/lit/ - Literature

Speed reading is awful, I want to carefully reflect what the book is about and all that

>>4714054
This.

To me speedreading is just a consequence of the time and our desire for instant gratification.

When the information from books can be automatically 'downloaded' into the head, I'll still be there, like an obstinate fool, reading books.

>>4714054
I have the impression that people who speedread dont really enjoy reading. They just want it to be over with.

>>4714050
Op have you heard of speedwatching? You can set your videos to play at twice the speed as normal and still be able to follow the plot? This allows you to watch a film in under an hour!

>>4714089

Literally the worst comparison I have ever seen. No, I'm not joking either.

>>4714069
Amen

Speedreading is good, but only up to 600 wpm.

I refuse to believe anyone can understand much reading over that.

>>4714069
>>4714054
Speed reading doesn't lower your comprehension if done right,
Skimming isn't speed reading, which is what you seem to imply.

>>4714118
>Speed reading doesn't lower your comprehension if done right,
that's not true. all philologists agree with the fact that, in order to fully comprehend a certain text, you have to read very slowly, which is slower than average

>>4714119
>ab auctoritate

There's no proper studies or any proof that some people can't comprehend a text at one speed while others usually can at other.

Why do anti-speedreading people always get so buttflustered at the prospect of others reading faster? Does it make you feel like you're wasting time reading slower and are trying to justify it?

Good for you, OP. I was really into speed-reading last year, but eventually got tired of it.

To people who think it's equal to skimming: If you do it right, you don't sacrifice comprehension because of a number of different tricks. For example, you avoid internal vocalization, you take advantage of your peripheral vision, and you teach yourself how to comprehend sentences faster by focusing on groups of words of rather than one word at a time.

It takes a lot of practice to get to the comprehension stage; plus, it's exhausting. I don't do it so much anymore because of that. To me, it's more rewarding an experience to digest a book slowly and think about how the writer writes rather than just what he writes.

Piracetam will improve your reading rate by a lot.

>go to 5 star restaurant
>order their world famous fois gras
>eat it in under three minutes
>patrition status obtained

I can see the appeal of speed reading, but I think it would cut out some of my favorite parts of regular reading in the process. I love going back and rereading a beautiful sentence, or occasionally flipping back to reread a passage for clarity or something. I like to take my time to fully imagine/realize the world I'm reading about. I don't want to sacrifice all that just for speed. I have plenty of time.

>>4714193
lel

>>4714194
Thing is, with speedreading, I can read a book twice in the same time I usually would've read it once, and with the second read, I understand way more than I would've with one single read.

>>4714193
More like, since you finished that fois gras, now you can have some other dish and dessert in the same time the dude next to you sits down eating it one tiny scoop at a time except it goes bad before he's able to finish it.

>>4714104
Have you met >>4714193

>>4714209
Yeah, but eating a whole meal in 3 minutes like you haven't had food for a week makes you look like an uncultured swine.

Trying to do away with subvocalization and reading more quickly don't hinder your enjoyment of the text. You don't "miss out" on the quality of the style nor on particular passages. All you're doing is getting your brain to recognize the meaning of words more quickly. I won't say I'm a "speed reader" but in the past year I've gotten myself to read much faster than I used to, probably close to 4x as fast, maybe more. I just want to be able to read more books in the same period of time.

I still subvocalize when reading poetry though, because the sound is kind of the point.

>>4714192
I'm interested, I've read some about Piracetam, but still cautious about buying it. Have you ever used it anon?

>>4714291
I've used phenylpiracetam while writing, though I ran out a while back. It doesn't really "feel" like anything, but I think there was a notable improvement. Reading is easier too, or more focused.

>>4714104

A better comparison is listening to music at double speed.

In good literature euphony is paramount. It's not an issue of what is written, but how it is written. You need to sound it out and savour every delicious syllable. So while speedreading is definitely a useful skill, its applications are limited. You're not going to speed read good books, because that defeats the purpose. You're not going to speed read scientific books, because the bottleneck there is comprehension, not input rate. So it's only useful if you read a large amount of low complexity texts - newspapers, reviews, chronicles - or plot-based fiction where the euphonic aspect is not significant.

>>4714328
Its a better comparison but still not totally accurate, there are plenty of times when you want/have to read something in order to obtain the information rather than enjoy the language and writing style, and in these situations a speedreading program is better.

>the mere thought that I will be able to go faster, just beautiful...

>speed-reading actual books
>not speed-reading wikipedia articles and pretending to be an expert on /lit/

>>4714050
Some of us actually appreciate aesthetics.

>>4714227

I hate that feel. On Friday my girlfriend sprung me with dinner at a restaurant which needs reservations about a month in advance. However, I had an unavoidable commitment I needed to be at within an hour of when dinner started.

Fuck you feel like a knob slamming down high quality food. As though you're putting it to waste.

>>4714050
Why would I try to consume something I enjoy as fast as possible?

The only purpose would be for gatherin g information I don't care about and want to get over with. But overall I don't get it really.

you realize that a lot of the words on a page don't have to be read for comprehension, most of it is grammatical syntactic fluff. But for certain aesthetic properties, it may not be appropriate

>>4714118
>Speed reading doesn't lower your comprehension if done right,
Yeah but you miss out on the aesthetics.

>>4714564
>rather than enjoy the language and writing style, and in these situations a speedreading program is better.
No shit, but
>reading for plot

>>4715615
>mfw when I spedred through lolita
I don't get the big deal, he's just a scumbag pedo

>>4715620
You cunt, the story was the platform for Nabokov's aesthetic.

Anyone willing to help?
This is the best software for speed reading.
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/9735671/eReflect_7_Speed_Reading_2014_%28Windows_Mac%29___eReflect_Confidenc
But some exercices doesn't work on my pc. Anyone willing to try on theirs?

I've tried speedreading. It doesn't work for me.

Maybe it works for other people, but it just won't work for me.

>>4715615
>reading for aesthetics

>>4714050

Took a course on it in college. I'm like sort of 50/50. I sadly ended up missing a lot of the class because I was sick. Wish I could retake it. at first I was like one of the fastest readers in the class, we took a poll. At the end I was one of the slowers, meaning I was still even going at my own rate, even faster than before but missing out cause everyone else to speed up.

Crazy. I don't know about comprehension though because I still blew through the questions and aced them even if I just guessed right.

>>4715615

A book I read on speed reading said people got really into the aesthetics. Like almost tripping. Reading so fast you start visualizing at the same speed you read and normally do or something.

Personally speed reading allows me to keep my mind on the text and not wander of into the abyss. The problem might just be
> add-generation
but this is my input anyway.

>>4715710
How long do you believe it takes to accomplish this? Also, can you recommend material for doing so. I assume pulp fiction suffices for practice?

>>4715695
>not reading for aesthetics

>speedreading

The anti-speedreading crowd seems to be missing the point.

The speed limit of subvocalization is entirely arbitrary and has nothing to do with the optimal speed for "enjoyment" or "understanding" or "analysis".

It obviously depends on what you are reading, but you're implicitly assuming that your brain can't work faster than it can vocalize. I don't think that is the case.

>>4714226

Yes, and all I can say is

>read a book in record time
>manage free time better, so I can read even more if I want, or do other shit

I guess speedreading wouldn't impress people with lots of free time

>>4715617
Information is not necessarily plot, for instance non-fiction.

>>4714187

you say you didn't lose comprehension but also that you slowed down because you wanted to think about how the writer writes. what do you think is comprehension? that's it exactly. it no just just plot. but also style, theme, structure.

>>4714564
Pretty much this.
I took a grad level history seminar once and we have to read 500-700 page history texts each week on some pretty dry subjects.
Sped read my way through most of it to be able to participate in discussion.
Historians are not always the best writers.

>>4716024
That's just my personal opinion. I know people who have more experience with speed-reading and can get more things out of it like style, theme and structure. What I'm saying is that I'm still a lazy novice, and speed reading tires me out.

>>4716022
What kind of nonfiction? I can't imagine speedreading any of the nonfiction I read. I can imagine quickly reading a news article but not anything else. Maybe an essay.

>don't know speedreading even exists
>read a book in about two weeks to a month time

>start speedreading
>read a 200 page book in two days' worth of commuting
>literally comprehend and understand the same as normal reading speed

how is this hard to see?

>>4715685
Great programs, also have problems.
But most exercices works.
Than you for sharing.

>>4716037
Textbooks
Financial reports

I started doing this at age 8 or so, are you all retarded or something

>>4716566
>Not learning to photoread
Fucking casual

reminder that if you don't watch films at 3.5x speed you are not a speed watcher and are of the uppermost plebian

>>4716656
>Watching films

>>4718085
>not being intellectual film theorist

>>4716656
To be fair, certain older movies (from the 60s or earlier) are paced so slowly and waste so much time on explanatory exposition (the boring kind) that if you watched them at 3.5x speed, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't miss out on anything but soundtrack.

>>4714050
I speed read. Do not let anyone try to convince you of your experience. If they clsim you will comprehend less then most likley them who can never fathom abosrbing that much info that quickly. Or claim you cannot appreciate the art of it, as if their snail's pace makes the words better. Speed reading makes the events of the book play out more vividly to me than when am reading normal speed.

>>4718423
Don't you miss the ability to critically reflect on the author's choice of a word? Assimilating so much information at a time leaves little room for immediate afterthought. Speed reading can really only accompany works that are read for aesthetic pleasure or as sources of information.

I'm not a speed reader but holy shit, my sister is and she comprehends everything she reads. Finished in top percentile in reading. I'm envious. That's the only thing she is good at and still chooses to read shitty /lit/

Who here is into speedeating?
I started practicing a couple of days ago, and I'm seriously amazed by how fast you can really eat and still taste something, this has changed my life, and the mere thought that I will be able to eat faster, just beautiful...

>>4718456
>shitty lit
Maybe that's why she can read so fast?

>>4718445
What does speed have to do with reflecting on the authors choice of word? Can one not still stop and reflect? Quit trying to justify not being able to read fast. I can read slow like you and I can speed read, speed reading is vastly better. How can you truly undrstand metre one a small as well as large scale when reading so slow? How is that for a ridiculous question on par with your own.

Why is it people who cannot speed read seem to think that those who can still cannot read at theiir snal's pace too? Do you think one has to select one exclusivly?

Pleb question here:
Is speed-reading just reading without subvocalization or does it require those speed reading programs?

>>4718533
So, you're being the average poster, and making this a question that it isn't, and then answering your own question.

I have the ability to speed read. I just dislike it. When one reads literature, contemplation, reflection, and meaning are derived from a phenomenological process that requires the ability to think critically, in the holistic sense, about independent sections of a clause. Attempting to do so while continuing in your reading produces a failure of comprehension. One cannot concurrently think critically and read without pause with absolute efficacy. One is not 'vastly better' than the other; do not dogmatically claim the absolute superlative on a childish assumption, for intent or not, that is what you've done.

Also, you're fucking disgusting. Questioning a dichotomy you have previously established is a joke, and you're a terrible fucking individual for assuming that others must assume not a general, but an isolated, standard of comprehension to be able to converse with you. You don't want an answer to that question, so don't bother asking it.

I don't think you understand what it means to read, and I'd suggest you seriously examine yourself as a human being.

>>4718598
Did you not read what O said? You seemed to miss that I said I can stop, anyone can stop. Speed reading does not mean you open the book ajd finish it ... only if you want to.

I am disgusting? Good job of making yourself seem like a small, angry person. Keep up the name calling, maybe it helps you in feel better about yourself.

Maybe with speed reading I will finally get through Naked Lunch.

“When we read too fast or too slowly, we understand nothing.”

/thread

>>4718625
Did you not read what O said? You seemed to miss that I said I can stop, anyone can stop [but I just can't do both at the same time - which is something you completely missed - probably while doing your speed reading]. Speed reading does not mean you open the book ajd finish it ... only if you want to [Neither does reading. There is no point to this statement and you have obviously no sense of critical self-reflection, which is, coincidentally, common among those with autism, go figure].

I am small and angry? Good job of making yourself seem like a large and disgusting person. Keep up the name calling, maybe it helps you in feel better about yourself.

"If one reads too quickly or too slowly, one understands nothing." -Paul de Man

If you read too fast or too slow you won't understand anything

>>4715755

Accomplish what? Results at all or the pseudo tripping feeling/visualizing you can get from reading super fast?

>>4716038
But that would be natural, I mean. With practice,you read faster.

Speedreading is like listening to Mozart or Beethoven sped up to 1.5X or 2X. The point of the composition is not getting quickly to the end of the composition. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbvKrH-GC4))

You can comprehend and appreciate the music while it's sped up, but why would you want to?

>the autists that climb out of the woodwork every speedreading thread to comment on something they've never done

If you've read and done the exercises, most books really stress it as a studying tool, with pre reading and skimming.

How speedreading induces bitter hatred is beyond me.

>Wikipedia is too easy to access I only walk to the Library of Congress to look up the history of ice picking.

I used to speedread not really because I thought it was the best way to go about it or something I just was trying to get into reading without really knowing how to pace myself.

I dunno, I mean of course you can get whats going on. Some books youre kind of inclined to speedread (LOTR comes to mind due to all the made up words and events that you're not really expected to remember), but mostly I just think its better to catch all the details.

If you were going to speedread, why wouldent you just read a plot synopsis over 15 minutes or so? Why waste your time bothering with the whole book even?

>>4714209
>Except it goes bad before hes able to finish it

Nigga how bad is your ADHD where you can't read a book.

Surely you guys aren't speedreading fiction? Whenever I find a book that I like I try to slow myself down and really enjoy it.

>>4720036
Because you want to read the book not a summary. Odd question to ask.

>>4720068
I'll take an answer from someone who isnt trolling thankyou.

>>4720076
I'm not trolling. You pose this question as if (speed) reading is the same as reading a summary. It's not, you seem to be attached to this idea that the only way you can enjoy, understand, appreciate a book is slow. It is not.

>>4720087
>Tripcode
>Not trolling

>>4720087
I disagree with your view of speed reading so I must be trolling you. Sure man. You must live in a small world.

>>4720114
No you have a tripcode, its like an automatic indicator that you're shitposting. Thx tho m8.

Also
>Replies to own post
>Still insisting hes not trolling
4/10 breddy funny

>>4720137
So this isnt about speed reading anymore. I post as myself because I don't need to hide and post anonymously. Imagine that.

>>4720154
They have a site for that though.

We get it, you love attention. Get get you some upvotes for it.

It stopped being about speed reading when you tried to be taken seriously.

>>4720154
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

EVERYONE!
EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS GUY! HE DON'T NEED NO STINKING ANONYMITY! HE IS BEYOND OUR PETTINESS...

HE IS...


OMAR!

KNOW HIM!

>>4720166
No, it stopped being about speed reading when you questioned another person's experience reading a piece and when you asserted that the full value can only be derived from reading slowly.

>>4720192
I never did that though. I asked for personal opinions from people. Then some retard "OMAR B LOL GUISE DO U RECOGNIZE ME" came up and started spewing shit.

Come on man, I know you're not this stupid. Your opinion is worthless.

>>4720192
don't start this tripfag nonsense, please. go to reddit books if you must. the only tripfag we tolerate is REI because we find his retardedness particularly interesting/amusing. honestly, he should post without a trip because we could certainly recognize his posts without, but whatever. this situation is after many years of telling tripfags to get fucked, blocking them with extensions, etc. as annoyed as we get with /pol/ invasions, the tripfag drama was much worse. just stop, post like a normal person.

>>4720203
I have given my opinion, you just didn't like it and wish to make it seem that it's of no value.

Also, saying someone's opinion on the internet is pretty funny considering it is the internet Anon.

>>4720216
No im sure your opinion would be valid. I don't really give too much of a shit if you speed read or not.

Really, are you this retarded? Like four dudes have been telling you why you're an idiot. Its not because your opinion offends us. Its that your tripcode makes you look like you don't know how to dress yourself.

>>4720243
>Really, are you this retarded? Like four dudes have been telling you why you're an idiot.
4 dudes? Everyone posting as anon, I didn't even know. Not like I care anyway. Don't like me posting, ignore me.

>>4720276
>not like I care
>as you cry

I don't get this concept of 'speed-reading'. It's obvious that you are comparatively increasing your speed reading to what you were at before comfortably, therefore losing information retaining as a result.

I am, of course, naturally a quick reader, and I don't give a damn.

>>4718353
Actual plebian detected.

>>4719420
This.

>>4720288
LOL. That was actually funny. Good for you.

>>4720299
Speed reading is designed for people who read slowly to catch up and get up to speed with people who read quickly, that's what you fail to understand.

The average is 250wpm for adults in general, college students average 500.

It's not for students, it's for others to catch up.
I'm aware there's other programs that promise 1000 and upwards, but those are not the majority and do agree that those are shit.

I can speed read but only do so if I need to. I'm a fast reader anyway and it actually helps if I imagine reading the book to a class. I dictate far better that way.

>>4718353
You are an idiot and you clearly don't know a thing about film history.

>>4721428
I used to could read fast but the I read a very complicated book. Now I read everything so slow and can't help it.
It's similar to how I could do arithmetic easily in my head until calculus 2, now it's hard to do simple addition. I think my brain got broke.