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).
|
No. Listening to a book means you are getting an actor's interpretation of the material. Different actors will emphasize different elements and bring different sensibilities to the material. Using a theater analogy again, seeing a theatrical performance with one actor is different from seeing the same performance with another actor.
Quote:
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.
|
I'm not talking about the environment for purposes of this analogy. I'm talking about the way the performance is force-fed to the viewer in a video. The camera is rarely static during a video of a performance. There will be close-ups and wide shots and camera angles that force the viewer to focus on certain elements. At a live performance, a member of the audience can choose to pay attention to some other element entirely.
It's similar to an audio book wherein the actor interprets the material for the reader, rather than the reader doing the work.
As I said earlier, I don't see any reason that an audio book shouldn't count as a book read for our purposes here. But listening to a book is still different.