In a prior post, I’d written that my friend Susan Gibb might have been referring to a thing called “skilled reading.” But I must retract the use or implications of such “quality” terminology. Why, because “skilled reading” may imply too much of the “object” in its interpretation. Here’s what I mean: let’s say we have 2 things that people typically read: Dante’s Inferno and Stephen King’s The Stand. Does the former need more of a “skilled” approach than the latter? Or does this complicate matters and bring in a reading “ethic”? Obviously, one must have the terminology and concepts down to understand a Nature article on some discovery pertaining to quantum gravity or what they often talk about over at The Panda’s Thumb. But in terms of Dante and King, does such a hierarchy apply . . . yet?