/lit/ - Literature

>>15195736
just subvocalize it literally doesnt matter. youll probably find eventually you stop doing it without noticing

>>15195736
keep reading and set your intention on relaxing more

>>15195736
>subvocalizing is bad

>>15195746
It's not necessarily bad, but it represents a sort of filter between you and the text

Anti-subvocalizers should be shot dead unless their position is physical verbalization. Most people used to read out loud in Rome and late antiquity. Seneca and Saint Augustine read out loud and Augustine was surprised Ambrose read silently. Reminder the only people who don't get pic related are non-(sub)vocalizers.

>>15195770
I like listening to lecture and stuff, but I also never sub vocalize. They are different

>>15195752
If you don't subvocalize, you are filtered by the text.
>>15195775
No, they aren't.

>>15195736
I subvocalize even my own thoughts, what di you me by subvocalizing is bad?

>>15195736

Subvocalizing is good because it allows you to expewrience the acoustic qualities of prose like rhythm, alliteration, etc.

Anything that is not subvocal is effectively "skimming" the text, even if it is done with a high level of comprehension because either the text is simplistic or the reader is intelligent there is still something missing because you aren't experiencing the prose style

>>15195786

>I subvocalize even my own thoughts

Anon I hate to break it to you but you're an NPC

>>15195788
Big Yud, Sam Harris and Mendacious Muldbug don't suvocalize and neither do I. All 3 are geniuses who went to ivy league alma maters and have PhDs. It's always dipshit losers who brag about subvocalizing because they waste time and like to waste others time.

>>15195736
Subvocalising is not bad, this is a /lit/ meme fuelled by pseud insecurities turning everything into a competition.

How do they teach kids to read? They don't say
>Look at one sentence then immediately absorb it like a billboard and move onto the next. If you can't do this 10 times a second you're basically retarded.
They say
>Read the words and imagine what you're reading

You need to forget about aiming to read fast, that's just not a useful goal. There's plenty of people who "read fast" but learn nothing because they take no time to actually think about what they're reading. You want to aim to better imagine what you're reading, to better understand it. Which might actually mean reading slower than you're used to. The best approximation of how efficient your reading is isn't just how fast you can finish a page, it's also how well you can visualise a poem or understand an argument.

People like Harold Bloom that have read all the books are just 5,000 IQ Chads that can do both of these things very well. But speed is worthless if you're not comprehending anything. If trying to read fast makes you learn nothing and feel bad then don't worry about it, it'll just make you hate reading.

>>15195814
>internal dialogue.
If anything its the opposite.

>>15195814
that's the opposite of npc you moron
everyone knows the glassy eyed masses go about their day with nothing but the hazy impressions of primal emotions pinging around in their skulls, a states barely considered sentient

>>15195824
Okay I'm never speed-reading again.

>>15195824
Lmao Big Yud is a self taught hack without even a undergrad degree
>PhD
Is that what he tells people those days?

>>15195834
>His spirit doesn't speak to him entirely in images and drives to action
Not gonna make it, symbolcuck

>>15195866
worked out great for him when he hugged a horse and became a drooling vegetable, huh

>>15195861
Big Yud would eat your lunch in an intellectual debate. Listen to any of his speeches or interviews. First rate intellect.

>>15195752
Incorrect. Humans evolved to communicate vocally and without subvocalizing your comprehension and retention will be far worse. Also your appreciation of prose as >>15195788 said. Could you imagine reading the opening of Lolita without subvocalizing?

Read well, not fast.

you can really tell this is a thread on /lit/ and not /sci/ everyone is saying something different and Ive come out of this thread confused whether I should be subvocalising or not

i even subvocalize these posts. is that just a waste of time? it feels more like a conversation when i imagine all the pauses and such

>can't help but imagine I'm reading to my little sister back when she gave a fuck about who I was
>give all the characters distinct voices in my head
>apologize (still in my head) if I accidentally give a character the wrong voice from messing up on the dialogue tags
>explain outdated words or terms from older books

>>15195900
kek

>>15195736
The anti sub vocalization meme is quite possibly the most stupid fucking thing to come out from this website. It doesn't fucking matter. Just read.

>>15195736
If its "sub"vocalizing, didn't they mean that youre not actually producing any sort of sound or going through any sort of vocal motions?

>>15195901

>>15195752
How? This meme is baseless. OP should just try to slow it down, if anything.

>>15196353
Sub-vocalizing is useful for writers. Imagine reading one of the greatest novels ever written but not paying any attention to the cadence. You're sort of robbing yourself of the ability to improve your craft.

>>15196599
Speed reading is useful if you have to read a lot of dumb bullshit you don't care for. Like if you have to read multiple academic papers or reports full of useless jargon. Speed reading for your enjoyment is in fact totally retarded.

>>15195736
wtf does this even mean how is it even possible to comprehend anything without that voice in your head

>>15195786
Are you an idiot or something? That's just called thinking.

>>15195736
The virgin subvocalizing
The chad reading aloud

>>15195824
>All 3 are geniuses
What did he mean by this?

just be focused bro

>>15196965
>Not both

Fight for a world in which you have time to read all of the books you want without having to skim.