Listening is the new reading

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

So, listening to an audiobook for you is more like reading a translation rather than reading the original work? In any translated work you would be getting the interpretation that the translator has placed on the book. I see more room for change with a translator than I do with a faithful audiobook performance. In the audiobook, at least the meanings are all there if not necessarily the exact emphasis I would have given it if I was the one performing it (in my head or otherwise).

Yes, that's a reasonable summary. I'm a big Shakespeare fan, and if you watch a dozen different performances of "Hamlet" , you get a dozen different interpretations, some vastly different from one another, although all are speaking the same text.

[doubleshuffle]

I LOVE this thread. I hope prototype semantics never catches on with the general public, or such enjoyably pointless discussions as this would be a thing of the past.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I LOVE this thread. I hope prototype semantics never catches on with the general public, or such enjoyably pointless discussions as this would be a thing of the past.

It's even worse out in the real world, take the sentence :

This is a ridiculous idea.

Now, this means it's either a very good or very bad idea and there is no way to tell which (short of prolonged exposure to the person speaking)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

It's even worse out in the real world, take the sentence :

This is a ridiculous idea.

Now, this means it's either a very good or very bad idea and there is no way to tell which (short of prolonged exposure to the person speaking)

I've never heard anyone use the word "ridiculous" to mean "good" (unless it's a phrase like "ridiculously cheap"). Is this the kind of thing that the cool kids do? I was never one of those .

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I LOVE this thread. I hope prototype semantics never catches on with the general public, or such enjoyably pointless discussions as this would be a thing of the past.

Damn, forgot to answer the post.
Technically this is an argument about whether prototype semantics is valid in this case.
To sum up, we seem to have have the following positions :-
a) Prototype semantics says reading can be used for audiobooks even though it is a less accurate usage of the word.
b) Nope, wrong word, and get off my lawn.
c) I have been insulted, have at ye varlet

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've never heard anyone use the word "ridiculous" to mean "good" (unless it's a phrase like "ridiculously cheap"). Is this the kind of thing that the cool kids do? I was never one of those .

Sick is also a synonym of good.

Ashley Banjo pretty much needs an interpreter to talk to anyone older than 40 nowadays.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Damn, forgot to answer the post.
Technically this is an argument about whether prototype semantics is valid in this case.
To sum up, we seem to have have the following positions :-
a) Prototype semantics says reading can be used for audiobooks even though it is a less accurate usage of the word.
b) Nope, wrong word, and get off my lawn.
c) I have been insulted, have at ye varlet

Nice.

But I've always seen prototype semantics as the great peacemaker.

A: Listening is NOT reading.
B: Is!
A: Isn't!
B: Is!!!
Wise Linguist: B, can't you agree that listening to an audiobook is not exactly the prototype of reading?
B: Well, yeah, ok...
WL: And A, can't you agree that listening to an audiobook is much closer to reading than to, say, driving a monster truck?
A: Yeah, I guess so...
WL: So could you live with the idea that B's concept of reading is just a tiny bit wider than A's, so that B's does include listening to an audiobook while A's just doesn't?
All: group hug

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Sick is also a synonym of good.

Ashley Banjo pretty much needs an interpreter to talk to anyone older than 40 nowadays.

What is an Ashley Banjo?
Obvious age showing.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

What is an Ashley Banjo?
Obvious age showing.

Ah, probably UK only, won Britain's got talent with his dance troupe, became a judge on lots of dance shoes and generally turns up whenever someone 'street' (new word for hip, apparently) is needed.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

WL: And A, can't you agree that listening to an audiobook is much closer to reading than to, say, driving a monster truck?

Given how this thread is going you may regret putting in a question like this

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nobody in this thread has demeaned audiobooks, Barry. All anyone's questioned is whether or not it's reasonable to say that you've read a book yourself when what you've actually done is listened to someone else read it. Some people are happy with that usage, some not. It's a personal choice.

I wasn't talking about this thread in particular but there have been discussions about this in forums and on blogs since there were forums and blogs and audiobooks. Maybe "demean" is the wrong word. Maybe not. Saying that listening isn't included in reading is at least pretty close to demeaning if you love reading.

Anyway the point of my post was wondering where this comes from and speculating on a possible source.

As I write this it occurs to me that when there's a discussion like "are audiobooks reading?" there are a lot of opinions on both sides of that argument. When there's a discussion of a book and some of the people discussing it have read it and others have listened to it and everyone involved is aware of that, the differences don't seem to matter to the participants.

I don't think there's any way to really answer the question of whether listening is reading. It's like the discussions about which word processor or text editor is best. Or which ereader is best. Those are all pretty much fact-free discussions. They're exchanges of opinions and prejudices. I have my own opinions and prejudices on the topics. I don't think I've ever encountered anything that sounded like an answer.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

We aren't saying it's not REALLY reading, we are saying it's not reading.

In the same way swimming is not walking, it's not better or worse, just different.\

Good analogy. So if I walk to MacDonalds and you swim there and we each order the same thing, which of us gets the better burger?

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason I choose not to use it myself is that I see reading as an “active” activity, but listening as a “passive” one. It’s the same difference, to my mind, that exists between playing a musical instrument yourself, and listening to someone else play one. As a listener, you are simply a consumer of someone else’s performance, whether that performance be the musician playing the instrument, or the narrator reading the book. When you read a book or play an instrument, on the other hand, you are creating the performance yourself. I regard these as entirely distinct activities.

Aren't you a consumer with a printed book as well? I think the author is more like the musician than the reader or listener.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We must agree to differ. I, for example, have both the UK version of the “Harry Potter” audiobooks, which are narrated by Stephen Fry, and the US version, narrated by Jim Dale. Same books, but two very different performances. I use that word deliberately; I think an audiobook narration by a good narrator is very much a performance, and I, as the listener, get my experience of the book filtered through the interpretation that the performer has placed on it. When I read the book myself, on the other hand, all the interpretation is my own; there’s no intermediary.

I didn't read those books but at the time the first one was published I was participating in the Audio Publisher's Association's forum and there were always discussions of the differences in American and British versions of books. I think this is true for print books as well as audiobooks but I'm not really sure. In any case much is changed for the different audience.

Also be aware that even with unabridged books they're not the same, word for word. A lot of things are left out to make the reading flow more smoothly. Such things as "he said" and so forth. These aren't important changes that can affect meaning. They're changes that are needed in the different mediums. But the point is that they're not really identical.

The participants in this forum were listeners and publishers and narrators and there was a lot of detailed discussion about the various issues and problems they encountered in converting a printed work to an audiobook.

Barry

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by barryem

Also be aware that even with unabridged books they're not the same, word for word. A lot of things are left out to make the reading flow more smoothly. Such things as "he said" and so forth. These aren't important changes that can affect meaning. They're changes that are needed in the different mediums. But the point is that they're not really identical.

The participants in this forum were listeners and publishers and narrators and there was a lot of detailed discussion about the various issues and problems they encountered in converting a printed work to an audiobook.

Barry

I can see where you'd leave things out if the audiobook is done as a performance, but not if it's a simple reading. I'd think a reading would use all the words, wouldn't it?

I'd love to hear about some of the "tricks of the trade" in recording books.