I don't think there's sufficient grounds to make a significant value judgement in either direction.
For example, I could make the reasonable-sounding argument (more reasonable-sounding than Scott's, for one, although that's hardly saying much) that the visual component of your imagination is much more free when listening to an audiobook because your visual cortex isn't being forced to focus on the words - you can close your eyes and just imagine.
Do I think that this is entirely accurate? No. But there's clearly some truth to it.
The first two articles make no distinction as to exactly what is being read. The third article does not demonstrate that listening to fiction doesn't have those effects.
There are three reasons for audiobooks: 1) People who gained visual impairments late in life so bad that they can no longer read, but didn't learn braille earlier in life 2) The deaf being silly 3) Necessary substance reading
Like I said earlier, I don't read books for school, I listen to them. How one gains information changes how well they comprehend it. All you get to learn visually. I quote Geeknights and Fast Karate very oft, allude to Futurama incessently, and can almost always remember a relevent anecdoche from one of my friends, but I can't remember 2/3ds of the books I've read. I don't like books that flow naturally, because I decode without reading. I prefer Shakespeare to Asimov because he just makes more sense to me -- I've read 6 1/2 of the Harry Potter books, and I can remember nothing after the 3d.
So yeah, I listen to books, but I'm writing this lying next to a 700 page history of Prussia and my day bag residency of my paperback copy of the Gonzo Papers.
I listen to audiobooks when I need to do mundane things. For example, when I was working at my school, there would be times that I would have to go computer lab to computer lab and check every computer to make sure keyboards were clean, wires were neat, etc. I listened to Ender's Game again, listened to 1984, and pretty much re-listened to the entirety Geeknights.
Last one isn't a book, yeah, but I find myself learning something new or gaining a new insight every time.
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".
I can see what you're getting at, but you actually brought up something I hadn't considered.
An audiobook gains the same elements in translation that an audio drama might lose when being converted to text. Dialogue could gain additional undertones as the narrator speaks it, perhaps ones that the author did not intend. I'm not sure how much control an author might have over how his/her audiobook is read, but regardless, the narrator is adding a layer of meaning not present in the book, and perhaps one conflicting with the author's original intent.
So you might not "lose" something in an audiobook, but you could gain something that was not intended to be there. Whether there's enough to change the work as a whole might be a case-by-case basis.
EDIT: Dialogue would not be the only thing affected, I was just using that as an example. Pacing and intonation, as mentioned before, could affect how a story feels to a listener in any part of a book, and might not match the emotions the author was attempting to stir with words meant to be read, not listened to.
Yeah, there's definitely plenty of room for a poor reading to detract from a work. However, by the same token, a good reading could possibly improve upon a work - the author's intent is not the be-all and end-all, and nor is the written form a perfect representation of the author's intent.
Luke's example of this seems like a good one to me.
You linking these articles in a debate that took a turn away from neuroscience long ago caused me to lose a little white matter.
And podcasts : audiobooks :: cocaine : crack.
And by that metaphor, reading is some wholesome drug that the internet thinks should be legalized and was maybe linked to Alzheimer's prevention once... or kale - good old hearty, healthy, delicious kale...
Yeah, there's definitely plenty of room for a poor reading to detract from a work. However, by the same token, a good reading could possibly improve upon a work - the author's intent is not the be-all and end-all, and nor is the written form a perfect representation of the author's intent.
If you're adding onto/improving upon another person's work, could you consider that improved version to be a different work than the original? It could hold ideas that are much different than the original, simply by changing how the words are presented.
I guess I just prefer to read a book the way in the media format it was originally made for. Audiobooks seem like unnecessary (and possibly game-changing) middle-men to me.
Luke's example of this seems like a good one to me.
Yeah, after looking at this, it would make perfect sense to have this read out loud. Except for the fact that nobody has the lungs to deal with a sentence that big.
EDIT: I also realized that I was reading that entire thing in a particular voice. Not Morgan Freeman's. But in Leonard Nimoy's. Too much Civ IV.
kquote rel="lackofcheese">Luke's example of this seems like a good one to me.
Yeah, after looking at this, it would make perfect sense to have this read out loud. Except for the fact that nobody has the lungs to deal with a sentence that big.
That's kind of the point of that sentence in the book!
I've listened to maybe 20 audiobooks that I have previously read as a paper book. Each one of them brought out different aspect of the text that I had previously not noticed.
Knowing what a narrator will bring out in a book I've not read before, and am consuming by audiobook for the first time, helps me appreciate a book in different ways too. I KNOW there is a different reaction with audiobooks compared to paper books, and I'm more than fine with that! I enjoy both.
Want a free audiobook? Go to audibletrial.com/sfbrp for a free trial membership today!
The only audiobook I've listened to was Last Chance to See, and that was only because the nearest library didn't have a copy (and Douglas Adams reads so nicely).
I've read a few audiobooks but most of them were for school. I just didn't feel like spending the time to read or re-read them so I just listened to them while I did other things. I think it really depends on what you're doing whether or not it detracts from the book. Some things like driving become so automatic that I don't know if it distracts you from the audiobook all that much.
Most of my friends are either stoners, tweakers, or drunkards. Desiring none of these, I am quickly isolating myself from all but the boring people, who I find make me more neurotic than staying in my police state home. I'm starting to think that in the long term everyone involved is fucked.
Most of my friends are either stoners, tweakers, or drunkards. Desiring none of these, I am quickly isolating myself from all but the boring people, who I find make me more neurotic than staying in my police state home. I'm starting to think that in the long term everyone involved is fucked.
I find that reenacting the scene where Herman dives for the golf balls in Rushmore really helps.
Spyderco Tenacious (2.4" 8Cr13MoV locking Drop Point) arrived today. Almost done assembling my ideal Everyday Carry:
-Keychain EDC kit -Spyderco Tenacious (Blade) -Leatherman Juice Xe4 (Multitool; not 100% on this yet) - Foursevens Quark Mini ML-X. 210 Lumens and smaller than your thumb, it's the last torch you'll ever need. -Galaxy S3 -Waterman fountain pen -Moleskine/Postalco commonplace book -Handkerchief/Bandanna -Zippo -Peterson of Dublin stainless flask, Scotch -Wallet, business card case.
They make a 2.4" version of the Tenacious? I know the Ambitious is basically a smaller version but it's 2.25" and the Persistence is like 2.75" but I haven't heard of a 2.4" one. Is it a special Chicago-legal version or something?
As for the Leatherman, I'd consider the Wave if you're willing to go a couple ounces heavier.
@ninjarabbi: Derp, it's the Ambitious. And it is 2.25". I messed up the length and name, but otherwise the blade profile and steel are correct.
@Churba: It's really nice! Easy to open one-handed, nice ridged leverage points on the spine of the blade and the lock lever, and the textured black nylon and the clip are actually really handsome. Great balance and extremely slim; perfect for keeping in my jeans or a nice suit. Highly recommended.
Oh nice. I'd been looking at that whole series of knives for a while. I Like the Tenacious but in Michigan anything with a blade over 3 inches is considered a lethal weapon as far as I know. Now its not illegal to carry but if you have intent to use it against another person, it is. While I do not intend to do so, I am afraid that a police officer might have other ideas and use it as an excuse to arrest me. That makes me consider the Ambitious or Persistence but they're like the same price as the Tenacious and my cheapness makes me want to get the most blade for my money.
I Like the Tenacious but in Michigan anything with a blade over 3 inches is considered a lethal weapon as far as I know.
I've always thought of these laws as faintly silly. I mean, do they think that a sub-3 inch blade is magically going to turn to marshmallows when you go to slit someone's throat, or stab them? A scalpel is usually an inch blade, and you can fuck someone right up with a scalpel. You might as well just say something like "What is reasonable" or simply ban them outright.
I Like the Tenacious but in Michigan anything with a blade over 3 inches is considered a lethal weapon as far as I know.
I've always thought of these laws as faintly silly. I mean, do they think that a sub-3 inch blade is magically going to turn to marshmallows when you go to slit someone's throat, or stab them? A scalpel is usually an inch blade, and you can fuck someone right up with a scalpel. You might as well just say something like "What is reasonable" or simply ban them outright.
I know, its retarded. If I really wanted to I could fuck someone up with a tiny-ass keychain knife. The same goes for automatic knives. How does a knife opening by a button rather than manually magically make it more dangerous?
Comments
Do I think that this is entirely accurate? No. But there's clearly some truth to it.
The third article does not demonstrate that listening to fiction doesn't have those effects.
1) People who gained visual impairments late in life so bad that they can no longer read, but didn't learn braille earlier in life
2) The deaf being silly
3) Necessary substance reading
Like I said earlier, I don't read books for school, I listen to them. How one gains information changes how well they comprehend it. All you get to learn visually. I quote Geeknights and Fast Karate very oft, allude to Futurama incessently, and can almost always remember a relevent anecdoche from one of my friends, but I can't remember 2/3ds of the books I've read. I don't like books that flow naturally, because I decode without reading. I prefer Shakespeare to Asimov because he just makes more sense to me -- I've read 6 1/2 of the Harry Potter books, and I can remember nothing after the 3d.
So yeah, I listen to books, but I'm writing this lying next to a 700 page history of Prussia and my day bag residency of my paperback copy of the Gonzo Papers.
Last one isn't a book, yeah, but I find myself learning something new or gaining a new insight every time.
An audiobook gains the same elements in translation that an audio drama might lose when being converted to text. Dialogue could gain additional undertones as the narrator speaks it, perhaps ones that the author did not intend. I'm not sure how much control an author might have over how his/her audiobook is read, but regardless, the narrator is adding a layer of meaning not present in the book, and perhaps one conflicting with the author's original intent.
So you might not "lose" something in an audiobook, but you could gain something that was not intended to be there. Whether there's enough to change the work as a whole might be a case-by-case basis.
EDIT: Dialogue would not be the only thing affected, I was just using that as an example. Pacing and intonation, as mentioned before, could affect how a story feels to a listener in any part of a book, and might not match the emotions the author was attempting to stir with words meant to be read, not listened to.
Luke's example of this seems like a good one to me.
And podcasts : audiobooks :: cocaine : crack.
And by that metaphor, reading is some wholesome drug that the internet thinks should be legalized and was maybe linked to Alzheimer's prevention once... or kale - good old hearty, healthy, delicious kale...
I guess I just prefer to read a book the way in the media format it was originally made for. Audiobooks seem like unnecessary (and possibly game-changing) middle-men to me. Yeah, after looking at this, it would make perfect sense to have this read out loud. Except for the fact that nobody has the lungs to deal with a sentence that big.
EDIT: I also realized that I was reading that entire thing in a particular voice. Not Morgan Freeman's. But in Leonard Nimoy's. Too much Civ IV.
That's kind of the point of that sentence in the book!
I've listened to maybe 20 audiobooks that I have previously read as a paper book. Each one of them brought out different aspect of the text that I had previously not noticed.
Knowing what a narrator will bring out in a book I've not read before, and am consuming by audiobook for the first time, helps me appreciate a book in different ways too. I KNOW there is a different reaction with audiobooks compared to paper books, and I'm more than fine with that! I enjoy both.
Want a free audiobook? Go to audibletrial.com/sfbrp for a free trial membership today!
-Keychain EDC kit
-Spyderco Tenacious (Blade)
-Leatherman Juice Xe4 (Multitool; not 100% on this yet)
- Foursevens Quark Mini ML-X. 210 Lumens and smaller than your thumb, it's the last torch you'll ever need.
-Galaxy S3
-Waterman fountain pen
-Moleskine/Postalco commonplace book
-Handkerchief/Bandanna
-Zippo
-Peterson of Dublin stainless flask, Scotch
-Wallet, business card case.
As for the Leatherman, I'd consider the Wave if you're willing to go a couple ounces heavier.
@Churba: It's really nice! Easy to open one-handed, nice ridged leverage points on the spine of the blade and the lock lever, and the textured black nylon and the clip are actually really handsome. Great balance and extremely slim; perfect for keeping in my jeans or a nice suit. Highly recommended.