§165

Wittgenstein suggests that we might be resistant to the idea that 'reading' is a family resemblance concept and think that reading is a particular process.

Why?
It can't be that reading is just seeing printed words and uttering words - you can do this and not be reading. It seems there must be something in addition that makes something a case of reading - perhaps that the words come to you in a distinctive way (not like when you're making them up).

However, it is absurd to think that the specific experience of the words coming to you in a distinctive way is the defining feature of reading. If it were then the sounds uttered would be irrelevant.