When did you realize reading slowly was patrician? I see too

What if I shovel food into my mouth because I want to get back to reading? Riddle me this motherfucker

I have always done it, rushing through books means you are either reading trash or care more about finishing it rather than understanding it.

>>9604439
>He's just now understanding it
People attempt to read fast because they are literally plebs. They don't have a lot of time to read due to work/mindless entertainment consumption, and thus do not have the time necessary to properly enjoy what they're reading. Reading slowly really is patrician.

While I'm reading I take notice of the entire sentence and paragraph structure. I think about why the author used each punctuation mark, and why a sentence was phrased in that specific way. I'll read back over a well written passage a few times and revel in it, bathing in the sublimity. I genuinely feel rapturous when reading something exceptional. It's a very sad thought to realize that most people who read will never truly experience and enjoy what they're reading. I look at a bunch of pseud reviews after I get through with a book, and see that most people think it's boring and pointless, meanwhile I was having literary orgasms every page.

One of the things that really annoys me on this site is when people say not to subvocalize. You really miss half the reading experience if you do that. The point of subvocalizing is to gain a greater intimacy with the poetics and flow of the text. If you just glance over the words and understand their meaning, you're missing half of what you read.

i want to read fast trough non-fiction, because there i just want to absorb the information and not linger.
if i would read fiction, then it would be moronic to read fast since the point is to savor the artistic side of writing.

i don't think people reading fiction are the ones making threads about "reading faster".

>>9604528
>I think about why the author used each punctuation mark, and why a sentence was phrased in that specific way

I have tried to do that to get better at writing but i have noticed that its almost imposible for me to put atention to the story (using my imagination to feel the book) and the technical structure of the book. Those are different contexts of writings and i dont think you can focus on more than one at a time. Do you really do that or are you lying to feel more important?

>>9604715
>Do you really do that or are you lying to feel more important?

He is

I read Philosophical Investigations in three days. Probably the emptiest book ever written

>>9605921
Not sure why I'd be lying on an anonymous nordic longboat crafting imageboard. Maybe you should accept the fact that some people are simply better at reading literature than you. It's definitely not hard if you genuinely care about studying writing. I read critical essays on the topic as well. After a while it just comes naturally and you can focus on the narrative and what not as well.

File: vwbg2.png (961KB, 888x666px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 888x666px

Just like driving, sometimes you read fast, sometimes you read slow. I find the easiest way to "digest" a piece of writing is to simply re-read all of it/parts of it. Once you have the basic plot/idea etc you can go back and focus on the tiny details/aspects. Also if on iPad/computer I take screenshots of passages I extra enjoy to look back at later.
But try reading the overtly descriptive passages in "The Picture of Dorian Gray" slowly, sometimes you just wanna get past a certain aspects of a story in a timely fashion.
I truly gain immense satisfaction from reading Hemingway slowly, something to do with his prose I guess.

>>9604715
you pretty much need to decide whether you want to read the book as a writer or an english major

>>9604715
This is where rereading a book multiple times comes into play. That way you can come at it from different angles at different times.