/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7539721]

Why can't /lit/ believe that people don't have to subvocalize?

Maybe it's a lot harder if you aren't a late talker, but it is certainly possible.

[Anonymous No.7539798]

They do. It's just that if you don't subvocalize, you don't relish in the beauty of the author's prose and have enough time to visualize the story's events. Not subvocalizing is also linked to reduced reading comprehension.

It's certainly possible, just unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.7539803]

>>7539798
Except you can subvocalize on demand, much like manual control of breathing.

Also this completely misses the fact that everyone has to read ALL THE TIME for things that aren't prose or world class literature.

Ironically you'll end up having MORE FREE TIME to read (and subvocalize, if you choose) if you learn to not subvocalize for all the other things you have to read.

[Anonymous No.7539810]

[Anonymous No.7539811]

>>7539810
I wasn't in it though.

[Anonymous No.7539814]

I don't fully understand subvocalising. Words are still words in my head, I can't make them any more or less vocal by thinking about it. I read extremely fast.

[Anonymous No.7539815]

I can't imagine what hell it must be like to be forced to hear every retarded 4chan shitpost and meme in your head frankly.

[Anonymous No.7539817]

>>7539803
Sure. But most anons who want to stop subvocalizing (or, rather: have the ability to not subvocalize) want to use that ability on literature instead of shitty web articles and 4chan posts. Thus, their interest is merely unnecessary at best and stupid at worst.

[Anonymous No.7539823]

>>7539817
>But most anons who want to stop subvocalizing (or, rather: have the ability to not subvocalize) want to use that ability on literature instead of shitty web articles and 4chan posts.

Why do you believe that?

Also wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that not all parts of a novel are worth subvocalizing?

[Anonymous No.7539826]

>>7539814
I think you are like me. I never really subvocalized and it blew my mind when I found out people did.

I was a late talker and read early, so I hypothesize that people who speak early or at a normal time have brains more wired for verbal communication rather than written.

Does this match with you?

[Anonymous No.7539834]

>>7539826

It blows my mind there are people who don't subvocalize.

I can't read without subvocalizing. I just can't. If I try I just end up looking at words without knowing what they mean. I have no idea how I would stop doing this.

[Anonymous No.7539835]

Not subvocalizing was a massive help in school and university, and continues to this day to be a huge benefit in my daily professional activities.

Being able to read several times faster than colleagues and fellow students easily puts you ahead of the pack.

[Anonymous No.7539839]

>>7539834
Some ideas I've seen tossed around which make sense involve doing something that occupies your mind's voice (or whatever the fuck you call it) while trying to read - like humming or counting numbers or something.

[Anonymous No.7539847]

>>7539839

I've heard about that trick, but the same thing happens. I just end up looking at words, and without subvocalizing them, I just can't process it.

Do I just have to accept I'll be forever a slow reader and can only read 30 pages an hour for the rest of my reading life?

[Anonymous No.7539865]

>>7539847
It's going to be like primary vs secondary language -- you can do it. It's not going to be an easy and you won't be as good, but you can pull it off.

[Anonymous No.7539880]

>>7539826
Yes, that absolutely makes sense. I don't believe I was a particularly late talker but I was a very early reader. As I'm getting on in life I'm becoming aware that I'm able to communicate far better by the written word than spoken.

[Anonymous No.7539907]

Everyone subvocalizes when reading. It is impossible not to.

[Anonymous No.7540098]

>>7539847
Read faster than you can subvocalize. Use your finger or a speedreading program to keep your pace high.