I have a decent amount of time to kill in the car each week, and for a while now I've taken to catching up on podcasts, mostly npr, while I've been driving rather than listen to music, really I mostly listen to npr anyway. I decided I want to try listening to audiobooks and see how that goes.
I've never gotten into audiobooks for a few reasons. When I read fiction books I tend to like to imagine how the characters sound in my head and worry that an audiobook will take away from that. I also don't know if listening to someone else speak the words I usually read will throw me off or not. I also read a lot of non-fiction books, mostly science or philosophy oriented and I end up stopping a lot and contemplating what I just read, or re-reading lines and passages, and I worry audiobooks will make that more difficult. I guess I've always worried that audiobooks might not only ruin my enjoyment of what I'm reading, but also detract from the knowledge I retain from reading.
Part of this I think depends on the quality of the reader. Are they a good story teller or a good orator? I've heard people do readings of stories before who were amazing. I'm currently listening to Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope, and he reads it himself, so it's like listening to an extended speaking of his, which I find great. I've heard other authors speak or lecture before and most of them have been great speakers, so I can imagine if they have done the reading of their own book it'd be quite enjoyable. Do fiction books have casts of voice actors acting out the roles possibly creating a more vivid an exciting experience?
So what are your experiences? Do you find audiobooks as fulfilling as regular reading? More or less? Are there certain types that work and others that don't? Why?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, Audiobooks from Blackstone, which is the company that produces Tor books, including the whole Ender and Shadow series, does many "ensemble," casts. There are a couple of key narrators, like Stefan Rudnicki, Scott Brick, and Amanda Carr, who play respectively Ender, Bean, and Valentine. They play other characters too, and there are other voice actors who play smaller roles, but these are the principle readers for the books. Other OSC books are done solely by Rudnicki or Brick, to great effect- their readings are quite exceptionally good.
I have about 300 audiobooks, and I have listened to about 1,000 in my life, I would say. I started out by listening to audio dramatizations, especially by Louis L'amour, because he was a relative (Great Uncle). I can recommend some particular authors and broad areas that work well in audiobook form.
The Patricia Cornwell, Kay Scarpetta books, especially the earlier ones, work well in audioform, and are competently read by Kate Reading.
The Kinsey Milhone books by Sue Grafton also work very well in audiobook, and are all available in the format.
OSC books like the Worthing Saga and the Ender/Shadow series have some of the best narration I have ever heard.
There are some uber-prolific readers of audiobooks who spent decades of their careers committed to the work. Grover Gardner is one, who is in my opinion a bit dull, but extremely steady and easy to listen to.
Frederick Davidson (AKA David Case), who recorded under a variety of names, is a god of historical and historically significant novels and non-fiction. He had a great ability to mix dialects and character voices, so you'd hardly be sure it was him doing all of them. Simon Prebble is another classic and brilliant British reader.
If you want to hear what a book will be like before you get it, I suggest looking around at Audible.com. They have a huge selection of books available by monthly subscription. 2 books a month for about 22 dollars- and you can download and keep them for as long as you like, and also re-download at any time. Their customer service is excellent, if you were wondering about them. On the site you can listen to samples of the readers, which I often do to weed out the readers I have had trouble with in the past.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I am a geo-batchlor and maintain two households with six-hundred miles of great american desert between them. five-hundred of those miles have no radio avalable. I make the round trip on the average of twice a month, always alone. Therefore audiobooks are a way of life. I don't know how I would ever stay awake otherwise. I would rather read a hard book, but I never have that kind of uninterupted time to do it. I have enjoyed many books that I wouln't have picked up otherwise. (I sometimes screen for time. It's more convienent with two 8 hour books, or one 16 hour one) This weekend I read "The old ace in the hole - Proulx, 16 hours. Last weekend, Fancy Pants - Hake. For the record, I'm not a fancy pants guy. But, I already did all of the history titles in our little library. Sometimes I discover gems. Who would actually pick up a novel called Portuguese Irregular Verbs - Smith? I give that little volume four stars. Sometimes, I will pick a book because I know the reader. And, I don't like the ensemble format. Some of my "best" trips have been with Tony Hillerman. George Guidall is a great narrator, and Hillerman's desert is close enough to mine that my imagination has a holiday.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Generally, I enjoy audiobooks. I unfortunately have a very short attention span when it comes to listening to people talk (I have trouble with not zoning out during lectures, and I always preferred to read before bed when I was little to having my parents read to me), so I have a hard time following them sometimes. But generally, I condone audiobooks, I think they're great fun and a great way to spend a long drive! Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I have become a pretty big fan of audiobooks lately, mainly because I don't have a lot of time to sit and read - but I do have a lot of time that I spend in the car each day.
Unfortunately, audiobooks are hit or miss with regard to their readers. Some readers are a lot better than others.
Generally, I go to the library and take out 3 audiobooks, knowing that 1 of the 3 will have a good reader. Also, make sure that you don't get abridged versions.
I've found that Scott Brick is very good - I liked him on Dune and Blade Runner (and a quick Google shows me he's done a lot of work on the Ender series... which I might have to check out).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am a huge fan of audio books, and like to listen to them when I'm driving, woodworking, cleaning, etc..
That said, they are less fulfilling than reading. I need to listen to an audio book twice to get out of it as much as I'd get out of reading it once. It's not uncommon for me to finish an audio book and turn right around and listen to it again because I really want to get all of the book.
The reader makes a huge difference. There are some audio books that are almost impossible to follow.
It is very enjoyable to listen to audio books of books that I've already read. That way, if [when] my attention wanders, my memory can fill in most of the gaps. There, I'm pretty much just listening to the audio book to keep myself entertained, but that's not bad either.
I have enjoyed the readings of Scott Brick, Grover Gardner, Scott Fry, and Jim Dale. I'm not a fan of Patrick Cullen, who did a lot of the old science fiction "books on tape" I've listened to (Dune, Foundation, Ringworld, etc.).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I've found that Scott Brick is very good
He's my favorite voice actor and sometimes when I'm looking for a book to read I start by looking up the books for which he's doing the reading. My introduction to Brick was "The Company", an epic (40+ hour) cold war espionage novel. That was a great audiobook.
I also enjoy books read by the author. These are typically autobiographical or observational books where dramatic skill isn't necessary. The intimacy of hearing the writer read their own work adds to the experience.
OSC has noted that he considers a dramatic audio presentation to be the best way to experience his work - superior to either the paper books or any potential movie adaptations.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I recently listened to the podcasted novel "7th Son" (no, not the OSC one) by J.C. Hutchins. He reads it, and the performance gets slowly better over the course of the reading.
I also swear by the Dark Tower and Harry Potter audio books.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I am visually impaired so I pretty much have no choice but to read audio books. I can read print with a magnifying glass, time, and eye strain. When I first lost my site, I stopped reading for about 3 or 4 years because for all of the reasons you stated and more, I didn't want to listen to someone else read me a book. As a child I gobbled won books so fast my mom refused to buy them for me. (We used the library.)
Anyway, I get my books through talking books -- a national program for the blind and visually impaired, so most of the books are read by volunteer readers. I therefore can't say much about the professionals out there but I can say this much -- the reader makes a HUGE difference. The best book read by a bad reader is crap. There is a balance to strike between trying too hard to make up all the voices and sitting back and reading blandly, because we don't hear blandness in our heads when we read text -- we animate it.
Anyway, I did have the pleasure of listening to "The Audacity of Hope" read by Barack Obama himself and it was great. (Most of the time, they don't let the talking books program have the commercial audio books to use.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Strider, you're on GoodReads, neh? There's a very active audiobook group there. And with the new ability to add narrators, more and more of GR's audiobook listings specify the narrator.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I am visually impaired so I pretty much have no choice but to read audio books. I can read print with a magnifying glass, time, and eye strain.
How do you read, for example, Hatrack?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
MPH, It's fairly easy to change the font size in most browsers. It sounds like she can read things that are big enough to see easily. Plus, there are some *fairly* good text to speech applications these days.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm aware of those, but I'm still interested in learning what she uses.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QUOTE]
I also enjoy books read by the author. These are typically autobiographical or observational books where dramatic skill isn't necessary. The intimacy of hearing the writer read their own work adds to the experience.
OSC has noted that he considers a dramatic audio presentation to be the best way to experience his work - superior to either the paper books or any potential movie adaptations.
OSC is fairly exceptional in that he gets such high quality productions of most of his books. There are a few older recordings that are awful, but most of his books get really good performances.
Bill Bryson is a fairly good narrator of his own works, as is David Sedaris, who combines live reads of his material with studio recordings, making for a nice mix- you get portions of his audiobooks that have an audience in the background laughing. Jon Stewart and the Daily Show team did a good recording of America, the audiobook, and Stephen Colbert also did his own reading of I am America, and So Can You.
Scott Brick does some stellar recordings, particularly he did the bulk of The Worthing Saga, which would be interminable with the wrong narrator.
On the flip side, a good narrator can also reveal how bad a book is in itself. Frank Muller is scintillating in his reading of Silence of the Lambs, which is one of the best audibooks I have ever heard, but positively too much for the John Grisham novels he also narrated. Scott Brick is great in most settings, but with the post Ludlum novel, The Bourne Legacy, he is floundering in a text that is repetitive and boring, and alternately histrionic.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Listening to Harry Potter on the way to work got me hooked. The narrator was truly amazing
I have Stephanie Meyer's The Host playing in the car these days. The narrator has a good speaking voice, but most of her characters sound the same.
I Am Legend was great, the narrarator was very spooky.
I had to listen to Blindness, I had issues with the lack of punctuation in the novel. I am glad I did though, great narrator and it was so much more intense then the movie.
For some reason I pick up audio verisons of novels that are coming out as movies soon. Lovely Bones is next on my list.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I have Stephanie Meyer's The Host playing in the car these days. The narrator has a good speaking voice, but most of her characters sound the same.
It didn't help that I couldn't stand the novel, but I really didn't like the reading of that book.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I am visually impaired so I pretty much have no choice but to read audio books. I can read print with a magnifying glass, time, and eye strain.
How do you read, for example, Hatrack?
I use Firefox as my web browser because it has proven to be one of the best browsers for increasing the size of the text. A simple control + and control - makes the text bigger or smaller. Now, even with that some web sites are easier to handle than others. Some make their text into images so I can't make it bigger or smaller and I can't do a lot with that. Others use obnoxious contrasts that are unreadable no matter how big I make the font. Others don't scroll well -- if I'm interested enough in what's there I do the best I can with those but it's annoying. Hatrack is pretty friendly. And bear in mind that my vision isn't as bad as it could be -- I can fairly comfortably read the equivalent of about 20 point font. Your average paperback book is about 8-10 point font and even with magnification, those are very difficult to manage.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Strider, you're on GoodReads, neh? There's a very active audiobook group there. And with the new ability to add narrators, more and more of GR's audiobook listings specify the narrator.
I am, I thought we were friends? Did you de-friend me???
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I mostly enjoy audiobooks but my enjoyment is, unsurprisingly, largely affected by the quality of the reading (which is subjective).
I think Jim Dale's reading of the Harry Potter books is fantastic! He even comes up with tunes for songs that are sung in the book and sings!! Each character is presented with seemingly unique 'voices' (with perhaps Draco and Snape sounding too similar) but rarely in such a manner where the clarity of dialogue is obscured for the sake of character. Fantastic stuff.
I disagree with Orincoro, who liked the "Worthing Saga" reading. While I like that particular reader in his later works (he reads some chapters/POVs from the Ender/Bean series), there were several times where the emphasis he places on certain words seemed simply WRONG. I can't come up with a specific example, but I do remember being bothered by it when I listened to that book.
I agree, however that the reading for the Ender/Bean books is great, overall. I particularly like the voice acting for the beginning dialogues of every chapter in Ender's Game. And I greatly appreciate the efforts that go into different POVs being read by different readers - it makes it very obvious when we have changed characters. I am, however, bothered by the female reader who often reads for the POVs of various females (Val, Novinha, etc.) because she seems to read veeerrrry slooowly and pensively. I almost get depressed when I hear her. Again, however, this is utterly subjective. My wife, for instance, doesn't mind her reading at all.
Before we went on a road trip this summer, we loaded up our iPod with many, many books: Lord of the Rings, Ender/Bean, Harry Potter, other stuff. It made the drive much more enjoyable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think we ever were. We have many mutual friends though.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well I can't seem to make it past your intense security system, so add me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Bill Bryson is a fairly good narrator of his own works, as is David Sedaris, who combines live reads of his material with studio recordings, making for a nice mix- you get portions of his audiobooks that have an audience in the background laughing. Jon Stewart and the Daily Show team did a good recording of America, the audiobook, and Stephen Colbert also did his own reading of I am America, and So Can You.
Scott Brick does some stellar recordings, particularly he did the bulk of The Worthing Saga, which would be interminable with the wrong narrator.
I've "read" all of these and agree on every point. I just listened to The Worthing Saga a couple weeks ago. I'm working my way back through the Ender's Game series now.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I've listened to I am America, and So Can You, and it was wonderful. I forgot about that.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Bill Bryson's "In a Sunburned Country" and "A Brief History of Nearly Everything" were both pretty good.
Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" wasn't bad.
Those are the last two I read.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The only audiobooks I've ever heard were The Langoliers and an abridged version of Atlas Shrugged (both on the road from Bethlehem PA to Santa Cruz CA). I don't particularly like them. I'm a lot more visual than I am auditory. My mother insists on referring to listening to audiobooks as "reading". Pet peeve.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
What the heck were you doing in Bethlehem? That's where I live.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: I am, however, bothered by the female reader who often reads for the POVs of various females (Val, Novinha, etc.) because she seems to read veeerrrry slooowly and pensively. I almost get depressed when I hear her.
That would be Amanda Caarrrr... who reads everything as if she was whiiiinnnninggggggg. She also talks as if she is making fun-of-some-one-who-is-self-imp-ort-ant by do-ing this.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My mother insists on referring to listening to audiobooks as "reading".
As do I.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm a big fan of audio books, though I can't add much to what has already been said.
I listen to them at work because I have found the repetition required of my job to be intolerable. Audio books have been a God send for me, I highly recommend the folks who narrate the Tor books, they do a great job. Orincoro's impression of Amanda Carr made me snicker. But then again so does Jim Dale voicing Hermione, "Hawee!"
I wish I had more money for to buy more books. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only audiobooks I've ever heard were The Langoliers and an abridged version of Atlas Shrugged (both on the road from Bethlehem PA to Santa Cruz CA). I don't particularly like them. I'm a lot more visual than I am auditory. My mother insists on referring to listening to audiobooks as "reading". Pet peeve.
In my world, it is reading. If someone asks me what I'm reading, I answer with whatever book is in my tape player. I do not explain that I am listening to an audio book. It seems like an unnecessary detail for most people and those who know me, understand that I "read" my books on tape.
I can't stand abridged books. I always wonder what I missed and whether it was important. Sometimes it is and you can tell that is has been poorly done. This is one real advantage to the talking books program. None of their books are abridged.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: My mother insists on referring to listening to audiobooks as "reading". Pet peeve.
Reverse pet peeve, I get annoyed when people insist on the idea that you aren't "reading" if you listen to a reading of a book. It's just semantics, and your appreciation, understanding or absorption of a particular text depends on your natural learning abilities, experience, and some amount of skill. There are Shakespearean actors who insist on the idea that you are "hearing" a play rather than "seeing" a play, but you're doing mostly the same thing.
Yes, I understand you troglodytes and self-styled essentialists, who insist that reading is having in your hands a chunk of paper pulp that has been sliced into a number of pages and smeared with bits of ink and covered in poster board with a glossy photograph of the author and the sticky residue of a price tag collecting bits of hair and dirt on the back, and how that is how we were meant to receive the written works. But I can sit and look at a printed page, and read through the words without absorbing a single sentence after more than 20 minutes. With an audiobook, I can retain nearly exact wordings and encyclopedic knowledge after one listen. I am an auditory learner, and I have a pictorial memory, so the conversion of what I see on a page into what I hear in my head (because reading forces you to use the auditory centers of your brain anyway), into my visual representation of the words contains too many steps to make reading print comfortable for me for long periods. OTOH, I can listen to an audiobook with better retention in probably a quarter of the time.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Why? Not picking, just wondering...reading and listening are very different thing to me, so I don't.
Not saying one is better than the other (not yet, anyway), but I don't see how reading happens though the ears. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Reading is consuming the contents of a book. It's also a technical exercise by which one converts symbols into ideas. Most people who say "I'm reading a book" are conveying the former more than the latter.
Besides, if you can "read" braille with your fingers, I don't see it being a misuse of the word to say you "read" an audiobook with your ears.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Why? Not picking, just wondering...reading and listening are very different thing to me, so I don't.
Not saying one is better than the other (not yet, anyway), but I don't see how reading happens though the ears.
But it does. As I read your post, my mind interpreted the words into sounds and that is how I store the memory of them -- not the characters or letters but the sounds that they represent.
Some people are more visual and some more auditory, so this may be different for different people, but you can definitely read a book through your ears or at least, I can.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: What the heck were you doing in Bethlehem? That's where I live.
My ex lived there until we moved out to California.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can't stand abridged books.
Absolutely. They're never worth the time.
quote:I don't see how reading happens though the ears.
When you're listening to an audio book.
After some time is passed, I'm hard-pressed to remember whether I read it in a dead-tree format, ebook format, or audio book format. It's the same story.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes, I understand you troglodytes and self-styled essentialists, who insist that reading is having in your hands a chunk of paper pulp that has been sliced into a number of pages and smeared with bits of ink and covered in poster board with a glossy photograph of the author and the sticky residue of a price tag collecting bits of hair and dirt on the back
Also, I agree that listening to an audio book is indeed reading a book. I didn't used to, but I was convinced years ago. And I don't like audio books -- they don't work for me at all.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I am a huge fan of audio books [...] That said, they are less fulfilling than reading.
I absolutely agree with this. I greatly enjoy them, but I always pick either books I've already read or lighter books that I kind of have an interest in reading but that I don't think will be great. I have found it almost impossible to listen to non-fiction books with any sort of retention.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:I am a huge fan of audio books [...] That said, they are less fulfilling than reading.
I absolutely agree with this. I greatly enjoy them, but I always pick either books I've already read or lighter books that I kind of have an interest in reading but that I don't think will be great. I have found it almost impossible to listen to non-fiction books with any sort of retention.
I can definitely see where you're coming from here. As I said before, I don't have much choice but to read audiobooks, but it wasn't easy to get started. You're right -- the lighter stuff is much easier to digest, even to this day, but I was able to train myself to get information out of denser material as well. In some cases, I have to listen to it twice. For example, I just finished John Locke's Second Treatise on Civilization (probably the most difficult thing I've ever ready in audiobook format) but I have not sent the cassettes back because I intend to listen to it again in a few weeks (after I take a break and read a couple of whodunit mysteries).
Not all nonfiction is a problem. It really depends upon the topic. My book club has read a few nonfiction selections that I had no trouble digesting in audiobook format, such as "Under the Banner of Heaven" and "In Broad Daylight." It really depends upon the subject and the writer.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I have an hour and a half commute each way, and carpool with my boyfriend. We fairly quickly discovered that neither early morning (tired and unfocused) or after work (cranky at coworkers) were great times to have heart-to-heart chats--we just ended up snapping at each other, or forgetting things later. So we switched to having me read books aloud.
It's cheaper than audio books, the selection is better, and I suffer from fewer technical difficulties. On the down side, sometimes if we take a break for a while I forget which voice goes with which character, and, no matter how often my boyfriend tries, my volume cannot be modulated via the car radio controls.
We've found the best books for us are ones without too heavy suspense, otherwise he gets tense when I have to stop and rest my voice. Pratchett works well, as do Bujold and Wrede. Martin we ended up quitting before the Starks even left Winterfell. Novik is fun, but we had to do the last 80 pages or so of Empire of Ivory in one marathon session. We're just about done with our first Kay novel now. His prose style is fun to read, and the melodrama suits dramatic intonation.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I've always found the audiobook voices too pompous-sounding for my taste. I've only listened to audiobooks as a curiosity, not as part of a commute or anything.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I really dislike reading out loud. My throat gets sore quite fast.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You'd get used to it fairly quickly, if you did it every day. But yeah, the same thing happens to me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, I don't get used to it. In fact, it gets worse if I do it every day.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I did lose my voice for three weeks back in June, but I think that had more to do with other things (going to a play and screaming my head off cheering while in the middle of a bad cold--not my wisest decision) than with the reading. Though it might have exacerbated things; dunno.
Usually I can do 20-30 pages without a problem. Past that, it starts to be a strain unless I pause, drink, and regroup.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am sorry, but the fundamental act reading is different than that of listening. Reading describes a specific act, and listening describes another.
I don't think we teach listening in school...although perhaps we should.
While there are similarities in the way the brain functions while doing both, they are not the same. Reading has a completely different skill set, and they are not the same thing at all.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I am sorry, but the fundamental act reading is different than that of listening. Reading describes a specific act, and listening describes another.
There are differences, but they're fundamentally the same -- consuming a novel.
quote:Reading has a completely different skill set
This is true.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I recognize the difference between listening to a performance called an 'audiobook' and reading an actual book.
But I refer to the experience as 'reading,' no matter how I consumed the material.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Maybe it's like riding a bike vs. walking -- they're fundamentally the same if your goal is to get somewhere (consume the story/book), but completely different is the goal is the activity itself.
Personally, I read for the story, not the reading. They're the same to me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
One positive thing that came out of my having to learn to like audiobooks is that in the end, I got more out of the book. At one time, I was very good at reading quickly to get the gist of the information. I would skim over boring parts rather than read every word.
now I read (listen to) every word of a story. it's quite a different experience. Even if most of those words are description rather than the meat of the story, i feel like i am getting much more out of it.
But that's probably due to my reading style. I was always so impatient to get to the end, especially of a good book!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: While there are similarities in the way the brain functions while doing both, they are not the same. Reading has a completely different skill set, and they are not the same thing at all.
Are you making this claim because it cannot be proved otherwise, or because you think there is a relevant difference between the two things when it comes to absorbing someone's writing?
I see the skill set as being very similar. You listen to words being read, you process the words, you understand what is being said, and you take away from that what you will. Or you look at words on a page and do the same thing. Perhaps in reading you create the sounds or the impression of tone in your mind, but what stops you from forming the same reactions through listening? One could argue that the voice of a particular reader is not dissimilar to the typeface of a particular novel- it does have an effect on your experience, but who can say that any particular effect is better or worse, or which really matters?
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have no evidence that the process involved is very different at all. And even if it is more than a slight difference, it would be difficult to value one type of experience over another. It's perfectly plausible that human beings are better suited to listening than they are to reading- after all, we've been doing it a lot longer as a species. You can point out all the things that an audiobook adds to the experience, but it becomes very murky when you make claims about what it might take away. For some people, and this is a subjective thing, it might not take anything away.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't like audiobooks. For me the experience is not the same at all. I twitch a little when people refer to listening to an audiobook as reading.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Now when we don't tell you that it was an audiobook we were reading. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Here's where I'm having trouble: Why is it so important to some of you that people distinguish between reading text and listening to text?
Let's say we were to have a discussion of "Ender's Game" (which would be appropriate on this site). Is my take on Ender's experience at Battle School somehow tainted by the fact that I have only ever "read" this book on tape (twice, as a matter of fact)? If you were to ask me, "Have you read 'Ender's Game?'" should I reply, "No, I listened to it on tape?" Would there be something wrong with giving a more simple, "Yes" in order to indicate that I have, through whatever means I chose, digested and understood the text of the novel?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, you're just not supposed to admit that you listened to it. It's your secret shame. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I read Holes.
Wait. No I didn't. I watched the movie.
Was that so hard or shameful?
Porter, you of all people I'd expect to be on my side. It bothers me a tiny bit that you might really think I have some need to make others feel ashamed. I don't. What I have is an obsessive/compulsive need to call things by their proper names. You read with your eyes, not your ears. You listen with your ears.
I listened to Pride and Prejudice. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:What I have is an obsessive/compulsive need to call things by their proper names.
So, Icarus, by that logic, you wouldn't say you "watched" a movie... but instead that you "watched and listened to" a movie? If there were subtitles, did you "watch, read, and listen to" the movie?
How about a concert? Do you say you "watch" a concert, "listen to" a concert, "went to" a concert? None of these fully describes the experience, really.
And, if you read with your eyes only, is it then impossible to "read" braille? If someone can use their sense of touch to read, it stands to reason that they can use their sense of hearing.
I think it comes down to different definitions of "read". If someone were to "learn to read"... that necessarily requires the printed word. Similarly if they were to "learn to read braille" it would require braille characters.
What about someone saying "read the following passage out loud". You're not really reading it out loud, you're reading it and then speaking it. The word "read" in that sense becomes "translate the information to speech" rather than simply "process the characters with your eyes".
If someone has listened to hundreds of classic books on tape... would they be considered "well read" or "well listened"?
I think the word "read" is very often used in the sense of "have you experienced the words written by the author" or "have you processed the story told by the author". If someone has experienced Ender's Game as ink-on-page, words-on-screen, braille-on-page, or spoken-word, I consider them having "read" the book.
There are plenty of other expansions to the word "read", too... such as "read someone's intentions", "read a situation", "read into someone's actions", etc. All of those imply gathering of information without necessarily having to involve the printed word.
Narrow definitions seem so restrictive as to lose the wondeful fluidity of language.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Porter, you of all people I'd expect to be on my side. It bothers me a tiny bit that you might really think I have some need to make others feel ashamed. I don't. What I have is an obsessive/compulsive need to call things by their proper names. You read with your eyes, not your ears. You listen with your ears.
While it wasn't visibly so, apparently, rest assured that my tongue was firmly in cheek when I said that.
I get what you're saying about calling things by their proper names. The problem, however, is that in many (for me, most) cases, what people are talking about when they talk about reading a book is not the act of reading, but of consuming.
When I ask you if you've read Dune, I really don't care if you read it in dead tree, eBook, or audio book, because it doesn't make any difference in the conversations I'd like to have with you about it.
I do care whether you've read the book or seen the movie, though, because they're just not the same story.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I read Holes.
Wait. No I didn't. I watched the movie.
Was that so hard or shameful? [/i]
Do you expect anyone to point out why that comparison doesn't work- because you have to know it's off.
The word "read" is anything but rigidly defined.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I read Holes.
Wait. No I didn't. I watched the movie.
Was that so hard or shameful?
That's an insulting comparison and I can't believe you even brought it up. Watching a movie is not the same thing as reading the book upon which the movie was based. A screenplay adaptation of a novel is necessarily different, whether in large or small ways. In fact, when there is both a movie and book form of a story, you can discuss, among other things, how true the adaptation was to the book.
An audiobook is the text of the novel, WORD FOR WORD.
Comparing watching a movie to listening to a book on tape implies (to me) that you view listening to be an inferior experience or to create an inferior understanding of the literature in question.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Comparing watching a movie to listening to a book on tape implies (to me) that you view listening to be an inferior experience or to create an inferior understanding of the literature in question.
Joe and I have had this conversation before, and I think he really does believe that, or something like it. IIRC, his reasoning involved the fact that visually reading involves both the visual and auditory parts of the brain, while listening doesn't.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Comparing watching a movie to listening to a book on tape implies (to me) that you view listening to be an inferior experience or to create an inferior understanding of the literature in question.
Joe and I have had this conversation before, and I think he really does believe that, or something like it. IIRC, his reasoning involved the fact that visually reading involves both the visual and auditory parts of the brain, while listening doesn't.
If this is the case, then his reasoning is flawed. In fact, I spent some time in graduate school studying learning through the senses and the various learning styles. There are 4: kinesthetic, auditory, visual/verbal, and visual/non-verbal. None of these are superior to the others; they are a matter of personal disposition. Someone with an auditory preference to learning, likes to hear things spoken out loud. Visual/verbal likes to see things in print. Visual/non-verbal likes to see visual representations of things (charts, graphs, pictures).
Studies have shown that gathering information through more than one sense adds to the learning (regardless of individual learning style), but reading text only involves the eyes, despite the auditory interpretation within the brain. It is the external stimulation through more than one sense that actually improves the experience. So, for example, a picture, a sound, a voice-over...
When text is presented visually and then read verbally, it does not improve learning. Neither the other way around.
When you account for differences in learning styles, however, those prone to auditory learning will prefer the material read out loud and those prone to the visual/verbal method will prefer the print.
Edited: Don't want to distract from the point and it was poorly phrased.
[ December 04, 2008, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think we should avoid accusations of arrogance at least until Joe's had a chance to to speak for himself, not from hearsay from me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Poor choice of words...I've edited my post.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I'm following this debate with interest. And, I have been searching myself to see if I can identify any personal difference in using the audio verses the hard copy. I have found one that is major for a reader my age. When I fall asleep, the printed copy stops and waits. The tape just keeps playing.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: I'm following this debate with interest. And, I have been searching myself to see if I can identify any personal difference in using the audio verses the hard copy. I have found one that is major for a reader my age. When I fall asleep, the printed copy stops and waits. The tape just keeps playing.
LOL...been there, done that! Luckily, there's a rewind button.
An even bigger difference, though, is that with text it is easy to flip back a page if you can't quite remember what so-and-so's name is or go back to chapter 1 to remind yourself of something that happened there. This is so difficult in an audiobook that I have almost never done it. Usually, it doesn't matter. However, I have had to go back and re-read all or part of a book in the past.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The printed copy does stop and wait, but then it is far easier to lose one's place in a book than with a cassette. The cassette always starts exactly where one leaves off.
Alternately, with CDs, it is very easy to lose one's place if the CD is ejected. You have to remember the section and time mark, just as you'd have to remember a page in a book. Though there aren't bookmarks to aid in this.
Going back to reread or search for something is more difficult in an audiobook format, true, which is I'm sure why audioencylcopedias aren't exactly common. But audiobooks do allow you to use your eyes for something else (such as driving, jogging or doing mindless chores) without having to stop reading.
One negative of audiobooks for me is that I read the printed word a lot faster than it can be read aloud. So a book that I could read in 5 hours of sitting could take 10-15 hours in audiobook format. But since it's easier to find 10-15 hours in my commute than it is to find 5 hours to sit with a book at the moment, I end up finishing faster anyway.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It is worth noting that the activity associated with listening to a person speak and the activity associated with reading is very similar - in both cases, the temporal lobe (especially on the left side in right-handed people) and the frontal lobe are active processing sounds and meaning, respectively. It is only the addition of the activity in the occipital lobe that separates reading text from listening to speech, and this is consistent with research on the cognitive processes involved in reading. Evidence suggests that, in order to be able to read, children must be able to decode text, translating it into a speech form, and children must also be able to understand spoken language.
I can read much faster also. But, when I do, I don't need "Style". (what ever that is) For example, I just finished a book on the Pullman Strike. It was very poorly written. But, I enjoyed it, as it had a plethora of information that I wanted to know. Tapes, on the other hand, let me experience the words and the sentences as well as the information. The pullman strike would have left me hanging by my seat belt from the top of a Piņon.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: An even bigger difference, though, is that with text it is easy to flip back a page if you can't quite remember what so-and-so's name is or go back to chapter 1 to remind yourself of something that happened there. This is so difficult in an audiobook that I have almost never done it. Usually, it doesn't matter. However, I have had to go back and re-read all or part of a book in the past.
Audible.com's downloads split the book into a number of parts, sometimes up to 6 or 8 (like War and Peace), each part being about 6 hours. The parts are further divided into chapters or other convenient divisions which allow you to skip through on your ipod, coming to major section breaks. Now, they've also added a chapter menu for the ipod, so you can look through the chapters and find your place, or just click "resume," and the audiobook will return to wherever you left off, because your ipod keeps track of where you are in a book, even if you haven't listened in a while.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That still doesn't help with the situation she is describing. It's not uncommon for me to find myself thinking "Wait -- who is it that's talking here?" If I were reading a dead tree book, I'd just flip back and skim until I found the name. With an audio book, I either force through it, hoping I'll figure out, or I have to go back to the beginning of a section. Either way, it's a lot less convenient than a dead tree book.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Any particular reason you keep saying "dead tree" instead of "paper"? There's some rag content too, you know. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
mph, I have had times where I've lost track of who is talking - especially with not-the-best readers who don't change their inflection much between characters (or who aren't consistent in their inflection for certain characters). In these cases, I just rewind a bit - generally it's only a couple lines back when you get a key to who's talking.
Then again, if you're reading Jane Austen, it could be like a two page monologue... so ymmv.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
More proof that Jane Austen isn't all she's cracked up to be. I think great authors lend themselves to audiobooks.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)