-> Sheila, can you honestly say that when you read you read every single
-> word? For every single genre that you read?
SK>Every single word for every single genre? No. Of course not (I've
SK>already answered this point in another post on this topic to, I think,
SK>Erica Long).
This is actually pretty simple (I think)... When we're young,
we learn to sound out words which are unfamiliar (how else
are we to associate the VISUAL appearance of the word with
its spoken SOUND)?  Over time, we learn to recognize the
appearance without the need for the sound as a cue.  We may
even get to the point of seeing whole strings of words and
recognizing them without needing to "hear" their sound.  
What this means is that we go from perception by the 
CONSCIOUS mind to perception by the SUB-conscious mind. The
subconscious misses NOTHING, and you "feel" the meaning of
what it "sees"... As a result, you get a "sense" of what the
text says; not a literal, word-for-word rendition, but the
context.  For this reason, you may not get a specific word,
or you may jump ahead and complete a thought yourself before
reading it on the page (or INSTEAD of reading it on the page).
So, some of what you read was different, subtly, from what
was written.  Does this mean that what was written wasn't
important?  Not to me!  It means that an accomplished
reader is not rigidly tied to the words on the page because
his/her impression of what is there is faithful enough to
serve in most cases.
To take what an accomplished reader does, and cite it as
indicative of what a LEARNING reader should do is silly,
imo.  It's like saying that a beginning tennis player
should emulate John McEnroe (who, for anyone interested,
did almost everything "wrong", but was so supremely
talented that it didn't matter).....
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * OS/2 WARP: Logic, not magic.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------