/lit/ - Literature

In bad english accent.

Is reading a higher quality activity if you subvocalize?

>>7034142
what do. should i read that burroughs trilogy?

fucking subvocalization is like breathing and blinking manually

99.9% of the time i don't do it but once the word comes up my brains like 'OH YEAH XD REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE LITTLE AND DID THAT now it's doing it right now FUCK YOU BRAIN'

It's actually weird as fuck because since I rarely subvocalize it is like hearing a stranger's voice in my head

>mfw people think it is possible not to.

>>7034197
Are you saying that there are literally people who think not subvocalizing is impossible?

Is this a bad habit? I do it.

>>7034201
Quite the opposite. I am saying that there are people whot think that it is impossible not to be able to not subvocalise, and I diagree, it is not possible to be able to not be able to not subvocalise

>>7034218
That sentence structure got me flippin homie

>>7034142
> There are people on /lit/ RIGHT NOW who judge you for how you process information.

Not all of us live in echo chambers full of silence. Subvocalization helps in noisy environments. It also makes clear your intention to continue reading to people who might otherwise interrupt.

>>7034232
Me too. I can't make it work in my head.

>>7034217
just confirming that this is a legit question that I'm hanging around for. What's bad about it?

>>7034237
Nothing wrong with it. Just a meme post

I'm a late talker so I almost never subvocalize

Feels good man

I hear the words in my head when I read them. Is that subvocalising? I didn't think there was another way to read (I don't count skimming/scanning as reading). I can read about 30-40 pages an hour.

shakespeare and joyce subvocalized

it's not bad to do if you don't have to speedread. for stuff like poetry or Joyce where sound is important it's better to subvocalize and best to vocalize out loud

Subvocalizers are the manlets of /lit/.

>>7034142
I only do this when I come across a sentence or passage that makes my brain conk out.
If I read it a couple times and can't make sense of it I'll sub vocalize/read it and go from there.
However if you are talking about "hearing it" in your head. (When you can hear the voice in your head reading, you know what the fuck I mean) well. I don't know how to read without doing that.

I totally know what sub vocalizing is

>>7034257
>/lit/izen can't even wiki things
smh tbh fam

I can't figure out if I subvocalize or not... People have always talked about it but I haven't been sure. I don't think I do

>>7034142
>tfw you begin to talk about something and start to say a word that you've read thousands of times but realize that you've never spoken it aloud and have no clue how to actually pronounce it.

>>7034294
This has happened literally hundreds of times to me.

It's the only non-good thing about >>7034243

>>7034142
>There are people on /lit/ who don't give every character a unique voice
JUST

>>7034334
>>7034334
I do this.
Though every single time I read a book set in England, all the male characters sound the same.
They all sound like the bartender guy from peaky blinders.
I can't think of the actors name, he has been in other stuff but I can't remember what.
Very distinct gravely Cockney/Birmingham voice though.

>>7034197
Its kind of like when people remind you that you are breathing and blinking manually, you eventually just forget you are reading and the words kind of just flow by

>>7034389
Literally never happens with me.
The voice in my head never goes away

>>7034244
>an hour
I would probably kill myself

>tfw you're reading a book and you can't get a character's voice just right

>>7034244
Yes, that's exactly it. It's also what's stopping you and I from hitting 60-80 pages an hour.

>>7034232
>>7034237
He's saying some people aren't going to be able to stop subvocalizing no matter how hard they try, and that those who pretend everyone could train themselves into not subvocalizing are Kike Christposter Spoooky Commies Clapitanist shills who should be shot.

>stop subvocalizing for a few minutes
>instantly replaced by a constant mental steam of U2 songs

If I don't subvocalize the words don't even register as words, I get no comprehension or retention. How do I fix this?

Fun anecdote, when Augustine first met his mentor, Ambrosius of Milan, he was awe-struck because Ambrosius was reading silently. It was extremely rare at the time. I also heard Cicero considered Cesar a genius for the same reason.

So perhaps not subvocalizing is the future, I dunno. It'd still make a lot of our best literature suck more.

>>7034432
Not poster but without doing that I can't feel the words. Feel isn't the right word. It's like eating food while pinching your nostrils shut. It dulls it.

>>7034445
You cant. Its literally impossible.

[Spoiler] that's the joke [/spoiler]

wait people read words in their head like they're saying them out loud? they don't just... read?

lol

>>7034459
That like when I watch the Blade Runner director's cut. I can still hear the voiceover in my head even though it's gone.

anyone else's brain that can do impressions in their head?
Morgan freeman reading mein Kampf?
Say no more
Jay Leno reading Ulysses?
Bring it
Penelope Cruz reading erotica?
Fuck yeah

>>7034471
I just let the words roll over my eyes so I don't have to think about it. It's also why I prefer invisible style.

>>7034452
Considering not subvocalizing lets you read 2-3x+ faster than subhuman vocalizers.. no shit

>>7034142
There are people on lit right now who don't read literature out loud when they can, and take care to crystallize the aural and lingo-muscular sonics internally when they can't.

They don't fondle the language, they don't hold words in their mouth and ear as well as in their mind. For them reading is nothing but a slideshow of images informed by their base visual awareness.

>>7034485
I subvocalized as Mark from Peep Show for about a month because I watched it so much, sometimes I would switch to Jez and I had no control over it.

>>7034459
I don't subvocalize though

>>7034485
After seeing the movie Pulp, I subvocalize the voice of Michael Caine in hardboiled stories.

Only time I didn't subvocalize was in elementary school reading Animorphs & Harry Potter. I was too obsessed with speed reading because I got off on being praised by the teachers. Once I hit middle school I stopped being such a fag. Your reading comprehension will improve greatly if you subvocalize no matter how well read you are

>>7034246
of course they did, it's about whether words become symbols to you, or whether words become phonic entities always torn between meanings, blurring a great number of referents through a etymological spectrum of onomatopoetic adaptations and mutations

Joyce is so linguistically stunning because he worked hard to divorce himself from the "Static Word = Static Symbol" that was imposed upon him in Ireland in 1890. It's why he can use words in seemingly irregular context and aggressive syntactical formations that allow for deep etymological and linguistic caverns to become apparent to quality readers, while the 'speed readers" either have no symbol to splash for the textual referents, or can only sense a vague mash of things that "don't quite fit or make sense together"

Reading aloud is the best. Reading silently was spread during the Industrial Revolution for mass educated drones.

>>7034554
post hoc rationalization

>>7034559
But the term "can't read without moving their lips" is a label given to plebs.

>>7034577
Big difference between can't and won't.

>tfw I trained myself to subvocalize because I was convinced I would absorb more
>tfw I don't absorb more
>tfw I now read slower
>tfw I will never get this voice out of my head

H..hold me bros...

>>7034576
haha, isn't it great! I love the Procrustean analysis every amerifag turns to in order to justify their own shitty, jilted prose.

"He sounded so great."

You mean like ass. He sounded like ass, but everyone dick road him in NYC and that's all that matters in the lit world popularity contest. Especially then.

>>7034577
>>7034593
Wait a second. I think you're confused.

Vocalize = Reading out loud
Subvocalize = Hearing the words in your head (you don't need to move your lips for this part)
Not Subvocalizing = Absorbing the meaning of sentences without hearing words

>>7034613
I'm not. Vocalization is best.

>>7034613
So it's best to Not subvocalize then? I read the Castle of Otranto last night without subvocalizing and I only retained about half of what I read. I have to reread it before monday.

>>7034630
You must be confusing it with skimming. Subvocalizing doesn't help with retention.

Wait. So I'm not supposed to hear words in my head as I read them?

Should my brain just skip that part and think instead of the ideas being conveyed? Is such abstract thought even possible to anyone who has already coded their thoughts with language?

do chinese readers subvocalise? i feel like using an alphabet would encourage ti whereas non-alphabetic scripts would not.

for example do you subvocalise & @ or 934?

>>7034679
I'm not a native speaker of Chinese but I do.

>>7034576
>post hoc

I'm literally using a phrase in a language I don't understand as a word to symbolize the concept of a position in a sequence

language is nothing to me other than a short hand for expressing learned physical realities, ooga booga bring me more asensual quantifying and positional signals to parse so I may structure my dead dumb world into some meager semblance of reality

>>7034559
this. silent reading was invented in england in the 19th century when books exploded in popularity in the working classes due to cheaper printing costs. the english working classes lived their lives in small rooms, usually a whole family in one room. so they had to read silently to allow others to get on with what they were doing. whereas the new middle classes had dedicated read-aloud rooms, and the upper classes had vast estates to ramble in with a butler to read aloud to them.

>>7034703
>expressing learned physical realities
checkmate atheists

>>7034732
*troubles ironic fedora slightly, nor quite sure if if he can give a full tipping without accidentally loosing his status as ironic fedora tipper to genuine fedora tipper

looks up what metaphysical symbolizes in the dictionary again*

>>7034725
>b..but the rich people did it!!!

lmao subvocalizing subhuman. All your rationalizations are worthless.

>>7034559
Reading silently has only existed for around 125 years. Imagine libraries before that.

>>7034190
Just looked up what it was and started doing it gg

>>7034190
After reading your post, I decided to give subvocalization a try.
I don't think I've ever done it. The voice that I heard in my head is nothing like anything I have ever heard or experience in my entire life. In fact, I am hearing that same voice as I type this message to you. Fuck you anon, this sucks.

>>7034796
ugh I can't wait till we get our of middle school "ap english"

then I can go to the rich high school to study actual literature and you can go to wherever it is people who live in bungalows above two car garages go to study whatever it is that they study

>>7034800
Longer than that. Monasteries in the Dark Ages.

I naturally subvocalize, yet I still read faster than most of my peers, in fact faster than anyone I know besides my mother, who took speedreading courses in school. I can turn it off if I'm trying to get through reading whatever it is as fast as possible, but when reading a story I don't really like to do so. I like to let the cadence of the writing and the story wash over me. What's interesting is that narration doesn't really have a solid voice unless I give it one, and I have confused myself by trying to work out what the "default" voice really is. Same goes for my thinking voice. Also, when listening to audiobooks I tend to dub over the reader's voice in my head for voices that make more sense to me, which was nice for when someone decided to let an effeminate fuckboy read Starship Troopers.

Still, if you guys aren't assigning voices to the characters you read, I have to wonder whether you're getting the full effect and pleasure of the story.

>>7034613
How does one read without hearing the words?

>>7034142
nah

Why would you even want to read fast? I swear that this board has unconciously become the perfect device for crushing any sense of a genuine appreciation for literature. If it is not some form of pleasure to you, then you are doing it wrong. The man who has read hundreds of books closely will likely have had richer experiences than the man who has raced through thousands. I think that it is quite and American mentality to see literature as some form of a competition. It must be a personal thing first and foremost. I know that many may shit on my view for being un-nietzschean or something, but the desire to publish should derive from the desire to contribute to literature. I have all these excellent books to read (many of which I never will, because it is impossible not to) so maybe I should give something back.

I don't know, but this place can be absolutely nauseating. I am glad I do not post here too often as I would likely lose all faith in my generation.

>>7034236
how are you supposed to scan a page full of information in ten seconds?

if your brain takes in the words, it can put them together afterwards

>boasting about how fast you read

go fuck yourself

>>7034444
underrated post

>>7035673
The voice of reason and truth.
(but I do think the competetive nature is just a meme)

>>7035693
I wish Capaldi had his character written better

>>7034703
>learning a dead, useless language to feel superior to people on a mongolian cavepainting soundboard

The only people with any Actual Use for latin are doctors

>>7035648
git gud

>>7035673
>Why would you even want to read fast?
>>7035689
Reading is a process by which information is obtained

Who said it was primarily about literature?

You simply have inferior brains in terms of information retrieval.

>>7035717
>You simply have inferior brains in terms of information retrieval.
Maybe so, but this does not concern me personally.

>>7035711
i couldn't imagine learning greek without learning latin

>not reading the greeks in greek

>>7034197
Have you like ever watched a normal person read a book do you think they're just faking or what.

>>7035716
>implying I am not the most well-read person on /lit/
Smh fam

>>7035717
>You simply have inferior brains in terms of information retrieval.
no, i read slowly and enjoy it that way. i'm also lazy.