What is a "Book" now?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Luffy

As long as the word e-book is in usage, the term 'book' will have a limited, and as you say it, outdated definition. Same goes for audiobook. In fact, 'audiobook' is very far from being accepted as a 'book' compared to 'e-book'.

Audio books (in a sense) predate books as we know them. At one time that was the only way any book was passed on. Homer's books were meant for reading aloud for example. Plus of course many people weren't literate back then but everyone could understand the spoken word (in their own tongue at least). And some books (i.e. the Bible for example) were passed on that way for generations before anyone wrote them down. That's also the reason for some old rhymes we still have with us like "30 days hath September.." Many couldn't read, or afford the books if they could prior to Gutenberg's press so knowledge was memorized from hearing someone speak it.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by crich70

Audio books (in a sense) predate books as we know them. At one time that was the only way any book was passed on. Homer's books were meant for reading aloud for example. Plus of course many people weren't literate back then but everyone could understand the spoken word (in their own tongue at least). And some books (i.e. the Bible for example) were passed on that way for generations before anyone wrote them down. That's also the reason for some old rhymes we still have with us like "30 days hath September.." Many couldn't read, or afford the books if they could prior to Gutenberg's press so knowledge was memorized from hearing someone speak it.

Now that situation is turned on its head. Audiobooks are now an offshoot from books. The audiobooks from our times are recited, not by heart, but from the book version. That's the difference, and that's why, currently, the definition of a book does not include audiobooks.

[QuantumIguana]

I'll go with Merriam-Webster definition 1c: c : a long written or printed literary composition.

If someone holds up a book and asks "have you read this book?" I'd say the answer is 'yes' whether you read it in paper or e-book format.

[barryem]

I'm not sure that it's fair to say that audiobooks are like books passed on orally like those of Homer. Those must have constantly changed and evolved over time. Even written books did that before the printing press. Dr. Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" is all about how that happened in the New Testament. As it was being copied by hand before the printing press more and more things were added and changed.

If that happens with books copied by hand on paper it certainly happens with books passed on orally.

Audiobooks, however, are the book pretty much as it was written. They do take out a lot of the "he said" and "she said", etc. because they're clumsy when read aloud and voice changes can do that better. But that's a natural change. They rarely change or omit or add anything substantial, except in the case of abridged books, which I don't really count.

And just like a printed book, an audiobook is fixed. You can pass it on through generations and it won't change.

I think the question of whether ebooks and audiobooks are really books is too silly to take seriously. Of course the presentation and the format might have some effect but so does the size and paper and cover of a printed book. They're books.

I think I might make an exception for that when there's more than one reader, each reading a different character. I've listened to a few of those and somehow they don't feel like a book to me. I'm not sure I'd argue that they're not but I'm not sure I'd argue that they are either.

Barry

[crich70]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'm not sure that it's fair to say that audiobooks are like books passed on orally like those of Homer. Those must have constantly changed and evolved over time. Even written books did that before the printing press. Dr. Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" is all about how that happened in the New Testament. As it was being copied by hand before the printing press more and more things were added and changed.

If that happens with books copied by hand on paper it certainly happens with books passed on orally.

Audiobooks, however, are the book pretty much as it was written. They do take out a lot of the "he said" and "she said", etc. because they're clumsy when read aloud and voice changes can do that better. But that's a natural change. They rarely change or omit or add anything substantial, except in the case of abridged books, which I don't really count.

And just like a printed book, an audiobook is fixed. You can pass it on through generations and it won't change.

I think the question of whether ebooks and audiobooks are really books is too silly to take seriously. Of course the presentation and the format might have some effect but so does the size and paper and cover of a printed book. They're books.

I think I might make an exception for that when there's more than one reader, each reading a different character. I've listened to a few of those and somehow they don't feel like a book to me. I'm not sure I'd argue that they're not but I'm not sure I'd argue that they are either.

Barry

Actually even audio books (in the sense of on tape or CD) change depending on edition. There are the abridged editions of books after all.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'm not sure that it's fair to say that audiobooks are like books passed on orally like those of Homer. Those must have constantly changed and evolved over time. Even written books did that before the printing press. Dr. Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" is all about how that happened in the New Testament. As it was being copied by hand before the printing press more and more things were added and changed.

Barry

You said it better than I ever could. The New Testament is a glaring example of the tradition that you mentioned.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by crich70

Homer's books were meant for reading aloud for example.

No, they weren't. The works ascribed to the traditional poets like Homer and Hesiod weren't written down at all. They were oral works performed from memory by professional performers called "rhapsodes", who accompanied themselves with a musical instrument such as a lyre (a small harp). Although the basic story was fixed, each rhapsode would improvise and modify the story "on the fly" during their performance. Rhapsodes were the "rock stars" of their day, and large prizes were awarded to the winners of rhapsodic competitions in all the Ancient Greek city-states. It wasn't until much, much later in history - centuries after the initial composition of these works - that they were written down and thus became fixed in form.

[darryl]

Harry is of course correct. Which of course leads to one necessary characteristic of a book. Until the work is embodied in some form, be it printed book, ebook, audiobook, word processing document or the like, there is no book. I would also include audiobook files, records, cassette recordings etc. But at its essence a book is I think the combination of a literary work and its "container".

[QuantumIguana]

We have made a distinction between book as the medium and books as the content for ages. It's just that we haven't had alternative formats for reading. If I say "There are copies of Don Quixote on the shelf", I am talking about the medium, rather than the content. If I ask "Have you read Don Quixote?" I'm talking about the content rather than the format. If we say that "book" only refers to the format, then we must dispense with the idea "Don Quixote" is a book. I submit that doing so would be a much greater change in language than is using book to refer to both paper and electronic formats.

[DiapDealer]

The fact is: calling both the content and the medium "books" really confuses no one. If it did, the language would have adapted to it already. I suppose a case could be made for someone trying to learn the English language, but let's face it: this would be a tiny bump in the road for someone charged with that particular task.

All English speakers know whether content or medium is being referred to when the word "book" is used, so why dwell on the semantics?

"Have you read this 'book'?"
"No, but I've recently read one of mine that had the same title."

[induna]

Here are the first two definitions from DRAE:

1. m. Conjunto de muchas hojas de papel u otro material semejante que, encuadernadas, forman un volumen.
2. m. Obra científica, literaria o de cualquier otra índole con extensión suficiente para formar volumen, que puede aparecer impresa o en otro soporte.

These seem reasonable. The first is a physical definition and includes the medium (paper). The second is a functional definition, which is independent of medium.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If someone holds up a book and asks "have you read this book?" I'd say the answer is 'yes' whether you read it in paper or e-book format.

Or you could be a smart-ass and say 'no' because you read a different copy and not *that* particular book

[Cinisajoy]

Perhaps someone could spin this thread into a book.

[Jeremy_Loweryp]

oh really nice search, thanks for sharing

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, they weren't. The works ascribed to the traditional poets like Homer and Hesiod weren't written down at all. They were oral works performed from memory by professional performers called "rhapsodes", who accompanied themselves with a musical instrument such as a lyre (a small harp). Although the basic story was fixed, each rhapsode would improvise and modify the story "on the fly" during their performance. Rhapsodes were the "rock stars" of their day, and large prizes were awarded to the winners of rhapsodic competitions in all the Ancient Greek city-states. It wasn't until much, much later in history - centuries after the initial composition of these works - that they were written down and thus became fixed in form.

You're taking my words too literally Harry. I meant that they were meant to be spoken. I grant you that they weren't written down til long after they were first written/composed etc. Even in the middle ages I understand there were traveling storytellers that would entertain others as many still even then couldn't read, and books were too expensive for most people to acquire even if they had known how to read. The wealthy had characters like King Arthur and the poor had Robin Hood and both hero's adventures were first told via being passed on by word of mouth. They were two of the big action stars of the day much like we today go to see the newest Swartzenegger or Stallone movie.