Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
You can't really call an author narrating his or her own book an intermediary; it's not an additional person getting between the reader and the author.
|
It's not at all uncommon for an author to read their own book as if they didn't really understand what it was all about. It's funny how idiotic some of them sound.
I think the question is whether the narrator affects your perception of a book and I think a good narrator does, usually in a positive way. They add emphasis you may not have considered or make something you read yourself as dry become more interesting. Of course it can work the other way as well.
I'm not sure this has any bearing on whether listening is reading. No-one has argued that they're identical experiences. With a poor narrator I don't think listening is as good a way to enjoy a book as reading. With a good narrator it can be every bit as good and sometimes even better.
I listened years ago to Cyril Cusack read Graham Greene's "Monsignor Quixote" in a kind of casual, offhand sort of manner that gave the book a whole new level of beauty. It seriously improved the book. I had previously read it and liked it but after that I loved it. I understood it far more than I did after reading it.
I do realize that I've just made a little argument against my own position that listening is equivalent to reading. Sometimes it's just better.
Then there's this to consider: if HarryT and others really aren't demeaning listening what does all this matter anyway? I've always taken semantics seriously and always decried the statement that something is just semantics. But that might apply in this case unless listeners are being demeaned.
Barry