I find when reading fiction, or certain kinds of literature (not including avant guard lit), using an inner voice is vital to get the full meter and rhythm. The

I find when reading fiction, or certain kinds of literature (not including avant guard lit), using an inner voice is vital to get the full meter and rhythm. Then with slowing down my thoughts -- self talk -- rational thinking, having an inner voice helps too. When reading non-fiction I can more easily drift into a sub-vocal whisper, to nothing at all speed read, skipping over to points I'm interested in, going back over points, etc. I suspect this is why a lot of non-fiction has standards and formats and certain clichés that make visual comprehension less intensive. A friend of mine said she had no inner voice at all. I've noticed when using Ketamine that I can do this sub-mental-vocal speed reading incredibly well for certain kinds of avant guard literature or philosophy lit, like Camus and David Foster Wallace, or Pyncheon, where the voice can change from chapter to chapter -- or rather the content is very info dense. I had great trouble 'getting' Hunter S. Thompson before I'd ever heard him speak. When I heard his voice it suddenly all made sense. Same for William S Boroughs, for his more avant-guard lit works. Junky, on the other hand, has a more more straight forward voice and I was able to get into that quite easily without having heard his actual voice beforehand. This is why I don't buy into the bicameral mind crap. Non-vocal thinking seems easier for more info dense material, wheras a voice is helpful for very emotive things like poetry or some kinds of lit. Then again I could be simply confusing standard voice with non-standard. Hard to be objective.