An issue with any reading-related arguments is that the definition of "reading" is so loose. Here are at least three different definitions commonly in use: 1.

An issue with any reading-related arguments is that the definition of "reading" is so loose. Here are at least three different definitions commonly in use: 1. A person can look at a page full of sentences and translate them into appropriate sounds coming out of his mouth. An add-on to this definition is the ability to answer basic comprehension question questions about these sentences. 2. A person can reason upon, expand upon, interpret, or otherwise think about the words he has read. 3. A person can read fiction and appreciate it in some way. #1 seems like an obvious necessity for life in a society where so much is communicated via written language. #2 seems like necessary skill for someone to be a high-functioning adult. But, why do we couple our discussion about why Johnny can't "read" with our concerns that Johnny can't think? Isn't written language simply an (important) input method for ideas upon which one may reason? As a guy who hasn't read a work of fiction in a long time but still considers himself a regular "reader", I consider definition #3 to be ill-conceived. Why is it more important for a person to be proficient in the interpretation of "written word" art than visual art, performing arts, cinema, etc.? What's so darned special about literature? I spend a lot more time observing others' photography (in an attempt to improve my own) than I do with other art forms. Am I un-cultured? Un-intelligent? In college, when I had lots of time on my hands, I enjoyed sitting down in the afternoon with a Guiness and reading large swaths of the Wall Street Journal. Does this count as reading? The lack of definition around the test "is a reader" results in many mushy arguments. Shouldn't those proficient in Definition #2 be able to detect this?