The point of book club is not just that a book contains a good story or good information that you should put into your brain. The point is that there is a part of your brain that is the "reading muscle" and it needs exercise. Not a sports page, not a magazine, not a forum post, but a book. Reading an audiobook gets the job done in the same way that using an electric screwdriver gets the job done. Only after the job is done your arm still can't do a single push-up, like mine. If at all possible you should read the books, even if you pirate them, to exercise the book reading muscle in your brain.
Dropped the needle on some vinyl yesterday, took the scenic route home the day before, searching online for an interesting fountain pen ink or a typewriter presently.
Here's a solution. Read the book with your eyeballs! If you are blind, I'm sure that it is available in braille.
Yeah, just read it, dude. Half the story is about the act of writing and you're listening to the audiobook.
Apparently you guys missed the other post about how I read at home and while at work I listen to the audiobook. Why don't I just read it all at home? Well I could but why not work and listen to a book at the same time?
Pretty much every possible occasion. Driving for pleasure is common, for me.
Reading an audiobook gets the job done in the same way that using an electric screwdriver gets the job done. Only after the job is done your arm still can't do a single push-up, like mine.
As much as I get what you're trying to say, this is really a god-awful way of saying it. An electric screwdriver gets the same job done faster and with less effort, which is useful for longer jobs. Are you going to be putting things together all day with screws, and use a screwdriver? Fuck no! You're going to use an electric drill or electric screwdriver. Short on time? Use the electric. Etc, etc.
Using a screwdriver isn't going to exercise fuck all, because if you're using a screwdriver for big jobs, then you're doing it wrong, and it's going to take you ten times as long as doing it the right and sensible way. Nowdays(and pretty much since electric screwdrivers and drills have been around) Screwdrivers are for small jobs, quick jobs, small adjustments, and things that are not practical for a power tool.
Do you ever even use a screwdriver? Or a drill, for that matter? I'm genuinely baffled as to why you thought this was in any way a good example.
Audiobooks have their uses. Sometimes, you draw for 16 hours a day, and having something, anything, droning in the background keeps you sane after you've listened through the Dave and Joel archive so many times you can mouth the words in time with them.
FWIW, Levar Burton, of Reading Rainbow fame, is cool with audiobooks.
That said, while an audiobook can't fully replace proper reading, it has its purposes. They make for great entertainment when you're driving the car on long road trips, for example.
..and so I hope the forum has learned a valuable lesson about how we all enjoy different things and shouldn't judge others based on the things they enjoy and skills they improve as a result.
Plus I'm not too worried about not reading enough. I almost always have a book that I am reading since I could read. Sometime I read two books at the same time.
I am going crazier and crazier lately. TOO MANY THINGS. When I read the Reddit thing about a job that paid 30k/week to sit in a dark room, I thought that sounded like the worlds greatest vacation.
Okay, I will chime in that while listening to a story gets the plot across, the act of reading engages a different part of your brain. The pulling of meaning out of words into the imagination stimulates the mind in different ways than does merely listening to verbal depictions. Audiobooks have their place (I think of them like podcasts) but for really good books I like to put my full attention on them. Listening to audiobooks while you work or do stuff is like putting music on in the background. You are not giving it the full attention, but it can be enjoyable. To do this to a really well written book, to never give it full scrutiny is denying yourself the full power of its language and losing yourself a superior experience.
Luke, I discovered your podcast about a month ago. I listened to all the works that interest me. (About 20 titles.) I admire the work you’re doing and your great enthusiasm. But (and I don’t know if you addressed this in a podcast I didn’t listen to) reading a book is reading a book. You can’t say, as you did with The Stand, “Perhaps it would be different if you read the book on paper instead of listening to it.” This is a non sequitur. (You just said [I’m listening to you now] “I’m going to read other King’ books.”) No, it’s called listening not reading.
Perhaps you need to retitle the name of your podcast?
Respectfully David Williams
I would write my thoughts on the subject here, but I did an an entire podcast about it, and I can't be bothered to write it all again. And you wouldn't have time to read it all, either. But that podcast episode? You could probably fit that into your schedule no problem.
Personally, if a book is good, and I'm listening to it as an audio book, I treat it like a paper book, and don't multitask when listening. I just listen.
Also some books are way better when read to you. I read the first half of Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court as an ebook, and then the second half as an audio book. Having a good narrator read it for me brought the text alive in a way I could never do in my own head. The language is too far removed from my own, and he did a way better job of making it understandable and enjoyable.
For example:
"I would I might please thee, sir, and it is to me dole and sorrow that I fail, albeit sith I am but a simple damsel and taught of none, being from the cradle unbaptized in those deep waters of learning that do anoint with a sovereignty him that partaketh of that most noble sacrament, investing him with reverend state to the mental eye of the humble mortal who, by bar and lack of that great consecration seeth in his own unlearned estate but a symbol of that other sort of lack and loss which men do publish to the pitying eye with sackcloth trappings whereon the ashes of grief do lie bepowdered and bestrewn, and so, when such shall in the darkness of his mind encounter these golden phrases of high mystery, these shut-up-shops, and draw-the-game, and bank-the-fires, it is but by the grace of God that he burst not for envy of the mind that can beget, and tongue that can deliver so great and mellow-sounding miracles of speech, and if there do ensue confusion in that humbler mind, and failure to divine the meanings of these wonders, then if so be this miscomprehension is not vain but sooth and true, wit ye well it is the very substance of worshipful dear homage and may not lightly be misprized, nor had been, an ye had noted this complexion of mood and mind and understood that that I would I could not, and that I could not I might not, nor yet nor might _nor_ could, nor might-not nor could-not, might be by advantage turned to the desired _would_, and so I pray you mercy of my fault, and that ye will of your kindness and your charity forgive it, good my master and most dear lord."
Looking at that sentence makes my brain hurt. Listening to it? I laughed out loud many times.
Listening to a book doesn't really do the book justice. An author (usually) designs a book with the purpose of being read. Physically. In normal text format. You can absolutely port that work to a different format (such as audio), but bits and pieces can get lost in translation.
I wouldn't read an audio drama for the same reason. Audio dramas rely on the fact that they will be based solely on audio. They are written and designed around this limitation. A script of a show would not be quite the same as listening to the actual performance, and would arguably be a worse experience overall. You miss things.
Plus, I'll never be able to think of any audiobook characters having any other voice than the narrators'. That's annoying.
Say what? That thing is like eight ounces, it can't be a matter of weight. I use mine with one hand almost 100% of the time, the exception being when I'm typing a quick annotation or note, and I use my thumbs to type. Left hand, left corner sits right in the middle-bottom of my palm, and it rests on the rest of my fingers, thumb is free to advance the pages. Selecting a book? Similar thing, just switch hands so that my thumb is free for the 5-way button and the menu buttons. It's easy, dude. Unless you've got some fun-size hands, I guess.
Okay, I will chime in that while listening to a story gets the plot across, the act of reading engages a different part of your brain. The pulling of meaning out of words into the imagination stimulates the mind in different ways than does merely listening to verbal depictions.
You say that as though you don't pull the meaning out of words when listening to an audiobook.
Although it's clear enough that the spoken word and written word must be processed differently by the brain, at its core both things are still language. I don't think there's sufficient grounds to make a significant value judgement in either direction. Scott's "reading muscle" that is only exercised by reading books is plainly ridiculous.
I definitely agree that there's a big difference between having an audiobook on in the background and giving your full attention to an audiobook, though. The fact that the former is the typical usage scenario for an audiobook is, I think, much more significant than the reading vs listening distinction.
Listening to a book doesn't really do the book justice. An author (usually) designs a book with the purpose of being read. Physically. In normal text format. You can absolutely port that work to a different format (such as audio), but bits and pieces can get lost in translation.
I wouldn't read an audio drama for the same reason. Audio dramas rely on the fact that they will be based solely on audio. They are written and designed around this limitation. A script of a show would not be quite the same as listening to the actual performance, and would arguably be a worse experience overall. You miss things.
While I agree that books are mostly designed in book form, this says little about how much the medium is actually being utilized, as compared to the raw language.
The audio drama comparison is unfair, because in that case you do in fact lose obvious and important aspects of the performance, namely elements of speech such as pacing and intonation that serve to communicate emotion. On the other hand, in the reverse case, the words are still there, and so nothing is really "lost".
Comments
Ah my god here is a clip of her reading. Just go to 1:30, there is some annoyingly placed music that basically drowns out all voices until that time.
The worst part is that the guy that does Tengo's part is actually really good. It's just this lady that ruins the entire thing.
Wrote a letter?
Now I'm just reminiscing about things people used to do for regular enjoyment.
Think I'll go with the "Syo-ro Pine Tree Dew" Dark Turquoise.
Using a screwdriver isn't going to exercise fuck all, because if you're using a screwdriver for big jobs, then you're doing it wrong, and it's going to take you ten times as long as doing it the right and sensible way. Nowdays(and pretty much since electric screwdrivers and drills have been around) Screwdrivers are for small jobs, quick jobs, small adjustments, and things that are not practical for a power tool.
Do you ever even use a screwdriver? Or a drill, for that matter? I'm genuinely baffled as to why you thought this was in any way a good example.
You know, for example.
That said, while an audiobook can't fully replace proper reading, it has its purposes. They make for great entertainment when you're driving the car on long road trips, for example.
Luke, I discovered your podcast about a month ago. I listened to all the works that interest me. (About 20 titles.) I admire the work you’re doing and your great enthusiasm. But (and I don’t know if you addressed this in a podcast I didn’t listen to) reading a book is reading a book. You can’t say, as you did with The Stand, “Perhaps it would be different if you read the book on paper instead of listening to it.” This is a non sequitur. (You just said [I’m listening to you now] “I’m going to read other King’ books.”) No, it’s called listening not reading.
Perhaps you need to retitle the name of your podcast?
Respectfully
David Williams
I would write my thoughts on the subject here, but I did an an entire podcast about it, and I can't be bothered to write it all again. And you wouldn't have time to read it all, either. But that podcast episode? You could probably fit that into your schedule no problem.
Also some books are way better when read to you. I read the first half of Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court as an ebook, and then the second half as an audio book. Having a good narrator read it for me brought the text alive in a way I could never do in my own head. The language is too far removed from my own, and he did a way better job of making it understandable and enjoyable.
For example:
"I would I might please thee, sir, and it is to me dole and sorrow
that I fail, albeit sith I am but a simple damsel and taught of
none, being from the cradle unbaptized in those deep waters of
learning that do anoint with a sovereignty him that partaketh of
that most noble sacrament, investing him with reverend state to
the mental eye of the humble mortal who, by bar and lack of that
great consecration seeth in his own unlearned estate but a symbol
of that other sort of lack and loss which men do publish to the
pitying eye with sackcloth trappings whereon the ashes of grief
do lie bepowdered and bestrewn, and so, when such shall in the
darkness of his mind encounter these golden phrases of high mystery,
these shut-up-shops, and draw-the-game, and bank-the-fires, it is
but by the grace of God that he burst not for envy of the mind that
can beget, and tongue that can deliver so great and mellow-sounding
miracles of speech, and if there do ensue confusion in that humbler
mind, and failure to divine the meanings of these wonders, then
if so be this miscomprehension is not vain but sooth and true,
wit ye well it is the very substance of worshipful dear homage and
may not lightly be misprized, nor had been, an ye had noted this
complexion of mood and mind and understood that that I would
I could not, and that I could not I might not, nor yet nor might
_nor_ could, nor might-not nor could-not, might be by advantage
turned to the desired _would_, and so I pray you mercy of my fault,
and that ye will of your kindness and your charity forgive it, good
my master and most dear lord."
Looking at that sentence makes my brain hurt. Listening to it? I laughed out loud many times.
I wouldn't read an audio drama for the same reason. Audio dramas rely on the fact that they will be based solely on audio. They are written and designed around this limitation. A script of a show would not be quite the same as listening to the actual performance, and would arguably be a worse experience overall. You miss things.
Plus, I'll never be able to think of any audiobook characters having any other voice than the narrators'. That's annoying.
Say what? That thing is like eight ounces, it can't be a matter of weight. I use mine with one hand almost 100% of the time, the exception being when I'm typing a quick annotation or note, and I use my thumbs to type. Left hand, left corner sits right in the middle-bottom of my palm, and it rests on the rest of my fingers, thumb is free to advance the pages. Selecting a book? Similar thing, just switch hands so that my thumb is free for the 5-way button and the menu buttons. It's easy, dude. Unless you've got some fun-size hands, I guess.
Although it's clear enough that the spoken word and written word must be processed differently by the brain, at its core both things are still language. I don't think there's sufficient grounds to make a significant value judgement in either direction. Scott's "reading muscle" that is only exercised by reading books is plainly ridiculous.
I definitely agree that there's a big difference between having an audiobook on in the background and giving your full attention to an audiobook, though. The fact that the former is the typical usage scenario for an audiobook is, I think, much more significant than the reading vs listening distinction. While I agree that books are mostly designed in book form, this says little about how much the medium is actually being utilized, as compared to the raw language.
The audio drama comparison is unfair, because in that case you do in fact lose obvious and important aspects of the performance, namely elements of speech such as pacing and intonation that serve to communicate emotion. On the other hand, in the reverse case, the words are still there, and so nothing is really "lost".