Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
So what was interesting to me in the article is that it cites interpretation as a positive, as in the quote from Romeo and Juliet. Fair enough in that instance and I even agree that there are books where I prefer audio because the narration/interpretation is so entertaining. It doesn't bother me that I'm listening to an interpretation; I don't find that objectively a bad thing. But I must note that I don't find narrators entirely reliable, either. I'd never, ever trust a narrator's pronunciation, for example; I've heard far too many howlers. For me, pronunciation issues are the single major drawback to audiobooks. One will take me right out of the story for a bit; many will ruin a book. QC needs to be much better in that respect.
|
The article's use of
Romeo and Juliet to make the point is at least a little strange, given that it's a play and meant to be performed, not read.
Interpretation by narrators is perhaps more significant the older the work and more unfamiliar the language used. For most modern novels, I don't think the narrator is imposing an interpretation that's any different from what a reader sitting down with the text is getting.
Mispronunciations are annoying and disruptive, but so are typos.