Article on Readers Versus "Book People"

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Luffy

Reading might be better than watching TV for some who don't believe that Sturgeon's Law doesn't apply equally to both media.

If Sturgeon's Law is to be believed, 90% of a book is crap and 90% of a TV show or movie is crap. You can even say that 90% of Sturgeon's Law is crap.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If Sturgeon's Law is to be believed, 90% of a book is crap and 90% of a TV show or movie is crap. You can even say that 90% of Sturgeon's Law is crap.

That was funny. There's something about humor I'd like to mention. For me, there are way more laugh out loud funnier movies than their bookish equal. Readers can only come up with obscure titles that upon reading don't prove to be that good, or there are the usual mentions of Wodehouse or Evelyn Waugh - not my cup of tea. Movies have Airplane!, Dumb and Dumber, Home Alone, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Producers etc which are funnier than books.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Luffy

That was funny. There's something about humor I'd like to mention. For me, there are way more laugh out loud funnier movies than their bookish equal. Readers can only come up with obscure titles that upon reading don't prove to be that good, or there are the usual mentions of Wodehouse or Evelyn Waugh - not my cup of tea. Movies have Airplane!, Dumb and Dumber, Home Alone, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Producers etc which are funnier than books.

Maybe you're reading the wrong books? I've laughed out loud while reading many books. I've also cried while reading books.

Shari

[issybird]

Originally Posted by shalym

Maybe you're reading the wrong books? I've laughed out loud while reading many books. I've also cried while reading books.

Shari

I’d cry if I were watching Bill and Ted’s or Dumb and Dumber. If I didn’t just do away with myself altogether.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by shalym

Maybe you're reading the wrong books? I've laughed out loud while reading many books. I've also cried while reading books.

Shari

Maybe I am. But comedy, like action from books translated to movies, benefits more from the visual aspect. What do you think?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

I’d cry if I were watching Bill and Ted’s or Dumb and Dumber. If I didn’t just do away with myself altogether.

I like the Bill & Ted movies. But Dumb and Dumber, I didn't like.

[Apache]

I also did not like Bill and Ted or Dumb and Dumber. A funny movie for me was Planes, Trains and Automobiles. I was traveling for a living back then and that movie was insane.
Apache

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Apache

I also did not like Bill and Ted or Dumb and Dumber. A funny movie for me was Planes, Trains and Automobiles. I was traveling for a living back then and that movie was insane.
Apache

Have you seen the remake, Due Date? If yes, impressions? I didn't understand the humor of Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Luffy

Maybe I am. But comedy, like action from books translated to movies, benefits more from the visual aspect. What do you think?

I think it depends on the kind of comedy that you like. I've never been a fan of purely physical comedy, and would much rather listen to a comedian, or if watching a movie, I like my comedies to be ones that rely more on actual spoken jokes than on a person falling down or getting hurt in some way.

Shari

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by shalym

I think it depends on the kind of comedy that you like.

Exactly what I came here to share. Slapstick comedy will never translate as well to the written word. And if your comedy thing is wordplay, it will rarely translate as well to the visual medium. The physical setup necessary to pull off Candy and Martin's "Those aren't pillows!" gag on Planes, Trains, and Automobiles make it pointless to try something similar to it in a book.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by kandwo

In poetry, rhythm is very important, as is the interplay of sounds within and between the words. Reading poetry quietly in ones mind makes little sense. In fact, reading poetry makes little sense.

I think you have gone a little too far here. When I read it is as though I am listening to someone speaking. It is as though I "hear" a "voice" in my head.

This means I do not have to hear poetry read aloud although I thoroughly enjoy listening to favourite poems being recited.

[kandwo]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

I think you have gone a little too far here. When I read it is as though I am listening to someone speaking. It is as though I "hear" a "voice" in my head.

This means I do not have to hear poetry read aloud although I thoroughly enjoy listening to favourite poems being recited.

You are the third one to point this out and I get where you are coming from. Of course, I, too, get this voice in my head reading poetry, and I'm not saying that all the sounds are lost. But it's easy to think you're getting it all when you aren't.

Do some comparisons with poems you haven't read before (preferably some lauded classics that you know have some musicality/wordplay/alliteration/whatever to them). Read them quietly using that inner voice and then out loud and see if there's a difference.

Do the same thing if you are writing someone a more elaborate e-mail. Read it through quietly - does it sound good? Read it once aloud as if you were speaking directly to the person - does it sound as good? Do you notice other aspects of your writing doing the latter?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by kandwo

You are the third one to point this out and I get where you are coming from. Of course, I, too, get this voice in my head reading poetry, and I'm not saying that all the sounds are lost. But it's easy to think you're getting it all when you aren't.

Do some comparisons with poems you haven't read before (preferably some lauded classics that you know have some musicality/wordplay/alliteration/whatever to them). Read them quietly using that inner voice and then out loud and see if there's a difference.

Do the same thing if you are writing someone a more elaborate e-mail. Read it through quietly - does it sound good? Read it once aloud as if you were speaking directly to the person - does it sound as good? Do you notice other aspects of your writing doing the latter?

I don't understand. If I read it aloud, it's exactly the same as if I'm reading it, since I create the voice in my head that I hear when I'm reading it silently. I could understand your point if you said to listen to someone else read it aloud, but not having me read it.

I don't know...maybe there's something wrong with me, but if I read it out loud to myself it's going to sound exactly the same to me as if I read it silently to myself. This is why I sometimes send emails to a friend to read before I send them to the recipient. Sometimes what sounds fine to me in an email sounds really...erm..."witchy" to others.

Shari

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by shalym

I don't understand. If I read it aloud, it's exactly the same as if I'm reading it, since I create the voice in my head that I hear when I'm reading it silently. I could understand your point if you said to listen to someone else read it aloud, but not having me read it.

Lucky you.

I know some people have that advantage. Plenty of people need to actually hear poetry and plays. No doubt there might be a continuum. I've not seen any formal research. But I'm aware of both extremes.

I also have to read Scottish dialect out loud and then I understand it as I'm perfectly conversant with spoken Ulster-Scots, but have almost never read it apart from a bit of Burns which is harder. Similarly Chaucer, Elizabethan and early Jacobean (e.g. Shakespeare) varies from nearly comprehensible to almost totally understandable when read out loud, because while the Normans did fix Cween to Queen and Cying to King, more consistent spelling and more like modern English arrives in the 18th C due to dictionaries and an increase in printed fiction.
Though in the mid 19th C. it was still cheaper to see the play in London than buy the book it was based on.

I guess I've maybe only read three plays that are not Shakespeare: ‘She Stoops to Conquer’, ‘A Man for All Seasons’ and a version of the Book of Esther.

[kandwo]

Originally Posted by shalym

I don't understand. If I read it aloud, it's exactly the same as if I'm reading it, since I create the voice in my head that I hear when I'm reading it silently. I could understand your point if you said to listen to someone else read it aloud, but not having me read it.

I don't know...maybe there's something wrong with me, but if I read it out loud to myself it's going to sound exactly the same to me as if I read it silently to myself. This is why I sometimes send emails to a friend to read before I send them to the recipient. Sometimes what sounds fine to me in an email sounds really...erm..."witchy" to others.

Shari

That's interesting! For me the voice is the same, but it just highlight different parts when it's internal/external. Reading quietly (and thus hearing the inner version) emphasizes the meaning more, whereas aspects such as rhythm and sound come to the forefront when read aloud.

Most of my mails sound good enough after I've read them through and "heard" them in my head. But reading them aloud can help me achieve a better flow.