Have you ever considered learning to speed read?

[Atunah]

I didn't really know what speed reading is. After some explanations in this thread, it would have no point in my reading life now. I might have liked it way back in school for some stuff, but I only read fiction now. And I read every word, I don't skim. I just read fast, naturally.

But really, with my puny human life span, it wouldn't matter if I could read 4 books a day, I still wouldn't live long enough to read all the books I want to read or have in various tbr piles. Especially since I keep adding to those piles.

Now that the Olympics and US Open are over, I might be able to get back to my normal reading. Still watching the paralympics though. In a good month, I can read a book a day. But mostly average one every 2 days. No speed reading involved, just total absorption reading. Which means if the book is good, I can get into it and be gone for a while.

I am probably about twice as fast reading on my kindles than I was on paperback the last view years before Kindle. That is because my eyes got worse and I needed the even flat text and larger font and e-ink is just such a joy to my eyes. So less eye strain and faster reading. And not having to pry open a tight paperback and holding it helps too. No text curving into the spine and no squinting.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by barryem

I took some kind of speed reading course in the early 1960s. I don't remember much about it or where or why I took it but at the time I was in college and I found it useful for some things. I didn't usually use the techniques I learned and after leaving college I stopped using them and I don't even remember what they were now.

SNIP

Of course the obvious comparison would be to getting through sex as quickly as possible. Are there speed sex courses?

Barry

Resisting a comment.

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by barryem

Of course the obvious comparison would be to getting through sex as quickly as possible. Are there speed sex courses?

Barry

Sorry, can't resist:
I thought they existed; most men seem to have been on one

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Sorry, can't resist:
I thought they existed; most men seem to have been on one

I think I love you or at least your answer.

[Nate the great]

I would, but I don't really have the time.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by BookCat

It also teaches you to stop 'saying' the words in your head; instead you just see the meaning. Subvocalising slows reading to the pace of speech.

I'm not a fast reader, and I subvocalise. There are works where the sound of the words in my head brings me great pleasure. Doesn't removing subvocalisation reduce that pleasure?

[Alohamora]

Originally Posted by CatherineStewart

I know most of us have a list/collection of books longer than we could ever manage to read. Sometimes I wish I could read faster so I could read more of them!

I read at a slightly "above average" speed. Nothing spectacular. And I only get a chance to read about 10 hours a week. So I've considered possibly teaching myself to speed read.

Have you done it? Are you a speed reader? Do you get the same enjoyment out of it that you do when you just read at a leisurely pace?

At various times, I've done some of the speed reading exercises that are out on the web. If I push myself, I can read at least twice my normal reading pace. I think some of the techniques stuck with me, and did increase my normal reading pace by maybe 10% or so. Anything that feels like "pushing" the speed feels incompatible with reading for pleasure, except maybe getting through some long boring sections in an otherwise enjoyable book.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I'm not a fast reader, and I subvocalise. There are works where the sound of the words in my head brings me great pleasure. Doesn't removing subvocalisation reduce that pleasure?

It's a trade-off and one of the reasons I don't read at a constant speed.

Some things are best slowly savored rather then ravenously devoured and I do believe that the best way to savor words is to vocalize them (or at least subvocalize). But ravenously devouring a book in one sitting also has its charms.

Some books are like a box of fancy chocolates to be slowly eaten over many days. Some books are like a good meal when hungry.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by ekbell

It's a trade-off and one of the reasons I don't read at a constant speed.

Some things are best slowly savored rather then ravenously devoured and I do believe that the best way to savor words is to vocalize them (or at least subvocalize). But ravenously devouring a book in one sitting also has its charms.

Some books are like a box of fancy chocolates to be slowly eaten over many days. Some books are like a good meal when hungry.

I agree that reading faster can be a big advantage. I'm impressed that you seem to be able to choose whichever is best suited. I would have thought that it was an either/or situation, probably because it feels like I can only understand what I hear. My few attempts at not subvocalising showed that I tend to see what I think I should see rather than what is actually there.

[library addict]

I took a class many years ago. Basically you were supposed to train your eyes to pick up on certain words or on every so many words.

As others have said, the technique doesn't work well for fiction reading.

At least not for me. I would rather enjoy the books I am reading than try to read more but retain less.

[CatherineStewart]

Originally Posted by barryem

I also have a very large TBR library and I couldn't finish it in 100 years and it grows faster than I read so it keeps getting bigger. Fine. I can't read everything. Who cares!

I guess I haven't reached the "acceptance" stage yet and I'm still in denial.

Originally Posted by barryem

I also love ice cream and I just have to find ways to live with the fact that I'll never eat all the world's ice cream. It's difficult to take but I manage to live with it.

Nope. Not acceptable. How you can live knowing you will never try ALL THE ICECREAM?!?!?

Originally Posted by barryem

Of course the obvious comparison would be to getting through sex as quickly as possible. Are there speed sex courses?

Barry

Ok this just made me spit out my coffee!

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I'm not a fast reader, and I subvocalise. There are works where the sound of the words in my head brings me great pleasure. Doesn't removing subvocalisation reduce that pleasure?

You can vary your speed. For example, I read poetry out loud to hear the sounds of the words as this is an integral part of a poem. But action novels demand to be read at a fast pace and subvocalisation gets in the way. Many novels are not poems in prose, so subvocalisation is unnecessary and can be dispensed with for the sake of speed, but if a passage appears which has a more lyrical style, it's easy to slow down to appreciate the language, its rhythm and 'poetry'.

Speed reading is a great skill to learn, but it isn't compulsory to use it all the time.

What many others have described as speed reading is actually skimming, or previewing, which is usually something done with a non-fiction book, especially one being used for study.

[rkomar]

Thanks @BookCat (and @ekbell) for the great descriptions of speed reading. I still can't do it, but I understand better how it works now.

It's interesting how many kinds of speed reading there are. Besides removing subvocalization and skimming, I've heard of a technique for seeing and processing whole lines of text at once rather than scanning the words from one side to the other.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I've heard of a technique for seeing and processing whole lines of text at once rather than scanning the words from one side to the other.

That's precisely why newspapers are printed in narrow columns. They can be read more quickly that way.

[barryem]

The talk of subvocalizing reminds me of few articles in some of the ebook related blogs I read. Probably 4 or 5 months ago. The first article was about the "fact" that reading was always aloud until sometime in 2nd millennium. That reading without speaking the words aloud was unheard of.

The articles that followed questioned this, pointing out references in earlier books, I think all the way back to Socrates era, although I'm not certain of that, that mentioned walking into a room to find someone staring silently at a book and not speaking and wondering what was happening. This sort of thing was offered as proof that silent reading always happened but, to me, it seemed to only prove that it was uncommon and unexpected.

I read this long enough ago that I don't remember a lot of detail or have any links, but I thought it might be interesting in reference to this conversation.

I think I also remember some speculation that silent reading began with the invention of spaces between words which I seem to recall, happened in the 13th or 14th century. I'm not sure I'm right about that.

I do remember googling and finding a lot of stuff on the web about this, much of it skeptical and much from what seemed to be reliable sources.

Barry