Rude author blasts commentor who complains about typos

[Catlady]

I would have more respect for a person who was honestly rude than for one who pretends to be rude to get attention.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I would have more respect for a person who was honestly rude than for one who pretends to be rude to get attention.

I'm with the catlady.

[anamardoll]

Well, at least he's nice now. That's worth something... no? Here, my favorite emoticon:

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This response is pretty harsh.

Completely called for.

Originally Posted by Catlady

One big difference between listening and reading is that reading helps to improve your reading and writing skills.

Who the fluff cares? The context was people who had the audacity to participate on a forum saying they had read books when they only listened to them.

We aren't talking about school. I'm 46, I don't read to be educated, I read to be entertained. I don't need to practice my reading skills or work on my vocabulary.

I'll call out when some snobby twit tries to make folks feel inferior for daring to participate in book-talk when they listened to an audiobook. There is no basis for it....none at all.

Lee

You see how words are spelled and how punctuation is used, how sentences and paragraphs are structured. You can, if so inclined, look up an unfamiliar word and improve your vocabulary. You can linger over a sentence to suss out the meaning, or simply to appreciate its beauty.

Listening is just listening. You get the story, sure. But it's much more passive. I think it's fine to listen to audio books when one is on the move or can't read for some other reason, but I do believe a steady, exclusive diet of audio books would generally not be a good thing.[/QUOTE]

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by leebase

We aren't talking about school. I'm 46, I don't read to be educated, I read to be entertained. I don't need to practice my reading skills or work on my vocabulary.

I'll call out when some snobby twit tries to make folks feel inferior for daring to participate in book-talk when they listened to an audiobook. There is no basis for it....none at all.

Some of us like to think that education is an ongoing process, not something that stops once formal schooling ends.

Maybe in the future you could try to make your points without the insults and extreme defensiveness.

If I were to read Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, would I get the same experience as I do if I listen to a recording of it? Of course not--the speech was written to be spoken aloud. Conversely, a book is written to be read, not performed. Listening and reading are not the same thing.

[speakingtohe]

Books are meant to be enjoyed.
My aunt became legally blind in her late 70's and loves her audio books. Perhaps she should learn braille but at 84 she doesn't feel it will enhance her enjoyment of life.

Many people are dyslexic or suffer from Attention deficit of Fetal alcohol Syndrome. While many can read and write at a functional level it is far from enjoyable for most.

Then there are those who were denied an early education, or reading for pleasure was frowned upon in their youth.

Or people who can read perfectly well but don't want too. No more inferior than those who prefer not to drive, or not to cook, not to do laundry. Listening to an ebook is no more morally wrong than taking a taxi or going to a restaurant or hiring a housekeeper.

And if books were only meant to be 'read' why are authors allowing audiobooks to be produced? Why, in fact, do many of them do the reading for those audiobooks?

In the Canadian North, Storytime in libraries is often attended by adults (elders) who have never learned to read. More than one has told me that they are glad of the opportunity and learn more than they would from television.

I prefer to read a book myself but I don't feel it makes me morally or intellectually superior to anyone. But then I have imperfections of my own.

Helen

[Graham]

Originally Posted by M.L.Stewart

Kindest regards,
ML Stewart (The rude author)

Welcome, ML Stewart. It's good to see you here responding, particularly with such politeness for One So Rude.

Graham

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I would have more respect for a person who was honestly rude than for one who pretends to be rude to get attention.

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm with the catlady.

When I see someone with a bunch of bananas, I pretend to be rude hoping he'll throw them at me.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And if books were only meant to be 'read' why are authors allowing audiobooks to be produced? Why, in fact, do many of them do the reading for those audiobooks?

Probably to earn more money. And most books probably works OK being listened to. The point here is that they probably work better being read if they were not specifically written to be read aloud.

Here was an interesting argument for the experiences being different:

http://readwritenow.wordpress.com/20...ng-and-memory/

(different parts of the brain are activated).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

When I see someone with a bunch of bananas, I pretend to be rude hoping he'll throw them at me.

Monkey see, monkey do.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by leebase

...
We aren't talking about school. I'm 46, I don't read to be educated, I read to be entertained. I don't need to practice my reading skills or work on my vocabulary.
...

Originally Posted by Catlady

Some of us like to think that education is an ongoing process, not something that stops once formal schooling ends.
.....
If I were to read Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, would I get the same experience as I do if I listen to a recording of it? Of course not--the speech was written to be spoken aloud. Conversely, a book is written to be read, not performed. Listening and reading are not the same thing.

I think I'm seeing the core of the difference here.

Thing is there are many types of books and many reasons for reading them. To be entertained, to learn, to escape....

There are also many forms of entertainment and information transfer, reading, dramatic presentation, plays, speeches, allegories, fables, stories, newspaper articles, non-fiction, creative non-fiction and everything in between.

I do tend to take exception a bit when someone says they 'read' a book but actually listened to it. It is a different experience, not necessarily better or worse, but definitely different.

It's a bit like going to a play and then saying you've read Shakespeare.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Books are meant to be enjoyed.
My aunt became legally blind in her late 70's and loves her audio books. Perhaps she should learn braille but at 84 she doesn't feel it will enhance her enjoyment of life.

Many people are dyslexic or suffer from Attention deficit of Fetal alcohol Syndrome. While many can read and write at a functional level it is far from enjoyable for most.

Then there are those who were denied an early education, or reading for pleasure was frowned upon in their youth.

Or people who can read perfectly well but don't want too. No more inferior than those who prefer not to drive, or not to cook, not to do laundry. Listening to an ebook is no more morally wrong than taking a taxi or going to a restaurant or hiring a housekeeper.

And if books were only meant to be 'read' why are authors allowing audiobooks to be produced? Why, in fact, do many of them do the reading for those audiobooks?

In the Canadian North, Storytime in libraries is often attended by adults (elders) who have never learned to read. More than one has told me that they are glad of the opportunity and learn more than they would from television.

I prefer to read a book myself but I don't feel it makes me morally or intellectually superior to anyone. But then I have imperfections of my own.

Helen

Has someone argued that the very existence of audio books is an abomination, or called for the public flogging of those who listen to them? If so, I must have missed it.

Listening to a book is an alternative to reading a book, it is not reading.

If your kid's teacher reads a book aloud to the class, has your child read the book?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Has someone argued that the very existence of audio books is an abomination, or called for the public flogging of those who listen to them? If so, I must have missed it.

Listening to a book is an alternative to reading a book, it is not reading.

If your kid's teacher reads a book aloud to the class, has your child read the book?

Someone *did* imply that adoption of audiobook listening would bring down democracy, and also probably take up dirty dancing.

OK, maybe I made up the last one.

Still, I see this as so much intellectual snobbery. Saying that "you read to learn" implies that one doesn't learn (or doesn't learn as much) from an audiobook. Since learning styles are subjective and vary from person to person, this is a meaningless statement.

The only thing you can say is that YOU don't learn as much from audiobooks. Which would be useful if this were a poll on learning styles.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Someone *did* imply that adoption of audiobook listening would bring down democracy, and also probably take up dirty dancing.

OK, maybe I made up the last one.

Still, I see this as so much intellectual snobbery. Saying that "you read to learn" implies that one doesn't learn (or doesn't learn as much) from an audiobook. Since learning styles are subjective and vary from person to person, this is a meaningless statement.

The only thing you can say is that YOU don't learn as much from audiobooks. Which would be useful if this were a poll on learning styles.

I don't believe I said one reads TO learn. But learning is part of the package when you read.

It's not a matter of learning styles. You don't learn to spell by listening to an audio book. You don't learn punctuation by listening to an audio book. You don't absorb the way sentences and paragraphs are put together by listening to an audio book. You don't learn to write by listening to an audio book, and you don't learn to read by listening to an audio book. What you get from listening is content--the story. Is that all there is to reading? Then perhaps reading a Classics Illustrated comic of Don Quixote is fundamentally the same as reading Cervantes, since both give you the story.

If you want to argue that some people learn "stuff" by hearing it, and others learn "stuff" by reading it, fine, but that's a completely different issue.

It's not a matter of snobbery. I'm just saying that listening and reading are not equivalent, and it baffles me that anyone is arguing that they are.

Come to think of it, a complete reliance on audio books probably would indeed undermine civilization.

Now I really should leave this discussion and go back to listening to the dreary doings of Jane Eyre on my mp3 player.

[anamardoll]

I don't think anyone is saying that they are equivalent; I am arguing that neither listening or reading is objectively superior (either per book or in general).

Since -- I think -- you are saying the same thing, I agree.

Although I wouldn't knock the Great Illustrated Classics. I actually think some of their versions of the classics are (subjectively) better.