206k views
2 votes
Macmillan Learn

(1) Though, strictly speaking, there can be no absolutely passive reading, many people think that, as compared with writing and
speaking, which are obviously active undertakings, reading and listening are entirely passive. (2) The writer or speaker must put
out some effort, but no work need be done by the reader or listener. (3) Reading and listening are thought of as receiving
communication from someone who is actively engaged in giving or sending it. (4) The mistake here is to suppose that receiving
communication is like receiving a blow or a legacy or a judgment from the court. (5) On the contrary, the reader or listener is
much more like the catcher in a game of baseball.

(Mortimer 1. Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book)

What do the examples in Sentence 4 ("Receiving a blow or a legacy or a judgment from the court") have in common,
according to the authors?

User AndMarkus
by
9.5k points

2 Answers

6 votes

Final answer:

The examples in Sentence 4 have in common the concept of something being received by the recipient.

Step-by-step explanation:

According to the authors, the examples in Sentence 4—"receiving a blow or a legacy or a judgment from the court"—have in common the concept of something being received by the recipient.

The authors are referring to the mistaken belief that receiving communication is like receiving a physical action or object.

They argue that reading and listening are not passive activities, but rather require active engagement from the reader or listener, just like a catcher in a game of baseball.

User David Hobs
by
8.6k points
3 votes

The authors argue against the misconception that reading and listening are entirely passive activities, comparing them to receiving a blow, legacy, or court judgment. They assert that readers and listeners are more akin to active participants, like a catcher in baseball.

In Sentence 4, the authors, Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, use the examples of "receiving a blow or a legacy or a judgment from the court" to highlight a common misconception about the nature of receiving communication. The commonality in these examples lies in the passivity associated with receiving something external. The authors argue that the mistake people make is equating receiving communication with the passive reception of a blow, legacy, or judgment. In each case, there is an implication of being a passive recipient, akin to someone who simply receives without active participation.

By juxtaposing these examples, Adler and Van Doren aim to challenge the notion that reading and listening are entirely passive activities. They suggest that the reader or listener is not merely a passive recipient but, rather, is more akin to an active participant, drawing an analogy with a catcher in a baseball game who is engaged in the process of receiving and responding to the incoming communication or "pitch" from the writer or speaker.

User AridTag
by
8.4k points