|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Oct 26, 2018 22:37:35 GMT
So, the BBC posted this up recently.
So, since we have many readers on here, and regular connoisseurs of audio, where do you stand? Does it matter at all?
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Oct 26, 2018 23:23:02 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 2:34:13 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.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Oct 27, 2018 2:47:10 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: Ulysses
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 2:53:51 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: UlyssesAnd of course Dickens was renowned for his dramatic readings of his works. As a listener or audio readings I agree that there is value added, but the exercise of reading and interpreting the printed text is something that should not be underestimated where time or faculty permits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 6:26:18 GMT
I would say they do. I tend to use audiobooks when am already reading the book then i get tired reading and switch on the audiobook.this is normally when am ready to retire to bed.I did it with the Outlander books quite hefty volumes.There is also something that happens with a great narrator that can bring a book alive. The other thing i tend to do is look at how many hours of narration (on iTunes) it takes to narrate the book and if it says 24 hours i know not to buy a book for the next 24 days lol😂
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Oct 27, 2018 9:16:35 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 9:32:20 GMT
Quite simply, if you don't read a book then you haven't read it. Listening by definition is not the same as reading, so this poll gets a No from me.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,661
|
Post by shutupbanks on Oct 27, 2018 9:41:38 GMT
Ultimately, does it really matter? You've still experienced the book. I'd count it the same difference as watching sport on the telly and listening to a commentary on the radio: you're getting the same experience but through a different medium.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 9:48:41 GMT
Ultimately, does it really matter? No, not really! But polls are fun...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 10:22:47 GMT
Quite simply, if you don't read a book then you haven't read it. Listening by definition is not the same as reading, so this poll gets a No from me. So blind people who can’t read books or dont have access to Braille?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 11:47:34 GMT
Quite simply, if you don't read a book then you haven't read it. Listening by definition is not the same as reading, so this poll gets a No from me. So blind people who can’t read books or dont have access to Braille? Braille is reading, listening to audiobooks isn't. Reading is visual or tactile. Listening to an unabridged book might mean you grasp the contents of the book but technically you still haven't 'read' it. Does it matter? No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 12:06:32 GMT
So blind people who can’t read books or dont have access to Braille? Braille is reading, listening to audiobooks isn't. Reading is visual or tactile. Listening to an unabridged book might mean you grasp the contents of the book but technically you still haven't 'read' it. Does it matter? No. I think my point was...one of perhaps intellectual snobbery,regardless of wether it was abridged or unabridged listening.You haven’t read it unless you have read it in the original say,Hebrew orEgytptian It doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things or does it😜
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,661
|
Post by shutupbanks on Oct 27, 2018 14:25:34 GMT
So blind people who can’t read books or dont have access to Braille? Braille is reading, listening to audiobooks isn't. Reading is visual or tactile. Listening to an unabridged book might mean you grasp the contents of the book but technically you still haven't 'read' it. Does it matter? No. If it doesn't matter why are you making so many distinctions about what "reading" is? I get that in one sense reading constitutes experiencing some form of text that has been placed on a 3-D object, but in this day and age, where we have so many differ for s of media to experience said texts in, it really doesn't matter how the text is taken in: the important thing is that text is taken in and understood. The rest is just snobbery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 14:29:15 GMT
No, I don't think it's snobbery. Nobody ever says they read a Big Finish audio, so the distinction is there between listening and reading. I didn't put it there!
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Oct 27, 2018 14:33:17 GMT
Braille is reading, listening to audiobooks isn't. Reading is visual or tactile. Listening to an unabridged book might mean you grasp the contents of the book but technically you still haven't 'read' it. Does it matter? No. I think my point was...one of perhaps intellectual snobbery,regardless of wether it was abridged or unabridged listening.You haven’t read it unless you have read it in the original say,Hebrew orEgytptian It doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things or does it😜
It's an interesting question and I wanted to answer 'Yes' and No' but the poll was binary, so I was literal-minded and answered 'No'.
However, while listening isn't reading, if I listen to an unabridged audiobook with the same attention I would need to give to read it then I think it can be equivalent. In my opinion it's the attention one gives to the words which counts and it would be interesting to know if the language/speech centres of the brian brain respond similarly or not. About which I haven't a clue!
As for reading in translation - does reading Shakespeare count if you haven't read it in the original Klingon? "Tak pah, tak bekh?" That is the question and I'm really not sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 14:37:21 GMT
I think my point was...one of perhaps intellectual snobbery,regardless of wether it was abridged or unabridged listening.You haven’t read it unless you have read it in the original say,Hebrew orEgytptian It doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things or does it😜
It's an interesting question and I wanted to answer 'Yes' and No' but the poll was binary, so I was literal-minded and answered 'No'.
However, while listening isn't reading, if I listen to an unabridged audiobook with the same attention I would need to give to read it then I think it can be equivalent. In my opinion it's the attention one gives to the words which counts and it would be interesting to know if the language/speech centres of the brian brain respond similarly or not. About which I haven't a clue!
As for reading in translation - does reading Shakespeare count if you haven't read it in the original Klingon? "Tak pah, tak bekh?" That is the question and I'm really not sure. 😜
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 14:39:11 GMT
Braille is reading, listening to audiobooks isn't. Reading is visual or tactile. Listening to an unabridged book might mean you grasp the contents of the book but technically you still haven't 'read' it. Does it matter? No. If it doesn't matter why are you making so many distinctions about what "reading" is? I get that in one sense reading constitutes experiencing some form of text that has been placed on a 3-D object, but in this day and age, where we have so many differ for s of media to experience said texts in, it really doesn't matter how the text is taken in: the important thing is that text is taken in and understood. The rest is just snobbery. Am not bothered one bit its just a bit of Saturday rambling🤪.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 14:55:56 GMT
Braille is reading, listening to audiobooks isn't. Reading is visual or tactile. Listening to an unabridged book might mean you grasp the contents of the book but technically you still haven't 'read' it. Does it matter? No. I think my point was...one of perhaps intellectual snobbery,regardless of wether it was abridged or unabridged listening.You haven’t read it unless you have read it in the original say,Hebrew orEgytptian It doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things or does it😜 You've hit the nail on the head there regards translations. That's why I have not read War and Peace and Proust yet....
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Oct 27, 2018 16:10:40 GMT
I agree with the people on here saying that the question is academic. It depends very much on your subjective opinion. I love to experience stories. Stories get processed in my brain and transmit me into different worlds and situations. Yes, the act of reading is different from the act of listening (visual as opposed to auditory) but the story still gets told and still transports me away from the here and now. I therefore consider reading books, listening to audio drama, playing a visual novel game or text based adventure game to be in a similar category, as opposed to watching a movie or playing a full on computer game.
|
|