|
Post by Digi on Oct 28, 2018 17:31:13 GMT
The audiobook has an equal yet different value. A sort of 3+3=6 vs 2+4=6 sort of thing. I quite like this, and will probably be stealing it for use elsewhere
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Oct 28, 2018 21:11:09 GMT
I think it depends if it’s an adaptation or a direct reading. A direct reading, yes you’ve read the book, but if it’s an adaptation no, you haven’t. An adaptation is no different to the film version, things have been changed therefore it’s not the same as the book.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Oct 28, 2018 21:37:50 GMT
I think it depends if it’s an adaptation or a direct reading. A direct reading, yes you’ve read the book, but if it’s an adaptation no, you haven’t. An adaptation is no different to the film version, things have been changed therefore it’s not the same as the book. You can also spin that a little bit tighter- since we get a lot of translated books in Germany (Lord of the Rings, Terry Pratchett, Harry Potter) the translation makes or destroys a book. I was put off by the Terry Pratchett translations and as soon as I was able to read the originals (which also keep the not translateable puns) I did so. They have now started to publish second editions with a new translation which I hear is better. Even worse with the Lord of the Rings- one of my favorite books in my youth. The old translation was awesome, with all the old language words. Back then, my family wanted to give me a great Christmas present and gave me the books in the dreaded NEW translation. Which was a total fail because they "modernized" it and used modern language and had Sam call Frodo "boss" and similar. I found it unreadable (I have since then gotten all the books in English). This translation caused an outcry and justified rage among the fans and quite quickly, the new translation books disappeared from the German market. How anyone could ever have thought that doing a translation like that was a good idea in the first place is actually quite puzzling.
Sometimes, books read by different actors completely change the "feel" of a story to me. It is like hearing a totally different story. I already got that experience from a few audio books. So it is not only the direct reading of the book itself, but also who is reading it in what way.
On the other hand, my mood also affects how I process a story, and I can listen/ read a story in two different moods and take two completely different messages home.
A very complex topic. And there is not one simple answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 21:43:30 GMT
I think it depends if it’s an adaptation or a direct reading. A direct reading, yes you’ve read the book, but if it’s an adaptation no, you haven’t. An adaptation is no different to the film version, things have been changed therefore it’s not the same as the book. I was going to give the example of BF's adaptation of Frankenstein yesterday, but it's probably more relevant to a discussion about Abridged or Unabridged novels and/or audiobooks. As if you've heard the Big Finish Frankenstein audio you have a grasp of the story, but you can't say you've read Mary Shelley's book, as there are a lot of differences. You haven't got everything from the book, as a lot was cut out for the audio adaptation, plus you've got other stuff that actually isn't in the novel. I also don't like to refer to BF dramatised stuff as audiobooks, even though they carry an ISBN number. So that's a discussion for another thread too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 21:59:38 GMT
No.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Oct 28, 2018 23:05:28 GMT
Do audiobooks count as reading though, that’s a different question and the answer is, according to the people who write the syllabus for education in Australia, yes. Audio drama is different though, but an audiobook, one narrator, limited SFX etc counts as engaging with a text in thr sane way as having read it.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Oct 29, 2018 1:39:47 GMT
Do audiobooks count as reading though, that’s a different question and the answer is, according to the people who write the syllabus for education in Australia, yes. Audio drama is different though, but an audiobook, one narrator, limited SFX etc counts as engaging with a text in thr sane way as having read it. Still no I'm afraid. I had a look there now and it's the same as us. We have the same thing and the audiobooks are required for those who have a difficulty/inabilty reading actual text. You have to be able to have understood and comprehended the story/information to answer the questions, ie experienced it. But it's not reading. And that progressed to special needs assistants reading questions and so on to the student in examinations.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Oct 29, 2018 21:52:59 GMT
If reading is the process of taking the written word and interpreting it than audiobooks are no different to glasses, a tool used to ease that process. If there is no difference between listening to the teacher read a book and reading that book than there is no difference between listening to someone else read the book.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Oct 29, 2018 22:20:15 GMT
If reading is the process of taking the written word and interpreting it than audiobooks are no different to glasses, a tool used to ease that process. If there is no difference between listening to the teacher read a book and reading that book than there is no difference between listening to someone else read the book. There's no difference in what you get out of it. It just isn't you reading it/reading. I'm not fighting for a value judgment that reading is superior to listening to an audiobook, not at all, but it is not reading. As for the tool analogy, if I use an exact size wrench to unscrew something or a vise grip there's no difference in the result but they're still not the same tool. Choose whatever one you like to get the experience you want.
|
|
|
Post by constonks on Oct 29, 2018 22:27:38 GMT
1) No it doesn't. 2) It doesn't matter. They're a different medium. So if you answer that you know the story having heard the (let's assume unabridged) book, then that's absolutely correct. You know the exact story that someone who has read it knows, and you can discuss it in the same way, but you haven't read it. It's also a pointless question if the audiobook is unabridged and faithful. As an analogy, if you listen to one of the soundtracks of the missing Doctor Who episodes can you then say you've SEEN that episode? No, you can't. Why is this different? You know the story, you've experienced it and that is what matters, but you haven't seen the episode, and you haven't read the book. I think the question qua question arises due to some sort of higher value being falsely laid on the act of reading the book. Now while I love reading and exhort everyone to do so and to read as much as they can, that isn't always possible for a variety of reasons, so I would never denigrate anyone who has listened to it. The audiobook has an equal yet different value. A sort of 3+3=6 vs 2+4=6 sort of thing. The weight of history lies behind the printed word, but that's it. Well, there you go - the first response is the best response. When I finally listen to the audiobook of The Wheel of Ice (which I purchased soooo long ago on Audible), I'm going to cross it off my Doctor Who list exactly the same as if I'd read it - it "counts" in that sense, but if someone asks "Have you read The Wheel of Ice?" I'll say "I listened to the audiobook." Or, perhaps, "My friend David Troughton read it for me."
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Nov 1, 2018 3:17:50 GMT
Currently listening to 'Thanks a lot Mr Kibblewhite' by Roger Daltrey, and it's very much the tale of the narrator (Daltrey). Reading the books allow for ones own dramatic pauses and imagination to build upon the textual source. Reading the Target books as a child allowed for my own imagination to flesh out the source materials. It is why so many find the televised adventures do not live up to the imagination when the books were read first. The exercise of the brain in reading books from text is a valuable source of cognitive development as it allows the imagination to run free in a way only dreams offer similar expression. Listening to a narrator is very much a shortcut and for all its own advantages, stimulates a different part of the mind. In short, READ Literature if you want to stretch your mind. In general I agree but if for a variety of reasons one is unable to read (visually impaired in some way perhaps) then I would state that you have experienced literature by listening to it. And some works, one of my favourites being James Joyce, are designed to be read aloud so as to experience the sound of the language itself. I'd recommend this to anyone here: UlyssesTotally bookmarking this for future listening. Love Ulysses, have read it multiple times, and have invested in several books explaining it. In fact the only James Joyce I haven't read is Finnegan's Wake. I own the book, just need to invest in a book to explain it to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Nov 1, 2018 3:22:08 GMT
I think it's either a silly question, or lacks context. Are they asking if its the same "act" is listening the same as reading? Well, no, that's why they have different names. Or are they asking a qualitative question? Perhaps they asking if the experience is the same? But again context, it may or may not be depending on context, or maybe their asking if the value gained by the reader/listener is the same? And yet again context, maybe, maybe not. It's a question that can't be answered because the question itself lacks clarity. It's a silly question and it's also an ableist question. A person who is visually impaired can only "read" a book by listening. Would you say that the person has then not read the book? They've "heard" the same content you "read". They have a conversant knowledge of what the book is about. I personally think the question is irrelevant. Edited to add: Of course they can also read a book in braille. But it is fairly common for people with impaired vision to listen to books rather than using braille.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Nov 1, 2018 21:11:33 GMT
In general I agree but if for a variety of reasons one is unable to read (visually impaired in some way perhaps) then I would state that you have experienced literature by listening to it. And some works, one of my favourites being James Joyce, are designed to be read aloud so as to experience the sound of the language itself. I'd recommend this to anyone here: UlyssesTotally bookmarking this for future listening. Love Ulysses, have read it multiple times, and have invested in several books explaining it. In fact the only James Joyce I haven't read is Finnegan's Wake. I own the book, just need to invest in a book to explain it to me. Try reading it before bed when you're very tired There's a reason it's referred to as a dream book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 6:25:18 GMT
Totally bookmarking this for future listening. Love Ulysses, have read it multiple times, and have invested in several books explaining it. In fact the only James Joyce I haven't read is Finnegan's Wake. I own the book, just need to invest in a book to explain it to me. Try reading it before bed when you're very tired There's a reason it's referred to as a dream book. It’s just one of those books am not even going to bother with tbh.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,787
|
Post by lidar2 on Nov 2, 2018 6:44:52 GMT
If unabridged the same as reading.
If abridged then not the same
|
|
|
Post by glutamodo on Nov 2, 2018 18:22:35 GMT
Lidar said what I was thinking to say.
It is hard to vote. I remember back in grade school a teacher reading a chapter a day out of a book and being totally immersed in what she was speaking. Now, as a grownup, and paying for to hear someone's similar performance, does that still count? Well I think so, if it's just a plain book reading. Hell, even "enhanced audiobooks" where sounds are inserted and every character has either a different voice or actor, those are fine too if it is an unabridged reading.
Unabridged, I still think you are still being exposed to all of the author's words and I still count them as a "read".
Once you get into abridged things, well, it's derivative and subjective, and in those I would vote "No".
|
|
|
Post by Bazoolium on Nov 9, 2018 23:34:12 GMT
I think Autobiographies are much better on Audio (depending on the person I guess) listened to Alan Partidge's books recently. Hearing Steve Coogan read the book in character is a delight.
I find that when I think back to a book I sometimes can't remember if I read it or listened to it.
|
|
|
Post by pawntake on Dec 22, 2018 8:16:42 GMT
I listen to the audio on my iPhone,whilst at the same time following the story on my kindle. Crazy I know!!!But audiobook narrators just bring the whole thing to life for me,doing the different character voices etc.(And I tend to read far too-fast)I am currently Listening to(and reading)the wonderful Witcher series by Andrejt Sapkowski.8 books in all. Look forward to Netflix's new Witcher series in 2020.lets hope they don't make a"Pigs Ear"of it.
|
|
|
Post by GroundedCompanion on Dec 22, 2018 9:09:56 GMT
No. Audiobooks are someone elses intepretation of the text over your own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 12:52:53 GMT
This is an interesting although ultimately pointless question - as some of the best questions are (see: what came first, the chicken or the egg?).
Watching television is looked down upon by those who wish to take it upon themselves to look down on things. And yet it is absorbing information, be it fact or fiction. Listening to audio is absorbing information. Reading is absorbing information. So whether you are watching a television, audio or movie adaption of a book, it is all about interpretation and 'the experience'. Who takes it upon themselves to belittle others by saying one 'does not count?'
I suppose by picking up a book and scanning the words, you, the reader, are doing an amount of 'work' by building up your own visuals. By listening to audio, you are doing slightly less work as the words are read/acted out on your behalf. By watching a visual interpretation, you are letting every moment of the experience be done for you. But ultimately, who cares? Well, me I suppose, because I'm waxing lyrical about it!
I love reading. I love audio. I find, for example, Lara Parker's reading of Angelique's Descent more enjoyable than reading it myself because a) she is the author and knows every detail of the story and is therefore an 'informed' voice, and b) because she sounds so intoxicating to me!
Horses for courses. Everything 'counts'. Nothing 'counts'. Do what makes you happy.
Happy Christmas, all.
|
|