Listening is the new reading

[rdfry]

some books for me are just better when a good narrator reads them. I find myself listening to some books that i wpuld never read.

[barryem]

That's sometimes true for me. I've read a few books that I enjoyed in earlier times as audiobooks but when reading them on my Kindle they weren't as interesting. A few were even more obtuse, I guess because the narrator of the audiobook had phrased things more gracefully than I do myself while reading.

Some books are better as audiobooks simply because of the quality of the narrator. Jennia Lamia's narration of "The Girl with the Pearl Earring" comes to mind. I'm sure I'd have enjoyed that as a Kindle book but it just wouldn't have been the same at all. She made it magic!

Another good example of this is the abridged narrations of John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee books. I read the print versions years ago. I bought the abridgements on tape and wow! He really brings these very fine books to life. I've read a couple since then on my Kindle and I've listened to the full length versions by another, pretty decent narrator. I think I'll listen to the McGavin abridgements from now on. They're superb. I suspect that even though McGee never dies and even though he's fictional, he was somehow reincarnated as Darrin McGavin.

By the way, I normally won't listen to abridgements. I bought these because they were all that was available at that time. In the early days of audiobooks full length readings were both rare and very expensive. Typically $80 to $120.

Barry

[leebase]

Originally Posted by barryem

. Then if they realize I heard it they won't accuse me of misrepresenting what I'd done. I'm not sure if that's actually happened to me but in forum discussions I have heard other people chastised for that a few times.

Barry

Thanks for illustrating “the problem” IMHO. Adults carrying forward a grammar school mindset that reading a book is an accomplishment....such that listening to the book is cheating.

Folks...you aren’t in grammar school anymore and reading a book isn’t an accomplishment for an adult (under normal circumstances). And it doesn’t <expletive> matter if someone in book club/book forum listened to the audiobook.

Grow up. Be embarrassed at “I got me a trophy” mindset for trivial actions as an adult

[4691mls]

I don't think people in this thread are looking down on listening to books. In fact a number of us have said that we think reading and listening are both legitimate ways of taking in a book. It's just that some of us believe the words reading and listening refer to different methods of taking in content and that the words should not be used interchangeably. I wish we could find a word that could be used to mean "taking in a book in any manner", and then use the words "reading" or "listening" to refer to the specific way in which we did so.

[tubemonkey]

Thanks to this thread, I've realized that I've been doing movies all wrong. I used to say "I saw that movie" or "I'm going to watch that movie". I also listened to it! So from now on, I'm going to say "I saw and heard that movie" or "I'm going watch and listen to that movie". Words have meaning

[issybird]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Thanks to this thread, I've realized that I've been doing movies all wrong. I used to say "I saw that movie" or "I'm going to watch that movie". I also listened to it! So from now on, I'm going to say "I saw and heard that movie" or "I'm going watch and listen to that movie". Words have meaning

Nope, you've still got it wrong. Movies were movies when they were silent, i.e., moving pictures. Once sound was added, they became talkies, a word which clearly needs to be brought back in the interest of precision. So, you would say, "I saw that movie," but "I saw and heard that talkie."

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by issybird

Nope, you've still got it wrong. Movies were movies when they were silent, i.e., moving pictures. Once sound was added, they became talkies, a word which clearly needs to be brought back in the interest of precision. So, you would say, "I saw that movie," but "I saw and heard that talkie."

But silent films had subtitles, so back then it was "I saw and read that movie"

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

But silent films had subtitles, so back then it was "I saw and read that movie"

I do believe they were called films. If you went to the movies, it included a cartoon and a newsreel.
My grandmother was so glad when AMC started doing the silent movies at midnight. She would nap and then get up to watch the films. This was before DVR.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

But silent films had subtitles, so back then it was "I saw and read that movie"

Did they not have a piano player at the front of the jungle cinemas so that one could see and read the movie, and listen to a live piano gig at the same time?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I do believe they were called films. If you went to the movies, it included a cartoon and a newsreel.
My grandmother was so glad when AMC started doing the silent movies at midnight. She would nap and then get up to watch the films. This was before DVR.

I love the old silent comedy films

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

But silent films had subtitles, so back then it was "I saw and read that movie"

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Did they not have a piano player at the front of the jungle cinemas so that one could see and read the movie, and listen to a live piano gig at the same time?

Oh my, so now it's "I saw, read, and listened to that silent film"

Movies are too complicated. I'll stick with reading audiobooks

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by leebase

Folks...you aren’t in grammar school anymore and reading a book isn’t an accomplishment for an adult (under normal circumstances). And it doesn’t <expletive> matter if someone in book club/book forum listened to the audiobook.

Grow up. Be embarrassed at “I got me a trophy” mindset for trivial actions as an adult

Can you point to one - just one - post in this thread, where anyone has said that reading a book is in some way superior to listening to it? I must have missed them.

All I've seen are people expressing an opinion that they prefer to distinguish between the verbs "read" and "listen", not that one is better than the other.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you point to one - just one - post in this thread, where anyone has said that reading a book is in some way superior to listening to it? I must have missed them.

All I've seen are people expressing an opinion that they prefer to distinguish between the verbs "read" and "listen", not that one is better than the other.

I would say for me reading a book would be superior to trying to listen to an audiobook. Note, the reason is some words sound alike to me.
My uncle would have said the opposite. Even before he lost his "good" eye.
The only way one could be superior to a reader would be because of medical problems.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I shall remember that when you come to me cold and hungry.

And tired if I have to get all the way to Texas

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I went to audible, and the tag line is "listening is the new reading." NO IT ISN'T.

I absolutely agree. I have an aquaintence who always tries to transpose his listening for his reading. Oh, I read that last week. No, you listened to it on the way to work. Totally different.