>i fell for the "don't subvocalize" meme seriously,

vocaroo or gtfo

>>9172564
I don't understand why you would do this.
Part of reading is savoring the prose. How can you fully appreciate a book without taking it in one piece at a time?
Don't subvocalize when you read Joyce Meyers, maybe, but for actual literature it just makes it better.

>>9172564
yeah, it's bullshit and robs you of an inner voice to help integrate new rhythms and styles into your own foundation of thoughts. subvocalization is an incredible tool and should never be lost. if there are any people who don't subvocalize, they read as robots do, and doubtlessly have never had the joy of reading a book as it was written.

I'm honestly lost at this as to how many people subvocalise, I do but I never thought people actually bothered to stop

I do like the memes though like "imagine how annoying it must be to hear every stupid poster on this board in your head every time you hear a post"

>>9172689
Wait, there are people who don't hear the voice in their head as they read something? Wtf how does that even work?

>>9172828
If you focus you can read words without subvocalising

Personally I find it too difficult and unrewarding, but it's possible and it supposedly helps you read faster, though it might just all be a /lit/ meme I really don't know

>>9172575
holy... I want more...

>>9172871


...why?

>>9172875
>>9172875
>>9172875

>>9172875
>>9172969
no more from me, sarcastic or otherwise. got somethin to say?

>>9172689
>>9172871
It's a meme. It is impossible to not sub vocalise.

Why subvocalise if you are capable of intuitive verbal comprehension of what you are reading anyway? If you have an IQ in the triple digits it simply isn't necessary and merely slows you down.

>>9173025
yes yes, robot. i'm sure you've torn through so many books that a tear would glint on the rosy cheeks of Bloom himself.

>>9173025
Why bother reading the book if you can understand the messages the book conveys by skimming the Wikipedia article?

>>9173029
It doesn't take a machine to comprehend prose. It's a conscious choice to subvocalise, you might as well read out loud like a child.
>>9173035
False equivalency, not an argument

File: 1485605790559.jpg (89KB, 575x424px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 575x424px

>>9173035
Is this the logical conclusion of literature?

>>9172969
>>9173015
I wasn't being sarcastic, I want more

>>9173039
>implying reading aloud isn't the most patrician act imaginable
i almost envy your ignorance, what a veritable paradise of fables and myths you must exist in.

>>9173045
well i'm not much of a performer, sadly. i'll let you guys know when i finally shit out a book.

>>9173039
If you want to take shortcuts to understanding literature why not be efficient about it and skip the reading part altogether?

>>9173046
Don't get me wrong, I think that the reading of poetry is something that should be preserved. I can't imagine reading a whole book aloud other than very particular phrases, that's just autistic. People who subvocalise and project it on others are equally autistic
>>9173055
It isn't a shortcut as subvocalisation isn't a component of actual comprehension, just a tool for the linguistically retarded, which isn't inherently a bad thing. Do subvocalisers "play a movie in their head" and cast roles for their favourite characters like my favourite booktubers do?

>>9173070
well there's something interesting in that, at one time, people just read aloud always, apparently St. Ambrose was the first to read with his mouth shut. To deny that such a natural act should be denied at least within the mind seems to go against the very inventors of language itself, besides, do you, when you write, simply skim over your work, laying out reams without any sort of natural rhythm? i doubt it greatly, and doubt it with the authors of the books i love dearly. there are two great intellectual joys in my life, one, the feeling of the artery in my throat pumping during a particularly tense game of chess, and two, the moment i set down a book and think or speak or write, only to see my own style change dramatically, to see the imprints of the mind i was immersed in. it is a great pleasure i rarely gain from rote and mechanical reading. i will say there's use for purely information absorption style reading, in terms of historical textbooks or pamphlets or what have you, but i would much much rather take my time with a novel. the authors who create them take their time (usually) why shouldn't i? i don't have to read every novel in the world to be satisfied.

>>9173104
*to say that such an act

i'm sure there are plenty of mistakes in this. sorry.

File: ansuicide.jpg (41KB, 780x520px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 780x520px

>>9172564
>In reading, one should notice and fondle details.

fondle them good with your mind mouth

Autism: the thread

Subvocalization isn't necessary for enjoyment of prose

Only plebs would say that

>>9173104
I get you mate, I appreciate your opinion. I'm saying you don't have to subvocalise to find rhythm and beauty in a phrase. Personally I think that we stray further from verbal communication the more literate we become and that prose has come to a point at which the format is no longer intended to be spoken aloud (or subvocalised, they are almost one in the same). Take dialogue for an example, it is rarely written the way one would speak anymore. It is entirely reasonable to completely understand the intent and format of literature without vocalisation.

>>9173023
its not that hard if you actually try

I naturally don't subvocalize. I also have horrible verbal skills

ACT reading comprehension score of 33 and I subvocalize all of my thoughts and everything that I read

AMA

>>9173143
well, perhaps that is why i rail against some modern works, they never seem to flow as the older works do. not quite. i don't doubt you are right that there is an attempt to stray from the verbal aspect of language, but it leaves so much dying in the ditches, i don't know if it's such a great direction, eliminating that may only serve to alienate us from each other more and more. perhaps we should speak in the same style of the old dialogues, maybe we are gimping ourselves, relying less and less on social interactions that would benefit us in more ways than what i feel leaves a metallic taste on the tongue of my brain. anyhow, you have every right to feel as you do, my dear modern man, i do just hope you find yourself willing to wallow occasionally in the filth with pigs like myself, just every once in a while.

>>9173181
You're supposed to be dead, Nabokov.

>>9173184
it's funny you say that, i attack nabokov every chance i get. i call him The Pedo Penguin. what a smile i have on my face.

File: 1486922434177.jpg (106KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 620x388px

>>9173189
>misreading Lolita this hard
Look at this anon. Look at him and laugh.

>>9173226
i haven't read it, actually. i can't stomach even the whispers of pedophilia, i'm far too sensitive for big boy topics.

>>9173143

how can you comprehend what you read without subvocalizing it? did you go through active practice? i used to subvocalize a lot where i was longer; i read as slow as people talked in real life.

now, i don't subvocalize everything and i tend to skip past words which i can comprehend easily but i can't imagine not subvocalizing at all... were you always like that? i know harold bloom is and samuel johnson were genetically super quick readers which makes me dubious on the prospect of trying to boost my reading speed

File: 1444304941527.jpg (308KB, 736x941px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 736x941px

I read a lot as a child and never subvocalized. I started doing it intentionally at some point in my teenage years and now can't seem to get rid of it, though I haven't tried particularly hard. I'm still convinced not subvocalizing is the patrician way.

>>9173230
>hasn't read a work yet shittalks the author for it
/lit/, everyone

>>9173243
i don't shit talk the author for Lolita, not at all. I just think he's a pedophile, no need to be brash. it's nothing personal against his work, i assure you.

>>9173250
>I just think he's a pedophile
..but..
why? exactly?

>>9173231
I suppose I might have subvocalised when I was learning to read as a kid, but I read a lot and it can't remember it ever being natural to me. I would simply maintain concious concentration after realising that I would zone the fuck out and retain nothing when I was reading lord of the rings in year 7, I think that might be a key to comprehension. When I read a particularly striking phrase which I enjoy I might subvocalise it to remember it more readily. I believe that formative education during mental development must be important in this as well, in associating words with meaning and vocal components

>>9173252
because i watched an interview of his, and he reminded me of a pedophile i met in jail, it was a very odd connection in my mind. the fact that he wrote a book regarding pedohilia only seemed to cement the idea that though he may never have acted on these urges, the desire was still there. i have read his pnin, i did not like it all that much, but perhaps i didn't study it as much as one should. not that it matters much!

Remember that kid who could only read by literally speaking or whispering out loud what he was reading because he had a learning problem?

All you subvocalizers are like that kid to me.