“Some Thoughts on the Lost Art of Reading Aloud”
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published in The New
York Times on May 16, 2009.
Sometimes the best
way to understand the present is to look at it from the past. Consider audio
books. An enormous number of Americans read by listening these days — listening
aloud, I call it. The technology for doing so is diverse and widespread, and so
are the places people listen to audio books. But from the perspective of a
reader in, say, the early 19th century, about the time of Jane Austen, there is
something peculiar about it, even lonely.
In those days,
literate families and friends read aloud to each other as a matter of habit.
Books were still relatively scarce and expensive, and the routine electronic
diversions we take for granted were, of course, nonexistent. If you had grown
up listening to adults reading to each other regularly, the thought of all of
those solitary 21st-century individuals hearkening to earbuds and car radios
would seem isolating. It would also seem as though they were being trained only
to listen to books and not to read aloud from them.
It’s part of a
pattern. Instead of making music at home, we listen to recordings of
professional musicians. When people talk about the books they’ve heard, they’re
often talking about the quality of the readers, who are usually professional.
The way we listen to books has been de-socialized, stripped of context, which
has the solitary virtue of being extremely convenient.
But listening aloud,
valuable as it is, isn’t the same as reading aloud. Both require a great deal
of attention. Both are good ways to learn something important about the rhythms
of language. But one of the most basic tests of comprehension is to ask someone
to read aloud from a book. It reveals far more than whether the reader
understands the words. It reveals how far into the words — and the pattern of
the words — the reader really sees.
Reading aloud
recaptures the physicality of words. To read with your lungs and diaphragm,
with your tongue and lips, is very different than reading with your eyes alone.
The language becomes a part of the body, which is why there is always a curious
tenderness, almost an erotic quality, in those 18th- and 19th-century literary
scenes where a book is being read aloud in mixed company. The words are not
mere words. They are the breath and mind, perhaps even the soul, of the person
who is reading.
No one understood
this better than Jane Austen. One of the late turning points in “Mansfield
Park” comes when Henry Crawford picks up a volume of Shakespeare, “which had
the air of being very recently closed,” and begins to read aloud to the young
Bertrams and their cousin, Fanny Price. Fanny discovers in Crawford’s reading
“a variety of excellence beyond what she had ever met with.” And yet his
ability to do every part “with equal beauty” is a clear sign to us, if not
entirely to Fanny, of his superficiality.
I read aloud to my
writing students, and when students read aloud to me I notice something odd.
They are smart and literate, and most of them had parents who read to them as
children. But when students read aloud at first, I notice that they are trying
to read the meaning of the words. If the work is their own, they are usually
trying to read the intention of the writer.
It’s as though
they’re reading what the words represent rather than the words themselves. What
gets lost is the inner voice of the prose, the life of the language. This is
reflected in their writing, too, at first.
In one realm —
poetry — reading aloud has never really died out. Take Robert Pinsky’s new
book, “Essential Pleasures: A New Anthology of Poems to Read Aloud.” But I
suspect there is no going back. You can easily make the argument that reading
silently is an economic artifact, a sign of a new prosperity beginning in the
early 19th century and a new cheapness in books. The same argument applies to
listening to books on your iPhone. But what I would suggest is that our idea of
reading is incomplete, impoverished, unless we are also taking the time to read
aloud.