Savoring a Slow Read

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by shalym

I feel sorry for you, then. I'm like Apache--I see all of the action in my head, and therefore get lost in the story.

It's the same with me. Maybe that is the reason why I read faster if there's more action.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by shalym

I feel sorry for you, then. I'm like Apache--I see all of the action in my head, and therefore get lost in the story.

Shari

You feel SORRY for me? I feel sorry for someone who is so amazingly patronizing and closeminded.

And since when does reading without visualizing the action mean one cannot be lost in the story? I read for the words--the turn of the phrase, the nicely constructed sentence, the clever metaphor. If I want to see the action, I watch a movie.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Catlady

You feel SORRY for me? I feel sorry for someone who is so amazingly patronizing and closeminded.

And since when does reading without visualizing the action mean one cannot be lost in the story? I read for the words--the turn of the phrase, the nicely constructed sentence, the clever metaphor. If I want to see the action, I watch a movie.

First of all, I wasn't trying to be patronizing in any way. Second of all, I don't believe I said anything about whether or not you could get lost in the story, just that I do because I see the action in my head. When I said "therefore I get lost in the story" I meant that I don't think about what speed I'm reading at, or where I'm reading, or what the font is or anything else but the story. I was trying to address the subject of the thread, which is "savoring a slow read", by saying that while I'm reading I don't think about anything else...so no--I never do consciously slow down to "savor" a book. If I do slow down, it's because I can't focus on the book.

Do you really think that every time someone feels sorry for someone else that they're being "patronizing and closeminded"?

Shari

[Prestidigitweeze]

There are as many ways to experience reading as there are preferred tempi and velocities at which to read, aren't there? If someone hears and sees language exclusively, that's as valid as the visual and sensory approach.

While I admire writing that involves all the senses (except perhaps the novel Perfume, which lives in your nose until you have to close the book and hunt for your handkerchief), words can convey a sensuality of their own. Do you know the Norton Anthology of English Lit's diagram of Keats's "Ode to a Nightingale," which traces six levels of assonance and alliteration in the first two lines? Reading that poem is like biting into a pomegranate.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by shalym

First of all, I wasn't trying to be patronizing in any way. Second of all, I don't believe I said anything about whether or not you could get lost in the story, just that I do because I see the action in my head.

So your reason for being "sorry" for me was precisely what?

Do you really think that every time someone feels sorry for someone else that they're being "patronizing and closeminded"?

No. Just you in this specific instance.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So your reason for being "sorry" for me was precisely what?



No. Just you in this specific instance.

I felt sorry that you don't get to enjoy the movie in your head that I (and others) do. For me, that is the greatest joy of reading...immersing myself in another place and time, and seeing and hearing the story unfold in my mind. You obviously believe that I had some other motive in saying that, although I'm not sure why. I apologize for causing you any distress--that was truly not my intention.

Shari

[tompe]

Originally Posted by shalym

I felt sorry that you don't get to enjoy the movie in your head that I (and others) do. For me, that is the greatest joy of reading...immersing myself in another place and time, and seeing and hearing the story unfold in my mind. You obviously believe that I had some other motive in saying that, although I'm not sure why. I apologize for causing you any distress--that was truly not my intention.

Shari

But how do you know that you are not missing something even better that is experiencing the words?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by shalym

I felt sorry that you don't get to enjoy the movie in your head that I (and others) do. For me, that is the greatest joy of reading...immersing myself in another place and time, and seeing and hearing the story unfold in my mind. You obviously believe that I had some other motive in saying that, although I'm not sure why. I apologize for causing you any distress--that was truly not my intention.

Shari

You didn't cause me distress and I don't have any opinion of your motives. But you still just don't seem to get that your way is not the only way or even necessarily the better way.

I get the emotion/experience/impact of a book through the words directly; I don't read the words, cue the movie in my head, and then get the emotion/experience/impact from the mental images.

For me, trying to add mental images when reading a book would be as odd as trying to create my own verbal descriptions while watching an action sequence in a movie or listening to instrumental music. Different media, different mental processes.

[4691mls]

Catlady, I read the way you do and I also felt patronized by the "I feel sorry for you" comment.

[Geralt]

I am one of those who sees "the movie" in my head when reading.
I don't cue the movie. Nor do I add mental images consciously. That would be the equivalent of you trying to narrate a film as you said. That's not how it happens.

No, instead this thing happens spontaneously, and as I read it gets more detailed, more crystallized. It is not the same as watching a real film.

Btw, I can't believe that reading a word or a sentence, doesn't trigger an image for you.
I think all of us have associations and our brain creates a picture after reading something like this.

A cat was playing with a white ball of string.

The only thing our brains differ on, is associating what kind of cat it was, how it was playing and how big was the ball of string.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Catlady

For me, trying to add mental images when reading a book would be as odd as trying to create my own verbal descriptions while watching an action sequence in a movie or listening to instrumental music. Different media, different mental processes.

Reading is said to involve a combination of the two approaches. According to linguists like Saussure, the act of reading a single word involves the process of registering a signifier, a referent and the signification of the two. One of Roland Barthes' famous examples of this is the word cat. The signifier is the word itself; the referent is the thing to which the word refers (in this case, the idea of the cat) and signification is what happens when the two things become a single object in the mind.

Clearly, signification can have a strong visual component for many readers, but is a blind reader or writer any less capable of enjoying the full experience of the written word? By that logic, John Milton is a worse writer than James Patterson because the latter man is sighted.

Reading also involves using one's ear, and it can be used in at least three ways:

1. To conjure the sounds that take place within the story,
2. to the savor sonorous idiosyncrasies of style and
3. to hear the entirety of the sonata created by the language itself.

These three kinds of hearing fuse when it comes to dialogue, which is why plays can often seem close to music. But narrative descriptions (depending on the writer) can easily emphasize any aspect or all.

I like to read in a way that affords all of the lush possibilities of sound, but also to hear the story as the author might have done. Then again, I learned to write poetry and play Bach at about the same time, so the written word has always looked like notated music to me.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Btw, I can't believe that reading a word or a sentence, doesn't trigger an image for you.
I think all of us have associations and our brain creates a picture after reading something like this.

A cat was playing with a white ball of string.

The only thing our brains differ on, is associating what kind of cat it was, how it was playing and how big was the ball of string.

It does not trigger an image. I can certainly create an image, but it would take a conscious effort.

Let's say your image as you read is of a small tabby cat. Later the author provides more description and you learn the cat is a huge polydactyl Maine coon. Isn't that jarring for you? Your specific mental image has to be revised; but since I didn't create one, I think it's easier for me to just keep incorporating the new details.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Catlady

huge polydactyl Maine coon...

That's not a cat... it's a domestic tiger of the extra furry variety. Besjeesus

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

That's not a cat... it's a domestic tiger of the extra furry variety. Besjeesus

Aw, that's a sweet little kitty.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It does not trigger an image. I can certainly create an image, but it would take a conscious effort.

Let's say your image as you read is of a small tabby cat. Later the author provides more description and you learn the cat is a huge polydactyl Maine coon. Isn't that jarring for you? Your specific mental image has to be revised; but since I didn't create one, I think it's easier for me to just keep incorporating the new details.

It doesn't jar me one bit. That's why I said it's not like a real movie. It's not like I have to go: Cut! Cut! Dammit, now I have to add this main coon to this scene.
No, no, no. As I said the movie becomes more detailed as I read more, and the details lay themselves spontaneously. Like layers on a painting. I DO NOT add images to words consciously as an afterthought.

Btw, I would love one of those beasties as a pet. I think they are beautiful cats. Unfortunately, they are very expensive in my country and I would rather adopt a kitten from a shelter than pay for it.


Catlady, how do you remember then? You know when somebody says something about a blue teddy bear you once had (let say you had one for the sake of argument). Surely an image pops up? So what is the difference in someone saying blue teddy bear and you reading blue teddy bear from a letter for example?