due consideration of the context, any sentence or passage can be given any meaning under the sun, which defeats the very purpose of any text. Without taking into account the speaker of any portion of speech, exactly the opposite of the writer’s intent can be extracted. Without taking into consideration the addressee of those words, it is very easy to make a fool of oneself trying to punch ridiculously above one’s weight.
There are those who maintain that the whole of this discussion is useless considering the dwindling numbers of folks even remotely interested in text reading and comprehension anymore. Being of an optimistic bent, I for my part believe that there is no such thing as too little, too late.
