Re: [John_Lit] Implied Readers
- At 06:22 AM 12/01/01, you wrote:
>Ross wrote:I've been following this debate with some interest, and I would have made
> The only 'reader' was the one appointed to read the text aloud, and the
> > only 'listener' was those who had gathered on the Lord's Day to worship
> > and be taught in their faith.
>This is a somewhat pedantic distinction. Those who listen to a book being
>read to them count as readers in terms of this debate. They all interact
>with the text, and bring their own agenda to it. The dynamics of reading a
>text silently, or having it read to one, are different from the dynamics of
>silent reading, but then the dynamics of silent reading may well be
>different between different people, and in different situations. To insist
>on such tight distinctions would make study impossible...
Ross's point if he had not done so. It is NOT a pedantic distinction.
Scholarship is all about the process of making important distinctions, and
this is one of them. To assert that reading and listening are all the same
and make no difference seems senseless to me. Such distinctions do not make
study impossible; they merely necessitate attention to otherwise-ignored
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
Northern Arizona University