When you read, if you subvocalize, do you hear the voice of the author (what you imagine it to be, or according to interviews you've seen or heard) or is it your own voice?
also, did anyone feel like Joyce was slowly starting you on the route to unlearning language and rebuilding you in his own image? i wasnt brave enough to attack finnegans wake after i felt so shell shocked by Ulysses, i worried that i wouldnt be able to relate to anything anymore if i became too immersed in it.
Oh wait, sorry, OP here, WHO'S MAD CUZ HARRY POTTER N' DARK TOWER BLACKIES FIZZ FIZZ
y'all niggas suck.
This is a serious question for all of you non-subvocalizers. How did you learn, or better unlearn to subvocalize? Don't say you were born that way, you prancing twat
>>7490666
stay jelly Satan, all those who devote their life to GOD are free from subvocalization as they know the truth of the love of god is not subject to vocalization, sub OR dom
>>7490666
Just practice it, anon-kun
always in my own voice, I never got the whole "I read this in x's voice"
>>7490681
Yeah, how.
from what i understand, subvocalization can be muted in a way, but i think the real question i was trying to ask here was whether or not you hear your own voice or not when you read, or do you read different characters in different voices? also, nothing about joyce? no one felt a bit alienated after reading Ulysses, almost as if after running through that gauntlet, that you were changed in the way you speak or read? i'm not trying to meme here, if there's any other book that does this to you, then that's fine, and if you subvocalize or don't or what have you, that's fine too. i'm more interested in an internal voice being shaped by an author. that was one of the reasons i wasnt a huge fan of dfw, (still not memeing) it just felt like there wasnt an underlying voice that came through in the text. it just felt neutral.
>>7490554
It's just a generic voice, neither my own nor the author's.
>>7490843
always the same regardless of what you read?
>>7490731
Usually the narrator/characters have different voices than my own, honestly it makes it easier to visualize everything.
>>7490869
do you ever feel like the author is specifically crafting that sensation, or screwing with you by making the voices difficult to separate?
>>7490554
i love this meme
>>7490888
I've never really considered whether it's intentionally done in any manner. I always figured it was just something I did to comprehended the story/characters better.
>>7490904
what meme? are you really that moronic you can't derive sincerity from a post? fuck sake. how boutcha read a bag of dicks and go shitpost about trump or harry potter. I'm just curious how to infuse my own writing with a voice, how to recognize when voices are meaningfully absent in a work, or are absent because the author has none. there is an emptiness that is explained when there is a lack of a voice in a novel and this is the closest thing i can peg as being the reason.
>>7490666
I've never done this in all my life. I've always read the way one is expected to: by understanding words. I'm convinced people who subvocalize just never learned how to properly read.
>>7490927
are you good at reading aloud?
>>7490927
I learned to read at around 5-6 years old. My mom would read to me and she would run a finger underneath where she was reading (I'm not sure if she did this to keep track of where we were if I interrupted, or if she intended for me to be following along; the books weren't picture books or "learn to read" type books though). I just sort of started to be able to read at that point. And I definitely subvocalize.
I use to overthink the voices of all the characters and the narrator when I was a teenager. Now I don't give a shit to it. I think it is a voiceless voice, I can't explain it.
>>7490927
i think you might be missing out on something key when you don't hear a voice. i feel that when i write, i subvocalize. i give my characters voices in my head, i give my narrator a voice. i think maybe that you're missing out on something when an author has the ability to use that inner voice to influence the flow of the story, or the emotional connection between you and certain characters.
>>7490731
In books that have a lot of characters (I.e Infinite Jest) I think I assign a voice to each character as the book develops. I definitely have different voices for Hal, whatever the lady with the veil's name was, the crippled one, etc. In fact I can remember their voices better than the characters' names.
Same goes with books that have a narrator that is also a character. I think it adds to the story if you imagine the character narrating what happens to them with their own inflections that you've derived from how they act in the book.
Most books that don't have a lot of characters or character narrators I don't subvocalize much, if at all. I just sort of absorb the information on the page like watching a movie, except I process it a lot more. I started reading a lot when I was really young due to excess free time and I think that probably has something to do with why I read the way I do.
>>7490927
you just can't say that.
>>7490964
for instance, having a character that is off, someone evil perhaps, but only giving a subtle indication of this through the way he talks, maybe not noticeable if you're just reading them flatly, but noticeable if you give them a voice, forcing (as an author) your readers to hear the sliminess of someone, really giving them something foreboding about a character.
>>7490969
has there been any author that has messed with that voice for you? really warped it in a way? almost invaded that sanctum of your inner voice?
>>7490986
Not in the way you're describing, I think. Closest I can imagine is in Lolita when really dark shit is slipped into the story by Humbert between beautiful prose and descriptions of love and you really begin to question the voice that's describing this stuff to you.
>>7490989
i honestly think not having subvocalization is possible, i remember reading a while back about the first recorded man to have ever read silently, apparently up until that point everyone spoke the words on the page, it's only natural that eventually our minds would adapt to the point that we don't need to convert symbols on a page through some sort of conscious filter of speech, perhaps that immediate recognition is just evolution winding its way as always.
>>7490731
I never use my own voice. When I'm reading, there is a movie playing in my head.
>When you read, if you subvocalize, do you hear the voice of the author
Yeah, I actually hear the voice of Homer speaking in archaic Greek when I read the Iliad.
>>7490998
so you experience a total audiovisual scene? how does that work for some of the post-modern writers? like when the setting is purposefully obfuscated?
>>7490997
Sometimes I have some "mute" voice in my head when I read, something like a wind voice to imagine prosody, to simbolize angry or those kinds of things... everyone has this same voice. I think a lot about it.
I can't say if it is a subvocalization or not.
having watched all of DFWs interviews I can't his shit without hearing him.
>>7491010
I guess I should say, when there is a setting and characters I see a movie.
Right now I'm reading moby dick, pretty much watching episodes of a "moby dick tv show" every night.
>>7491018
read*
fuck
>>7491014
yes, i feel like rhythm and emotions would be difficult to grasp without some sort of voice, or sound, something almost tangible. it makes me curious about what synesthetes might be like if this voice is tweaked somehow, emotion with sound, both are so close, like music in a scary film, provides tension and fear, i mean, imagine your inner voice being replaced with a visual hallucination of some sort that was consistent with various emotions, and could display rhythm, leaving the entire idea of sound out of it all. i wonder if deaf people lack this inner voice when they read?
>>7490997
Fuck yeah, I'm highly evolved.
>>7491031
well, let's not go that far, you havent developed as far as determining expression through patterns in the placement of the letter W throughout each page like i have, some day maybe you will reach these heights, but it's probably just my superior genes.
>>7490995
100% the same here!
>>7491076
do either of you think this was intentionally done by the author, or just a fluke of your own experience? or what do you think it is?
>>7491085
1st guy here. Definitely intentional. Nabakov knew what he was doing. The story would be mindless kidnapping and rape without the beauty to contrast it, and it would be purple prose and meaningless shit without the dark stuff.
>>7491031
>highly evolved
>posting on a Vietnamese card trading forum
Pick one
>>7491095
is that the only time you've felt almost betrayed (if that's what you felt) by the author? like he or she had plotted out this false sense of a tone in order to make you feel a specific emotion or have a specific reaction? was it due to subtlety? was it apparent during the first reading? did you have an epiphany moment? am i asking too many questions?
>>7490964
>i think you might be missing out on something key when you don't hear a voice
This desu. I seem to be able to read without subvocalizing. Obv I don't have direct understanding of what's going on in my brain, but it feels as tho I recognize the image of a word and it touches the concept that gives it meaning. Despite that, when I read poetry, for instance, I say all the words in my head, and even act them out, because you miss a lot about the emotion and the music of the text if you separate the speech from the idea.
>>7491107
I didn't feel betrayed but I definitely felt intrigued, like finding out a friend has a really weird fetish or a an opinion on something that you abhor. It adds to the character a lot and makes you question your relationship to them and their composition as a person. I think the think with Lolita is that you go into it expecting awful child rape stuff and are greeted with a gorgeous description of love by an intelligent narrator, then when your guard is down you're reminded how immoral the entire thing is and it's a really nice blow to deal to the reader.
I've only read Lolita once, but it was kind of a creeping sense. The only thing I can remember that I would describe as an epiphany is whenLolita starts sobbing at one point after sex and the description stops very abruptly, iirc.Very well done imo.
>>7491119
yes, definitely, and i wonder if there's a way to mess with both sensibilities and types of readers. making concepts and ideas merge, maybe forcing certain non-subvocalizing readers to go back and subvocalize, making subvocalizers lose out on things that are apparent from such a scheme that an individual voice or many won't reveal, but give them hints that make them try to grasp it?
>>7491136
i see. so disguising a true intent through prose, the unreliable narrator technique, but maybe not quite the manipulation of voice there... hm.
What's the best way to read something? Is non-subvocalizing a requirement, or a preference?
>>7491208
judging from this thread, in the end, it can be a useful tool for understanding rhythm and tone of a work, especially speech within the book, or in poetry, but it is not essential to enjoy a work. there are many ways to read, no one is conclusively the correct way to do so.
>>7491223
>no one is conclusively the correct way to do so.
so does everyone here in this board have a different way of reading? no universal "recommended" way or anything?
and how is non-subvocalizing a useful tool for understanding rhythm and tone?
>>7491232
no, forgive me, i meant subvocalizing can be a useful tool.
i can only speak for myself when saying that i have a way that i read that may or may not be completely different from the way another person reads, though i'm fairly certain i do.
why do you ask? do you feel as though you're missing out on something?
how do you read?
>>7490997
>honestly think not having subvocalization is possible
It's called skimming. All of these faggots on here are trying to sound complex, when in reality they aren't absorbing the material. If you aren't subvocalizing, you aren't reading, you're skimming.
The limitation on reading speed is your brain processing the information, not how fast you can look at and identify words. The faster you read, the less you subvocalize, and the less you comprehend. There is a direct inverse relationship between reading speed and comprehension. Those people who read big books in five hours aren't actually reading. They probably skim it and go to wikipedia. They should probably just stop reading altogether and just use wikipedia. Stop lying.
>>7491245
>why do you ask? do you feel as though you're missing out on something?
whenever i'm trying out new media, i'd like in the best way possible to truly indulge in what the author/creator intended. it's become a habit of mine, a single imperfection could ruin the whole thing for me. though i'm recently just trying to get into books, it's a new whole media for me (not saying that I've never read books before, just never considered it a hobby)
how i read is basically just like this guy >>7490998 in simple terms
right now im just checking out /lit/'s meme supreme recommended reading charts
>>7491246
well, would you say that a person like Kim Peek, who retains some 98% of the information he reads, while reading both pages simultaneously with one eye on each, is merely skimming? if you have the ability to retain the information at higher speeds, does that mean you don't comprehend it? i'm not so sure that subvocalization is necessary for reading comprehension. i think it is a tool for many of us to ensure our smooth understanding of a book or passage, whereas there are those who are gifted with something like photographic memory, or a perfect recall if you will, who can assemble concepts and ideas in a web different to others, so they didnt need to learn to subvocalize to ensure their comprehension of the text.
>>7491264
personally, i think making reading a habit is the most important start, more important than worrying about gasping every single possible concept in a work. i think often that requires many readings, studying, and even then there are a lot of books out there that are going to ruin your day in that respect.
>>7491275
He doesn't understand the information at a higher level, he just retains it. He has no understanding at all of abstract concepts. Anyhow, he is a freak case. You have to subvocalize.
Skimming—or not subvocalizing, as pretentious faggots call it—is a strategic reading tactic. There are times when the majority of information is irrelevant, so you can skim looking for keywords and phrases. It is just so you can truncate the material, though, you still have to actually read the important parts. It is actually quite similar to using a keyword finder on a mobile reading device.
The way I see if, I use three reading speeds: skimming, fast paced, and focused. Fast paced is for when I understand most of the concepts and vocabulary, and is often at near subvocalization speeds—i.e., skimming. I will speed through familiar or uninteresting paragraphs, while slowing down when something engages me. Focused reading is very slow, possibly slower than 200 wpm, depending on how many times I have to reread paragraphs. If what you are reading has complex concepts and vocabulary, you aren't going to skim through it. I don't care who you are.
>>7491026
deaf people use braille, man. no words to vocalize.
>>7491345
I didn't mean to have the name sage. Both times that was from a different thread. I mean no disrespect.
>DFW everyone sincerely bites the bait
Beautiful
>>7491345
i'm not sure you can state that information about kim peek honestly. besides, there are plenty of other examples of near complete retention while reading incredibly quickly. i'm not so sure you're not just projecting your own experience onto others. i personally subvocalize. just because i do, doesnt mean that everyone does. there are people who see patterns and glean information in ways we can't even comprehend. does that make their understanding better or worse than ours? not necessarily. people are bizarre creatures, and to lump them all into one category because that's the most relatable is a mistake.
>>7491347 you sure?
>>7491356 what the fuck bait are you talking about? do you think subvocalization is just bait? why? i'd love to hear your opinion.
>>7491374
That's really not true. The genius savant nonsense is overhyped. All of the intelligent people who actually make a mark on the world read like normal people. Some of them use tactics to weed out extraneous information, but they all read like normal. Even the ones who claim fast reading speeds, like JFK, are actually using skimming tactics.
There's nothing wrong with skimming, but call it by its proper name, people. I skim internet articles all the time, and speed read the majority of the rest. When it comes to books, though, I've always felt that a book not worth a focused read, probably isn't worth a read at all. If most of the information isn't engaging, I've clearly picked the wrong book.
well, i'd like to know how you know that some people don't have vastly different methods of connecting concepts with words, but i'll let that conversation drop, back to the original question, do you read in a specific voice? your own? do you ever find yourself immersed to the point that you hear an accent?
>>7491374
Nobody sincerely subvocalizes; it's got to be bait. I remember when I had my subvocalization lessons in preschool, right after penis introspection day.
let me do a different question: do you guys read this conversation in a specific voice? because I'm, and I don't know why but everybody has a strange windy male voice, including me.
everyone has the same voice I have. everyone is me.
>>7491426
i always read opposing posts in a matter of fact way that isnt exactly challenging, but almost an entreating way, a way that tries to teach. (it's a way for me not to get angry or offended if someone doesnt agree with me, so i don't feel mocked) if it's a troll post, i give them the snidely whiplash voice, and if it's a fairly neutral or funny post, just kind of a general pleasant deep male voice.
>>7491424
were you hooked on phonics, or hooked on phallics?
I imagine this 40 something dude made entirely out of rocks speak. It's a pretty neat voice. The voice gets deeper when it's a girl or small child speaking. As if the giant rock man does not know what humans sound like but realizes the other smaller humans need to sound different and so he changes his voice just he does it in the wrong direction.
>>7491439
ah, the conveniently ever shifting term. why do you think non-subvocalization is a meme? there is someone here who thinks it's a genuine technique, and has a completely different name for it, skimming. are you saying that skimming is a meme? are you saying that subvocalization is a sham? why? when you look at say, a 30 digit number, do you vocalize it? or do you take it in in a different way? if so, why? if not, why?
>>7491446
what kind of rocks? dense ones? granite? limestone? does he crumble a bit when he talks? do you see him in your mind's eye, does he read to you specifically? does this happen with every work you read? am i speaking through your golem to you?
>>7491453
Woah dude chill man I don't know what half of those words mean. It's like those rocks you'd find on cliffs. And nah it's just like my own voice coming from my throat but it's the deep voice and only head in my head. No golem character real, just the description I added to the voice. It is pretty neat. Like roleplay.
>>7491466
so you become the rock man, eh?
>>7491476
only if ur around bby ;) xDDDDD
okay, so, anyone have a weird feeling of lingual breakdown when reading Ulysses? any strange voices come to you? did the stream of consciousness intrude on your own stream? did they mix?
no one wants to talk about Ulysses today huh? i guess the thread the other day was enough for the week.
>>7491522
For real though I read it in an Irish accent
>>7491778
i was incredibly high when i read it, so i don't remember any voices. just the blind tapper.. the ineluctable modality of the visible, deaf pat...
>>7490666
Why would you? Serious question. Do you just want to read faster? Why are you taking the time to read a book if you just want to get through it as quickly as possible? I don't get it. Why is it such a big deal to some of you folks?
>>7491790
Never mind. I read the thread. Some of you get it. The rest . . . Well, the rest, I'm not so sure. I guess you'll have the benefit of being book smart, at least.
>>7491790
slow and steady wins the race. i think the desire to read quickly is brought on by the inability to read every book, coupled with the boy scouts badges they hand out after you read each book. i remember people used to reward kids, what was it, the scholastic book club? it was incentive to finish many many books as quickly as possible. who knows, people don't like to miss out, whether it be missing out in some content, or missing out on entire volumes, it'd be a lie to say that /lit/ doesnt pressure people to read hundreds of thousands of pages just to feel an iota of respect. it might not be worth it to those who have figured out that it's not worth it, and that enjoying a book is so much more fulfilling than speeding through it and shitposting about it later.
>>7491805
I don't subvocalize, but I don't make pains to read fast. It's just the way I read.
>>7492524
that wasnt really aimed at nonsubvocalizers but the people who envy them merely for the speed. as i've been saying throughout this thread, there are some advantages and disadvantages to either reading style.
>>7490554
So wait, when some piece of wit makes you laugh, you don't put the book aside for a moment and think about it a bit more, or wonder how you can improve the canter of your normal conversation and test words that sound good together or rebuttals/jokes that would be great for your friends? weigh up and predict the next logical move from the contrasts and distractions shown?
You just flash it all in because knowledge? what kind of people are you? you can't speed read philosophy, and every good writer has some philosophy in them but perhaps those writers don't want you to really progress if they promote speed reading, maybe that is the way they keep you coming back to them as a source of storied "knowledge".
>>7492582
i think you misinterpreted my post. i subvocalize. i hear a voice that usually brings me to a deeper emotional attachment to an author. also i think that's the interesting aspect for the people who don't. its likely that if their minds do process that information so quickly they sort it, interpret it, and react to it in a different way. i like to think of it as a web of information vs a single thread at a time. the subvocs get a focused thread, whereas the nonsubvocs get a web of nodes, lots of different threads coming together rapidly.
>>7490845
Minor differences.
>>7490672
>has obviously never heard the voice of God
