>/lit/ still pretends everyone has to subvocalize just because they do
>>7844885
I was surprised when I first learned about subvocalization, because I never really did it. It's like I just read, I don't consciously sound out the words in my head.
>>7844891
Exactly how I felt. I thought it was amazing that the average person had such a low bandwidth brain.
>I used to sub vocalize as a kid (like 6-12 years old)
>now I need to make up different voices for the different characters in my head
What's happening to me
I dont understand. People have to say the words in their head?
>>7845222
I started doing this when I read the Lord of the Rings
>i still don't know what subvocalizing is and i dont know if i do it or not
>>7844885
Why do people care about this? And I've seen this meme on /lit/ for 4 years and still don't really know of I do it or not.
>he doesnt subvocalizes words he's unsure how to pronounce
i bet you claimed literature gurus dont even look up words/references you dont know either
>>7845262
same, mia amiko
subvocalizing is bad because literature and poetry should be read as fast as possible to take in as much info as you can. Who honestly cares about how the words sound when we've heard them 20000 times before
>>7845316
>literature and poetry should be read as fast as possible
you're a retarded meme
I know this whole topic is a meme but I find subvocalizing pretty helpful when reading philosophy, where the point is to slow down anyway. I even subvocalize in particular voices that I like.
>speed reading
sure feels like TEDx/Reddit in here
>>7845655
I think he was being facetious, I hope.
I think in certain works, such as Ulysses or Finnegans Wake, subvocalizatiom actually enhances the experience. At least for me I can really appreciate the value of the way the words sound in of themselves.
Subvocalizing "normal" prose is more questionable.
>>7845265
huh i thought i started it on /lit/ last year
>>7845262
if you read slow you almost certainly subvocalize
if you read fast you probably don't
>>7845680
Porky Pig did wonders for my understanding of Anti-Oedipus
>muting a fundamentally auditory medium so you can brag about it
>implying you understand even one word
>missing out on all wordplay and complex allusions
>>7844885
I stopped doing this when I was about 10. I think everybody who reads a lot does.
The exceptions are poetry and foreign languages.
You're losing out on rhythm and a TON of literary devices that depend on sound if you don't subvocalize. It's like looking at a painting through one of those glasses. Utterly moronic.
>>7846033
What if you read fast and subocalise? I tend to subvocalise, but it doesn't interrupt my flow. 355 wpm, 91% comprehension.
>>7844885
Is this some kind of /lit/ meme I'm not getting? It is impossible to not subvocalise when reading.
I always subvocalize accents and shit. Reading blood meme and everyone has a retarded hillbilly accent.
>>7846241
...well this is embarrassing. It actually isn't anon, your mind just registers the words as wholes, not in syllables.
Why WOULDN'T you subvocalize
It's like hearing a narrator, and the characters different voices and makes books more enjoyable in general
Pretty sure you guys just can't subvocalize and are jealous of people who can
>>7846259
That is still subvocalising.
>>7846264
There is no vocalization, there is no sound in your head of the word. It is like looking at a math equation, you don't say 2 divided by 7 to the power of 10 in your head, the symbols just register and represent those relations.
>>7846268
There is vocalisation and it is measurable. It is impossible to fully eliminate.
>>7846280
If that's true it's subconscious, which could be, I have no way of knowing that.
Why do you think this out of curiosity? If you spend more time reading than you do speaking or hearing people speak it stands to reason that written words would lose their auditory quality after some time.
>>7844894
>average person has such a low bandwidth brain
>implying subvocalization can't be eliminated through practice
I tip my hat at you, my fine super intelligent fellow
>>7846287
Just check the wikipedia page or any research paper on the issue. They all say that subvocalization can't be completely eliminated and they say that subvocalizing helps with comprehension and retension. Besides, you miss out on wordplay, rhythm, and other sound-dependant literary devices by not subvocalizing.
>>7846268
>you don't say 2 divided by 7 to the power of 10 in your head
uh yeah I do
>>7846320
>subvocalizing helps with comprehension and retension.
This is completely contrary to my personal experience. Apart from poetry, if I actually pronounce the words I start to get confused about what the sentences mean.
I'm not doubting the research but that is not universally true.
>>7845853
You're supposed to read Joyce while drunk. At least, pretending you're an Irish drunk.
Finnegans Wake in particular.
I don't subvocalize, I either read quickly in my head or read out loud the text (i.e. poetry)
>>7844891
Same.
Do you think in words? I never 'word' my thoughts. My mind is totally silent when I'm writing or thinking.
>>7846550
probably because you're retarded
>>7845222
nice trips.
>What's happening to me
You're becoming fun. Let it happen.
I think I subvocalized a shitload when I first started into reading lots of books, i still take my time reading to be exactly sure of all the details that are presented to me so I can be the clearest picture in my head possible. I don't like skimming out of stuff.
>speed-reading
>actually understanding what you read
pick one
>>7846550
You never read poetry?
Subvocalizing is more than just "sounding out the words in your head". Your tongue will always be stimulated while reading, however slightly.
>>7846913
my tongue was stimulated when i was reading ur moms tramp stamp tbqh lahd
Lel I subvocalise and visualise everything I read
Get on my level fucking plebs 200wpm
>>7846913
So if you just "see" words and they are what they are and when you see a word you dont know you have to stop and spell it out, is that when non-subvocalization switches over?
>>7846348
Sure but that's just anecdotal evidence.
>he read the Greeks without subvocalization
Yikes.
People don't subvocalize after primary school
I really hope you non subvocalizers at least do so for dialogue. If you dont, then, yikes!
I think 4chan lead me to subvocalize. Some particularly irony-laden posts need to read carefully or else they'll be misinterpreted.
I don't understand how you can appreciate the purely audible, phonetic relationship between words, the rhythms and flow, if you don't subvocalize. It doesn't seem like any way to read to me. Imagine reading Shakespeare solely for the information while disregarding its delivery.
>>7847561
you are seriously missing out. its like watching a movie with the sound off
>not subvocalizing Lolita
You're literally missing a ton of nuances in Humbert's narrative.
>>7847577
this
reading is the visual expression of an audible language
you're not able to fully appreciate it if you can't make yourself hear it with the context
>>7846550
true patrish saying it how it is
everyone in this thread needs to chill the fuck out. Let people read how they want to. one way isnt inherently better than the other
>>7847609
>implying reading faster is better
If I blow in my nose I don't subvocalize at all
>>7847626
agreed. let the babby subvocolaziers slowly get through their books while the true patricians take in info like a machine
>>7847649
You don't read lit to take in info. If you're reading nf go ahead and flip a page every thirty seconds
I bet I can grab whatever you speed readers flashed across your eyes and you wouldn't have a clue of what is was about.
Speed reading just works to "skip" tedious parts of a book.
epic, simply epic
What does Pynchon have to do with sub-vocalizing? What book?
>>7847609
ok
kill urself
>>7848554
upset much?
>>7847649
you're not a patrician and nobody thinks you are
>>7848558
n but please huff raid. you're fooling no one
>>7847609
Why do you think literature is a race for pure quantity?
>All these Anons grabbing onto non-subvocalization reading as if it were the pinnacle of their achievements in life.
Care to explain why it is so important to you?
>>7846102
I agree. How will you get the nuances in the prose (jarred or smooth etc.) if you don't sub-vocalize?
Reading isn't a race. I enjoy sub-vocalizing and I get more out of the book reading it that way.
>If I practice hard enough I'm gonna be just like Harold Bloom! I'll be able to read 100 pages in less than 5 minutes and recite the entirety of Paradise Lost verbatim!
it's just too bad ur so fkn stupid tho...
>>7848799
are you for or against subvocalisation?
>>7848812
I think most people that go out of their way to curb their subvocalization and actually practice in order to do it for the sake of speed are probably wasting their energy because they almost certainly don't have a big enough capacity for information retainment that reading shitloads of books very quickly will actually do them any good.
When I read light novels I subvocalize to imagine it like I should watch an anime.
When I read other things and rebember about subvocalization I subvocalize as well. Can't avoid that.
>>7846550
Tallis actually knows what he is talking about here
>>7848855
The less info you have, the more you try to use your imagination to come up with something rather than remembering the info you have.
>>7848681
Because i fucked yor bitchh u fat mothafucka
>>7846200
How do I measure this?
>>7844885
>reading history textbook
>subvocalizing
>he doesn't even have a tulpa who reads things for him
Plebs
>>7846348
You sound like a dumbass.
>>7849960
This is a really good idea, why have I never thought of it?
>not subvocalising
>concentrating
Pick one
I've attained such a huge advantage in life just from not having to subvocalize
it's great
>>7846200
that's incredibly slow, non-subbies read at like 1000wpm
you're just king of man/lit/'s
>>7846102
I agree with this. I have never really subvocalised and find it somewhat difficult to identify metre as a result.
Will I ever be able to read fast? Or am I doomed forever because I didn't read enough as a kid?
>>7852698
you're doomed if you never read as a child. You didn't develop the necessary brain pathways to make the most of your verbal IQ. Now you're effectively stunted for life. Kind of like how a bad diet will leave kids shorter, with shorter arms as well.
>>7852751
You're full of shit. Anyone can increase their reading skills given effort and time. Fuck off right now
Does anyone subvocalize one or two words out of a sentence when trying to read something quickly? Like if I were to speed read what I just wrote, I would subvocalize: "anyone, one, read"
>>7852901
aye
You should be reading out loud.
True patricians read out loud, so say we all.
>>7853147
I only read out loud because it helps with memorization.
>>7853148
implying i want to memorize anything i read on this website
>>7849930
google 'reading speed test'
Does he have a method?
i just use pynchon because he is the most 4chanian face of /lit/
and also because he was smart and wouldn't subvocalize
>>7844885
>only subvocalizing
>not visualizing
Are you guys empty inside?
wew lad /lit/ reads like reid, the spencer one from the mind of criminals show tv.
Is the sub-vocalization meme /lit/'s version of penis inspection day?
http://accelareader.com/
Check this out guys.
>>7856247
It's a way to troll newfags with feigned elitism.
Some exceptionally autistic anons actually believe in it and probably read this way, robot-like.
you are now subvocalizing this thread manually
>>7852477
Thats probably a page every 4 seconds, an impossibility ro anyone who isnt a savant
Who /attemptingtoread1000shitpostsaminute/ here?
I never subvocalized, i didnt even know it was a thing, but i guess it could help in enjoying novels
