Quote:
Originally Posted by sun surfer
Perhaps, but either is a way of processing information, and in the case of books, the same information. You can learn by listening or looking (or touching; i.e. Braille).
I don't think that the comparison is similar. In the case of going to a live performance versus watching a video of the exact same live performance, the way of processing the information is the same.
Of course it's often nicer to go to the theatre, but that's because of the environment and scale. Live, everything is all around and in the moment, while on video you're focused on a small screen.
I don't see a similar difference in reading text versus listening to someone speaking the text.
|
There are books that I never would have read if I had not listened to the audio book -- the Harry Potter and Millenium series, for example. I'm thinking of getting The Hunger Games series from Audible because I'm not interested in reading the books themselves, but would like to know the story.
Since the overall goal is to hear the words the way the author has assembled them, I don't see a difference between using either my voice in my head or someone else's. I am getting the same story in the end (and maybe slightly more of the story since I am not able to skim over any bits when I'm listening rather than reading.)
Having read abridged books before I even knew that such a thing existed, I think they are just as much a book as any other one is but that they should *not* be considered the same book as the original.
I haven't listened to any abridged audio, because I had sworn off abridged books long before I began listening to them, but I don't think any of us are in a position to tell anyone else that they can not include an abridged book in their lists. I would recommend noting that versions are abridged when including them on lists, but I would not say they could not be included. (My own list specifies when a book is an audio version.)
Thanks for taking this on, Nyssa! I look forward to seeing how we all do next year.
