|
Post by Jose M. Rebes on Jun 2, 2010 9:41:55 GMT
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
Do you arege? Rgdears,
Jsoe
|
|
|
Post by Ben G on Jun 2, 2010 10:01:51 GMT
I agree....
It all depends on how you read words and letters some people read every individual word and vocalize it in their head (Sub vocalized reading) - very slow. Some people read very fast not focusing on individual words but the general message of the text (Scan Reading). Most people fall somewhere in between.
I scan read - which mean I can read a book very very fast, this is great for reading stories or novels. But is not good when I'm trying to learn something, e.g. revision or reading a technical document.
I quickly scan through the text and my mind fills in the blanks. This is why my spelling is so bad. I can read through something to proof read it, but if I've made a spelling mistake my mind will just correct it and I'll see the correct word! I'm not consciously doing this.
The prime example I have is Lord of the Rings. I've read the book 3 different times and I've now read 3 totally different stories. The bits that match what was in the film(s), are always the same as I have a mental picture from the movie(s). But the bits that don't match what's it the film I read through and any bits my eye doesn't take in my mind simply fills in the blanks.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Herk on Jun 2, 2010 12:08:49 GMT
I'm like Ben - I scan read a lot, unless I need to pay specific and very close attention to text (e.g. reviewing legal documents in my weekday job).
I could read before I started primary school, mainly because I kept asking my mum what signs around our village said, and my first teacher was then totally lost as to what level to set me at for reading. Even now I remember the first books I had to read at school being incredibly easy.
Jose's email hits on the fact that your brain re-orders the letters of the word into the right order, because it has seen all of those words spelt correctly in the past. However, surely it requires more than the first letter and last letter to be in the right place because some words may have exactly the same letters in them, but be spelt differently and have an entirely different meaning, e.g. except and expect.
Lord of the Rings is also a great example of scan reading a long novel. I first read it at about 13 and didn't take everything in properly, just the general story. The more I have gone back to it, and as Ben says the movies have changed the way in which we read the books, the more detail I have actually taken in. As with the movies I generally skip through the whole Old Forest/Tom Bombadil/Barrowdowns section in the Fellowship quite quickly because it doesn't add a lot to the central plot and slows down Frodo and friends from getting to Bree (although there are some good bits in there).
My problem can be not reading things carefully enough when it comes to such things as the rulebook and the exam, however my score this year would suggest that I was paying attention and made some of the same mistakes as a lot of other people on those that I got wrong.
|
|
|
Post by New(ish) Ref on Jun 2, 2010 12:12:13 GMT
Warning: Scan reading the exam scenarios and questions can be hazardous to your score. ;D
(I speak from experience.)
|
|
|
Post by Jose M. Rebes on Jun 2, 2010 13:05:31 GMT
I have to recognize that the first I read the text of my topic in the Spanish version I found it easy to read, as I guess you find the English version. Then I found the English version you can see above and for my surprise I found that also easy to read, even if the text is not exactly the same. In my opinion the key is not the first and last letters but something related to the "image" of the word. "Whole" and "wohle" have the same impression in my brain because I'm a big dislexyc (dyslexic) in using keyboards, and I consider normal the mistakes in the order of the letters.
For that I usually use a spell checker, if it is available, of course.
Dyslexia for Cure Found !!!
|
|
|
Post by Osric Pureheart on Jun 2, 2010 15:44:56 GMT
As with the movies I generally skip through the whole Old Forest/Tom Bombadil/Barrowdowns section in the Fellowship quite quickly because it doesn't add a lot to the central plot I dunno, I reckon there's three very important things being set up by those chapters: First: it gives a great demonstration of how incredibly dangerous Middle-earth is outside the Shire for four hobbits travelling alone; it's not just that they're being chased by the Black Riders, you've got all sorts of other nasty stuff going about its business in the Wild that they could blunder into, and the Old Forest is literally right on the Shire border. This in turn gives them a solid practical reason to take up with an experienced companion, which eventually is Strider. Second, it introduces the theme of nature having a mind, intelligence, and/or personification (Goldberry and Old Man Willow, leading to Caradhras and Treebeard) of its own. Third, it also helps build up the Witch-king (and the other Black Riders by association) by giving us a practical demonstration of his power before he appears in combat; if he's able to order these evil creatures around, who would easily have killed our heroes without Bombadil's intervention, how scary and powerful is he going to be when he finally appears? The chapters can be cut without losing anything except depth and texture, but that's not necessarily a Good Thing.
|
|
|
Post by uberdeano on Jun 2, 2010 16:18:30 GMT
Alan, you're not seriously defending Tom Bombadill - are you? I didn't think it was possible.
|
|
|
Post by Osric Pureheart on Jun 2, 2010 18:50:57 GMT
I'm not defending Bombadil, just the section which happens to contain him.
(If I wanted to defend Bombadil, I'd say his inclusion is worth it, just for the many thousands of man-hours that have been wasted on Usenet and the WWW in bitter and bitchy and deadly serious arguments about exactly what he is.)
|
|
|
Post by Ed Herk on Jun 4, 2010 13:17:11 GMT
To quote Goldberry: "He is". Now THAT'S frighteningly geeky. I'm off to drink some beer or something....
|
|
|
Post by phclarke on Jun 6, 2010 0:05:01 GMT
Tell me where is Gandalf for I much desire to speak with him.
|
|
|
Post by Osric Pureheart on Jun 6, 2010 1:02:20 GMT
Actually, I prefer the C64 version...
|
|
|
Post by blokenone on Jun 6, 2010 22:04:22 GMT
When it comes to Lord of the Rings the proposed ending in Clerks II is defiantly the way forward
|
|
|
Post by withtwoflakes on Jun 7, 2010 2:19:07 GMT
When it comes to Lord of the Rings the proposed ending in Clerks II is defiantly the way forward Donkey show at the next Coventry conference.....
|
|
|
Post by Ed Herk on Jun 7, 2010 18:48:55 GMT
See what you started Ben? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Osric Pureheart on Jun 7, 2010 19:51:01 GMT
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow. Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
Any further questions?
|
|