How they're said aloud is almost ALWAYS able to be accurately gleaned from a combination of context, etymology, and phonics. More information is lost in the listening to a word than from the reading a written word.
Also, I hope all those typos and grammar issues were purposeful, or you're going a long way to prove my point. ;^)
That's what happens when I'm taken away from Chrome's spellcheck.
My biggest priblem comes with letters that don't exsist or are not common in english laguage. With ä and ö I tend to defaut finnish spelling and with ü german one. Rest like û and ë I just throw something at them.
Yeah proper nouns can be really difficult considering all of the different spellings and pronunciations. Imogen Heap's name for example. I always said it the way it looks (which in her case is correct) but I was talking to my dad about it and he said he knew a lady that had the exact same spelling but it was pronounced like Simone minus the S. I also have a friend whose name is Kjellse which is pronounced like Chelsea.
I don't really agree with this at all. Names, especially names in fantasy literature, are very difficult to work out the pronunciation of unless the author deliberately hints or provides a glossary of names (as Robert Jordan did.) Context and etymology have very little to do with some of the stuff that passes for names in a variety of fantasy novels, and phonics, especially English phonics, aren't always clear.
Shit fantasy novels maybe, but in the case of the Prince of Nothing, the structures of the names follow real-world parallels and are internally consistent. Even if the pronunciations aren't perfect, they're usually very close to whatever canon was intended.
Furthermore, a written work without an included reference using made-up words has NO canonical pronunciation: the work itself is text alone. So the spelling is the only true reference in the first place: ALL pronunciations are little more than educated contextual guesses. A narrator is guessing just as a reader is.
More to the point, there is no way to understand implicitly that two place names are related, for example, just from hearing them in many cases. But structurally, such things can become obvious.
A layer of etymology is lost in hearing over reading, while simultaneously an external layer of interpretation is added. The work is thus doubly obfuscated from its original form.
Furthermore, a written work without an included reference using made-up words has NO canonical pronunciation: the work itself is text alone. So the spelling is the only true reference in the first place: ALL pronunciations are little more than educated contextual guesses. A narrator is guessing just as a reader is.
Despite your capitalization, that's not entirely true since there is the possibility of consulting with the author.
Despite your capitalization, that's not entirely true since there is the possibility of consulting with the author.
That is external to the work. If it's not known until after publication, e.g., when a narrator consults an author, then it wasn't part of the original work.
I would never substitute an audiobook for an actual book, but if you're listening in situations where you wouldn't otherwise be able to consume a book, then more power to you. I'm even considering trying Audible to soak up the hours of my newly extended daily commute.
As for deep analysis of what you are reading, I always try to remind people that this isn't school, and you can write in your books. I don't do it often, but if I'm reading something that I really want to learn from (for example, I recently read the parenting-via-science book NurtureShock), or if it's mostly critical thought, such as a book of essays, I like to jot down notes in the margins or at the end of a chapter.
It's more to force the information to sink in. I have a good, but not great memory, and writing out what I just thought/learned really burns it in. It ensures I haven't wasted those hours reading the book only to forget my takeaways.
I would never substitute an audiobook for an actual book, but if you're listening in situations where you wouldn't otherwise be able to consume a book, then more power to you.
Exactly. But too many people here seem to be advocating just that: they replace reading with audiobooks.
Are you saying that novels written by non-linguists are all shit? :-) I don't think you have to be Tolkien to write a non-shit fantasy novel. Names are names and it's OK if they're not consistent with grammar or phonics of any actual or imaginary languages (granted, nobody should be expected to pronounce them correctly, but it doesn't make a novel shit.)
Audiobooks, I don't like. I understand the appeal, but they don't appeal to me even slightly.
My paper back version of TDTCB has pheonetic spellings of the POV character names in the Appendix. For example it has Cnaiur (Nay-urr), although the spelling my be different because I'm going off of memory. However, I just checked my copy of TWP and found that it did not. Also, Bakker said that he provided a recording of all the proper nouns for the audiobooks, but just so that it remains consistent between all the recordings (the Aspect Emperor books are being done by a different company).
So the two reasons I should read the physical book are:
Scott: Reading speed Rym:Etymological information
Really??
1. I'm 30. I read/write all day as part of my job, and i assume ANYONE who uses the internet AT ALL is a fast reader. You have to be. And yes, I listen on 2x. 2. Maybe in the rarest of fantasy novels will this ever matter, and even then, how much?
I could choose to read physical books during the evening, but since I basically read one every 2 weeks while commute + exercise, I get to do other things in evening. Games, comics (that's reading, but you HAVE to read that :P), cool TV series etc.
I think Audio books are a revolution. Books themselves are the true prize. The delivery method does not matter.
There is a huge difference, and I understand where Rym/Scott is coming from and what their desires they wish to achieve through the book club are, but at the same time it doesn't really matter beyond a personal disagreement.
Kellhus doesn't spend a lot of book time there, but they say "Prince of Atrithau" a lot.
This is a very important thing. They say Prince of Atrithau because that is the lie Kellhus told when he arrived in the Imperial city with Cnaiür. However, he did pass through Atrithau on his journey to the steppe, but what actually happened as he passed was not described in any detail. At the end of the Prologue he still has not reached Atrithau. When he first appears in the book, he is long past it. Something important happened there which was not revealed to us. For proof, look in the glossary of Thousandfold Thought. Right in the beginning of it, you will find this entry.
Adûnyani - "Little Dûnyain" (Kûniüric from Ûmeritic ar'tûnya, or "little truth"). The name taken by the followers assembled by Kellhus in Atrithau.
Whatever happened as he passed through Atrithau, he definitely used his "powers" to gather a following. Read the beginning of Chapter 12 of The Darkness that Comes Before. This is the scene where Cnaiür first finds Kellhus, a lone survivor of a battle between men and Sranc. The first things Cnaiür finds are not Kellhus or Sranc. He finds dead Norsirai men, which we can safely assume are men of Atrithau. At the very least all the Adûnyani who personally accompanied Kellhus as he left Atrithau were killed by Sranc in this battle.
But what of Atrithau now? This is the only hint we have of the current state of affairs in that city. It could very well be that Kellhus is effectively its ruler.
I do know this. Kellhus left Ishual in the late autum of 4109. He met Cnaiür in Early Spring of 4111. If you subtract the time for traveling such a great distance, that doesn't leave him many months to spend in Atrithau.
But what of Atrithau now? This is the only hint we have of the current state of affairs in that city. It could very well be that Kellhus is effectively its ruler.
Could it also be that all Atrithau followed Kellhus out of the city, and now it's a ghost town? I haven't read any in a very long time, so I don't really remember. Seems like it might be a good place for the Consult to store some humans, it's not too far from Golgotterath.
But what of Atrithau now? This is the only hint we have of the current state of affairs in that city. It could very well be that Kellhus is effectively its ruler.
Could it also be that all Atrithau followed Kellhus out of the city, and now it's a ghost town? I haven't read any in a very long time, so I don't really remember. Seems like it might be a good place for the Consult to store some humans, it's not too far from Golgotterath.
Atrithau is the last city of Norsirai man that is weighed upon most heavily by the influences of Ishual, Ishterebinth, and Golgotterath. The mystery of what lies there is key.
Finally finished 1Q84 after a long summer of interruptions to my reading. It's definitely one of my favorite books ever. "Cold or not, god is present."
People who got into Murakami with 1Q84 would do well to read the Wind-Up Bird Chronicle next in order to understand
the significance of the Ushikawa air chrysalis.
I think I'm going to wrap up Blood Meridian and start working on In Search of Lost Time.
1Q84 was worth reading but if his other books are anything like this book then I probably won't read another Murakami book. But I also read numerous Amazon reviews where people said they loved his other work but didn't like 1Q84, so who knows. I remember talking to my Japanese Civ teacher in college where she described Kafka and more specifically one of Murakami's other books, Underground, she really suggested. So maybe I'll check either of those two out.
If you write off Murakami based on reading 1Q84 first, you are denying yourself a tremendous amount of joy. Try Norwegian Wood and Kafka on the Shore, and then read The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.
I love Murakami Haruki (top 3: 1. Hard-Boiled Wonderland, 2. Norwegian Wood & 3. Wind-Up Bird) and was truly looking forward to 1Q84 as his potential literary evolution. I felt similar to above that it was poorly paced -- and this is coming from someone who greatly enjoys Kawabata Yasunari. I am probably harsher in this regard BECAUSE of my previous experience with other Japanese literature & style. However, I did read this one in English, so I may re-read in Japanese later. Maybe.
Audiobooks v Book-books: I think there are some stories that actually benefit from being read aloud, namely ones that are written in a style of oral-tradition, are primarily comprised of dialogue, or contain many characters that are hard to keep distinct (e.g. Russian fiction.. dear god). Another example would be the book "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell." The audiobook rendition of this is marvelous, and brings a lot of life to a book that can seem dry and overly detailed on paper.
I do not think that etymological meaning is necessarily lost: if one is familiar enough with etymology to care/notice, one is capable of recognizing it audibly. I do not think consumption-time should be a factor in determining the medium of enjoyment; I try to pick the medium which I feel would maximize my enjoyment and absorption of the book, just as I would choose a food or beverage. For me, that is typically (but not always) written form. However, I have a very fast reading speed, without reading impairments, and a much harder time processing aural input other than music. I would imagine those with dyslexia or grapheme/lexical synesthesia might feel otherwise. In the end, books are to be enjoyed, so I reserve judgement on the medium of enjoyment.
i knew someone would bring this up. *eye roll* i am using a very broad definition of "enjoyed" if you have a better word that perfectly sums up the reasons why people choose to engage in a specific activity that brings them /some form/ of fulfillment or edification, please, do suggest it.
Comments
My biggest priblem comes with letters that don't exsist or are not common in english laguage. With ä and ö I tend to defaut finnish spelling and with ü german one. Rest like û and ë I just throw something at them.
Furthermore, a written work without an included reference using made-up words has NO canonical pronunciation: the work itself is text alone. So the spelling is the only true reference in the first place: ALL pronunciations are little more than educated contextual guesses. A narrator is guessing just as a reader is.
More to the point, there is no way to understand implicitly that two place names are related, for example, just from hearing them in many cases. But structurally, such things can become obvious.
A layer of etymology is lost in hearing over reading, while simultaneously an external layer of interpretation is added. The work is thus doubly obfuscated from its original form.
As for deep analysis of what you are reading, I always try to remind people that this isn't school, and you can write in your books. I don't do it often, but if I'm reading something that I really want to learn from (for example, I recently read the parenting-via-science book NurtureShock), or if it's mostly critical thought, such as a book of essays, I like to jot down notes in the margins or at the end of a chapter.
It's more to force the information to sink in. I have a good, but not great memory, and writing out what I just thought/learned really burns it in. It ensures I haven't wasted those hours reading the book only to forget my takeaways.
Audiobooks, I don't like. I understand the appeal, but they don't appeal to me even slightly.
Scott: Reading speed
Rym:Etymological information
Really??
1. I'm 30. I read/write all day as part of my job, and i assume ANYONE who uses the internet AT ALL is a fast reader. You have to be. And yes, I listen on 2x.
2. Maybe in the rarest of fantasy novels will this ever matter, and even then, how much?
I could choose to read physical books during the evening, but since I basically read one every 2 weeks while commute + exercise, I get to do other things in evening. Games, comics (that's reading, but you HAVE to read that :P), cool TV series etc.
I think Audio books are a revolution. Books themselves are the true prize. The delivery method does not matter.
Of course it's not the same as reading a book, but it still teaches you to read fast, and you still have to comprehend what you are reading.
Kellhus doesn't spend a lot of book time there, but they say "Prince of Atrithau" a lot.
Adûnyani - "Little Dûnyain" (Kûniüric from Ûmeritic ar'tûnya, or "little truth"). The name taken by the followers assembled by Kellhus in Atrithau.
Whatever happened as he passed through Atrithau, he definitely used his "powers" to gather a following. Read the beginning of Chapter 12 of The Darkness that Comes Before. This is the scene where Cnaiür first finds Kellhus, a lone survivor of a battle between men and Sranc. The first things Cnaiür finds are not Kellhus or Sranc. He finds dead Norsirai men, which we can safely assume are men of Atrithau. At the very least all the Adûnyani who personally accompanied Kellhus as he left Atrithau were killed by Sranc in this battle.
But what of Atrithau now? This is the only hint we have of the current state of affairs in that city. It could very well be that Kellhus is effectively its ruler.
I do know this. Kellhus left Ishual in the late autum of 4109. He met Cnaiür in Early Spring of 4111. If you subtract the time for traveling such a great distance, that doesn't leave him many months to spend in Atrithau.
People who got into Murakami with 1Q84 would do well to read the Wind-Up Bird Chronicle next in order to understand
I think I'm going to wrap up Blood Meridian and start working on In Search of Lost Time.
I love Murakami Haruki (top 3: 1. Hard-Boiled Wonderland, 2. Norwegian Wood & 3. Wind-Up Bird) and was truly looking forward to 1Q84 as his potential literary evolution. I felt similar to above that it was poorly paced -- and this is coming from someone who greatly enjoys Kawabata Yasunari. I am probably harsher in this regard BECAUSE of my previous experience with other Japanese literature & style. However, I did read this one in English, so I may re-read in Japanese later. Maybe.
Audiobooks v Book-books: I think there are some stories that actually benefit from being read aloud, namely ones that are written in a style of oral-tradition, are primarily comprised of dialogue, or contain many characters that are hard to keep distinct (e.g. Russian fiction.. dear god). Another example would be the book "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell." The audiobook rendition of this is marvelous, and brings a lot of life to a book that can seem dry and overly detailed on paper.
I do not think that etymological meaning is necessarily lost: if one is familiar enough with etymology to care/notice, one is capable of recognizing it audibly. I do not think consumption-time should be a factor in determining the medium of enjoyment; I try to pick the medium which I feel would maximize my enjoyment and absorption of the book, just as I would choose a food or beverage. For me, that is typically (but not always) written form. However, I have a very fast reading speed, without reading impairments, and a much harder time processing aural input other than music. I would imagine those with dyslexia or grapheme/lexical synesthesia might feel otherwise. In the end, books are to be enjoyed, so I reserve judgement on the medium of enjoyment.
edited to make more sense.. as usual