Rude author blasts commentor who complains about typos

[leebase]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

On a related note, over at goodreads, there are members of a monthly "book" club. I've noticed a frightening number of participants don't actually read books ... they listen to them.

Yes, it's an alternative and, no, it's not the same thing as reading.

I suppose one could argue they are equally "consuming" books (as in, getting through the words) but surely books are meant to be read just as plays are generally meant to be experienced in performance.

It FRIGHTENS you? I both read and listen to books. I claim I have read a book when inhale listened to it as well. Hope I didn't just scare you with that sentence

Lee

[speakingtohe]

On a related note, over at goodreads, there are members of a monthly "book" club. I've noticed a frightening number of participants don't actually read books ... they listen to them.

Yes, it's an alternative and, no, it's not the same thing as reading.

I suppose one could argue they are equally "consuming" books (as in, getting through the words) but surely books are meant to be read just as plays are generally meant to be experienced in performance.

Before books there were storytellers and when books became available there were not that many people who could read.

I learned to read by sitting in my grandmothers lap while she read to me.

If people of any age prefer to be read to or enjoy listening to a book while driving or doing a monotonous task it seems like a good thing. I've even read to children and adults without feeling I was damaging their developement.

Some people have a hard time reading on their own and some prefer not too. Some people like to cook and some buy take-out.

Helen

[Andrew H.]

In general, I don't see a lot of difference between listening to an audiobook and reading the same book, and I will occasionally alternate between reading and listening to a chapter.*

I think a *few* books need to be read...but fewer than I would have thought before I started listening to audiobooks regularly.


*I wish there were a way to sync e-books and audiobooks...I have a Kindle; Amazon owns audible; Amazon runs whispersync...they should get off of their [buttocks] and start working on it.

My workaround works okay - before I finish listening to my audiobook, I remember a distinctive word and search for it on my Kindle, then take off reading from that point (it doesn't have to be completely unique). When I read, I have to make sure that I stop reading at the end of a chapter. When I am back to the audiobook, I just skip to that chapter and continue listening.

It's really a pretty cool way of reading.

[SensualPoet]

Originally Posted by leebase

It FRIGHTENS you? I both read and listen to books. I claim I have read a book when inhale listened to it as well. Hope I didn't just scare you with that sentence

There's no need to reposition what I wrote out. There is nothing "wrong" with listening to books -- from a professional reader or your gran. It's an alternative.

But it is not the same experience as actually reading them to yourself. Reading a print book, reading an ebook: if it's the same book, it's the same book experience and the same set of literacy skills exercised to consume it.

I am concerned that a frightening number of participants in a forum dedicated to reading books don't actually read them. Listening skills, and reading comprehension skills, are different.

[shibamistress]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I will add that good authors can use bad spelling and bad grammar judiciously to make a stylistic point. See also the "spiraling into madness" chapters in Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury".

And I will ALSO say, as an Amazon reviewer, that I don't award demerits for errors unless they're just truly distracting. I mean, hey, errors happen. If I can figure out what the author meant, I don't worry about it.

BUT. If you're an author, you don't argue with a reviewer. That's just common sense. Even if the reviewer is wrong, you just ignore it or -- if appropriate -- you say "thank you so much for your review. I will keep your points in mind as I move forward on my next book and I hope it will be more enjoyable for you" or something similar.

Authors who do that, get MORE reviews because it's classy and the reviewer realizes they aren't going to be stalked for eternity if they give anything less than 5-star glowing praise. And I suspect they get more readers because, hey, classy and anybody can make mistakes and maybe the next one is better.

Exactly. On both counts. I'm not an indy author--my books are boring old print--but I don't even read most reviews of my books. If people didn't like it? That's their opinion, and I certainly would never argue with them. And everyone has different taste anyway, so there may be some people who enjoy my work and some who don't. I don't take it personally.

Originally Posted by Xanthe

If an author can't be bothered to spell or punctuate correctly, then I can't be bothered to read his/her work. If they can't be bothered to learn and use their own language intelligibly, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to decipher their meaning. Laziness like that shouldn't be rewarded with either my time or my money.

That's my bottom line.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm also really surprised by how many people seem to think they will get an editor who will just magically fix everything for them. Sure, it happens sometimes. Mostly, though, those people who claim they'll end up with an editor who will fix their poorly written prose for them don't ever sell their work to the big publishing houses in the first place.

It's a HUGE pet peeve of mine though, not only those who can't be bothered to use language correctly, but who don't even read. If you don't read, you're not a writer. It's like someone else said in this thread earlier: it's not writing; it's just typing. I can't even understand why people WOULD write if they didn't have an interest in the written word, and that means reading it too.

As for this guy....well, he's not a writer in my opinion. Just another loudmouth who has found a platform for his spewing of (uninformed) opinions. I'll leave him to it.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

There's no need to reposition what I wrote out. There is nothing "wrong" with listening to books -- from a professional reader or your gran. It's an alternative.

But it is not the same experience as actually reading them to yourself. Reading a print book, reading an ebook: if it's the same book, it's the same book experience and the same set of literacy skills exercised to consume it.

I am concerned that a frightening number of participants in a forum dedicated to reading books don't actually read them. Listening skills, and reading comprehension skills, are different.

What utter hogwash. There is absolutely no difference between reading and listening to a book among adults talking about the books they have "read" on a web forum.

Perhaps were we speaking of children who are still learning to read....ther could be a minor point to be made.

But to be FRIGHTENED that adults talking on a web forum about a book they have read, when they listened instead, is absurd even given the obvious hyperbole.

I read about 40 books a year and listen to 10 or so. I say that I've read 50 books because there is no difference worth mentioning between the two. I comprehend them equally well. But if not, if I did have trouble reading - then it's fantastic that I would still enjoy books via audio books. I would in no way feel inferior talking amongs the "real readers" about those books.

I surely hope your moronic differentiation hasn't scarred sone poor soul who thought they were participating as an equal talking about the books they "read" via an audiobook.

Lee

[mrscoach]

SensualPoet, please try not to sound like a snob. I'm not calling you a name, just pointing out your actions could be considered snobbish. I want to believe you did not mean to sound so condescending. I know I am coming across that way right now, and that is not my intention.

MANY studies have been done on learning, and it has been discovered that some people learn by reading, some by listening, and some by kinesthetic means. Some people just struggle with reading. They CAN read and comprehend, but it isn't enjoyable to them. Should they be denied the same enjoyment you get when you read a book, just because you think they aren't READING?

Schools are even integrating audio books into their curriculum, right next to the actual printed text. They know the stories, and lessons, are more important than the mode of conveyance.

Sorry for seeming to jump on you, but I have a daughter that loves books, just not so much the reading of them because she struggles with the ACT of reading. And she is a straight A college student!

[leebase]

MrsCoach - audiobooks are not just for those who have difficulty reading. They are another terrific way to enjoy books in situations where you can't read - like your morning commute, or while walking the dog, or while doing housework.

It was condescending to look down on folks "reading" via audiobooks period. And I'd hate for to propagate the notion that folks listening to audiobooks do so because they lack the skills to read.

Lee

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

I am concerned that a frightening number of participants in a forum dedicated to reading books don't actually read them. Listening skills, and reading comprehension skills, are different.

They are different, without a doubt.

There is a sizable number of people out there who have a significant learning style. While most people can process visual and auditory information well, some people have distinct difficulties processing one or the other.

I, myself, process information much better when I read it than when I listen to the same information; my sister was my polar opposite growing up in this regard.

When things were read to her (texts, etc), she was able to process them fully, but while she could read the words aloud, she wasn't able to process the information efficiently at all. It wasn't about 'reading the words', it was about processing the information in her brain when it came via that part of her brain vs. her auditory processing paths.

As a rule, when these issues occur, they often fall along gender lines. While most children's bias are gone at an early age, if they do develop a distinct learning style preference, boys often do better visually and girls with auditory information.

People are different. I'd be more bothered by the way many audio books are abridged (changed/shortened) than whether people listen to them or read the actual book. It's the content, not the means of delivery that matters to me. Additionally, some people find time to experience books (whatever way they get the content into their heads) only while doing other things such as driving, exercising, etc, and the audiobooks have a lot of beneftis there.

p.s., My challenge wasn't as pronounced, but has continued to this day; I was able to develop compensatory strategies for dealing with it as I moved through school. Hers turned out to be a severe side effect of some medication she was taking for epilepsy from the age of 6 months on - and on ceasing this medication in her late teens, her processing of visual language completely caught up to he auditory processing; she was luckier than many.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

*I wish there were a way to sync e-books and audiobooks...I have a Kindle; Amazon owns audible; Amazon runs whispersync...they should get off of their [buttocks] and start working on it.

Isn't that what text-to-speech does?

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Sorry for seeming to jump on you, but I have a daughter that loves books, just not so much the reading of them because she struggles with the ACT of reading. And she is a straight A college student!

Reading is a skill that is learned. If she would have read more at an early age she would have been better at it.

Originally Posted by leebase

What utter hogwash. There is absolutely no difference between reading and listening to a book among adults talking about the books they have "read" on a web forum.

So in a decade or so the definition of reading will be extended to listening to somebody else read.

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

As a rule, when these issues occur, they often fall along gender lines. While most children's bias are gone at an early age, if they do develop a distinct learning style preference, boys often do better visually and girls with auditory information.

Isn't that visually as in pictures and not visually as in written words? Since more women than men read.

[Hellmark]

I'm kinda with SensualPoet here. Listening to an ebook is fine and dandy, and I have no problem if you do that (I do it as well from time to time), but it isn't the same as reading. Its just like, if I go see Hamlet performed, I don't claim to have read Hamlet (although for the record, I have actually read Hamlet). Reading is visual, listening is audible.

As far as being "frightened", I think they were just trying to point out the larger than expected amount. It really would have been no different in meaning if they'd said "surprising" or shocking". Would you still have started the debate if one of those words had been used instead?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

There's no need to reposition what I wrote out. There is nothing "wrong" with listening to books -- from a professional reader or your gran. It's an alternative.

But it is not the same experience as actually reading them to yourself. Reading a print book, reading an ebook: if it's the same book, it's the same book experience and the same set of literacy skills exercised to consume it.

I am concerned that a frightening number of participants in a forum dedicated to reading books don't actually read them. Listening skills, and reading comprehension skills, are different.

I agree. Also books are usually not written for being read out aloud. At readings at SF cons author often have rewritten and adapted a short story so that it is suitable to be read out aloud.

[carpetmojo]

In response to the facts relayed in the lead post, and a few others, I simply feel he's a foul-mouthed, ignorant oaf, who can't be bothered to do his craft properly, or even think up an excuse - and seems to have no respect for the people who read his books, or their opinions.
So why should anyone read him, he plainly seems not to care if anyone does.

I have no intention of giving him anymore of my time, and certainly not the respect I normally accord anyone who puts their work before the reading public.

Self-made idiots are forever with us.........

[anamardoll]

Look, it's VERY SIMPLE people. Words and concepts that are conveyed in print are MORE IMPORTANT and MORE SERIOUS than words and concepts that are conveyed audibly.

This is why you will always, ALWAYS, learn more from reading "Twilight" rather than listening to a multi-cast recording of Shakespeare's plays.

I can't believe how many of you don't understand that.

Also, the COLOR of the paper matters. Duh. Everyone knows only doofuses read on green paper. Pink paper is the correct way to absorb the most meaning.

(Also, if your child learns differently than I think they should, then obviously you are a bad parent. I know way more about your child than you do, natch. )

[SensualPoet]

Listening is not reading. There is nothing snobby about that -- it's simply a fact. Listening and reading engage the mind differently; they are different skills.

You can certainly listen to a book and participate in a discussion about the book equally as well as someone who actually read it. It's an equally valid way to consume the book.

I worry about literacy decline across the population and, yes, that's firghtening. This thread has been, in part, about a "writer" who claims no interest in reading and it certainly shows in his disregard for the niceties of spelling and grammar. One example he cited: if he spells London as "Lindon", well, that's the reader's problem if he can't figure out what the author meant.

If your communication skill set devolves to one that is oral based, that's a longer term problem. You cannot learn to write by listening: you need to read.

Fluency in reading -- something that does not come from listening -- is vital to individuals and to society if we are going to remain reasonably civilized. Our public discourse -- including elected officials (federal, state and local) -- is hampered if those elected and those electing cannot read well and do not obtain (or bother with) the skills to communicate clearly and logically. Reading is a cornerstone of informed democracy.