Ages old debate of reading vs. listening to books

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Talking about how you scanned and converted your own physical copies of books to ebooks for your own personal use is perfectly acceptable. Always has been. It's talking about how you (rhet.) shared them online with friends that's taboo.

Personal scanning and converting may have been the "real history" of ebooks, but sharing copyrighted books online was the real history of ebook piracy. That it may have felt like a labor of love to you (rhet.) is immaterial to that fact. The golden - "Before We Were Called Pirates" - age of online ebook-sharing that some like to harken back to with a sense of nostalgia is a myth. You (rhet.) were always pirates if you made them available on (or downloaded them from) whatever they called your corner of the internet back in your glory years.

That's not a myth at all. Compuserve had very strict rules against piracy which they enforced strenuously and they also provided space for sharing of scanned books. I was there. I saw it. It was real. In fact this was in the HP forum (owned by HP) which also did not allow piracy but encouraged sharing books.

In the early days of the Palm Pilot there were no commercial ways to get books so people scanned and shared and, I suspect, their popularity gave publishers the idea that there might be a real market there.

What about the monks who, for generations, copied the bible? Were they pirates? Is their guilt lessened by the fact that there were no copyright laws? I'm not sure the first ebook scanners were breaking any laws either.

This is how ebooks began. Ignoring history, pretending it didn't happen, isn't a morally superior position.

I am not advocating piracy. I buy my books and have since they've been available to buy. I think we shouldn't advocate piracy in forums like this or anywhere else. I just don't think we're right to pretend the past didn't happen. There was a Holocaust.

Barry

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by barryem

What about the monks who, for generations, copied the bible? Were they pirates?

No.

Originally Posted by barryem

Is their guilt lessened by the fact that there were no copyright laws?

Yes. In fact ... the fact that there were no copyright laws means there was no guilt. Surely you're not comparing you and your compatriots' past actions to monks illuminating bibles?

Originally Posted by barryem

This is how ebooks began. Ignoring history, pretending it didn't happen, isn't a morally superior position

Nobody's ignoring or denying anything. We're merely saying you can't wax fondly about the days when your copyright violations were overlooked because very few people even knew you were doing it. Pretending you were doing the world a favor, or creating the ebook market is ludicrous.

Stop talking about it. And specifically ... stop talking about it in this thread. It's not relevant at all to the topic.

[DiapDealer]

Moderator Notice
A post was deleted. Any further off-topic discussions of piracy (or the definitions of piracy) in this thread will be deleted as well. I've been guilty of the derailment as well, but it's time to get back on topic.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

So what was interesting to me in the article is that it cites interpretation as a positive, as in the quote from Romeo and Juliet. Fair enough in that instance and I even agree that there are books where I prefer audio because the narration/interpretation is so entertaining. It doesn't bother me that I'm listening to an interpretation; I don't find that objectively a bad thing. But I must note that I don't find narrators entirely reliable, either. I'd never, ever trust a narrator's pronunciation, for example; I've heard far too many howlers. For me, pronunciation issues are the single major drawback to audiobooks. One will take me right out of the story for a bit; many will ruin a book. QC needs to be much better in that respect.

The article's use of Romeo and Juliet to make the point is at least a little strange, given that it's a play and meant to be performed, not read.

Interpretation by narrators is perhaps more significant the older the work and more unfamiliar the language used. For most modern novels, I don't think the narrator is imposing an interpretation that's any different from what a reader sitting down with the text is getting.

Mispronunciations are annoying and disruptive, but so are typos.

[leebase]

The narrator(s) do add an extra dimension to an audio book. However, it's one that would speak to preference, not distinguish between "are you doing something superior by reading a book than listening to it". I think by now, that's been put to bed. There is no intellectual superiority to be had reading a book verses listening.

As for Romeo and Juliet -- I'd say reading the play is not nearly as good as experiencing it in live theatre. But maybe your live theatre group is terrible.

Then again, live theatre won't help you dissect Shakespeare as much as reading it for yourself...and taking notes...and having a bibliography yadda yadda.

When I listened to a lightly dramatized version of the bible (nothing but the actual words of the bible, but different voice actors and occasional "scenery sounds"). The fact that I didn't like some of the choices for the voice actors simply gave me another angle on interpretation. Why didn't I like their moses actor?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Mispronunciations are annoying and disruptive, but so are typos.

Well, sure, and I have the same reaction; the odd typo annoys and persistent typos would ruin a book. But the cold reality is that I run across almost no typos in the books I read, while mispronunciations are rampant in audiobooks, especially in non-fiction.

[barryem]

I participated in the Audio Publishers Association forum for about a decade till they shut it down and there was a lot of discussion among the participating narrators about pronunciation. It seems that "correct" pronunciation can be pretty problematic.

A good example is the state I now live in, Arkansas. It's pronounced Arkansaw by nearly everyone but the Arkansas river has the final "s" pronounced.

The word "rodeo" in Texas, where we should know better, is always pronounced with the accent on the "o" but it's a Spanish word and the accent should be on the "e". People outside of Texas usually pronounce it in the Spanish style.

I'm trying to remember other examples but that forum was shut down years ago and I don't really remember the words we discussed. Place names are especially problematic since they're often pronounced differently in various places.

That's true of other words as well. What's the old song about "tomato" with a long "a" or a short "a"?

I do know that, at least back then, narrators put a lot of effort into getting pronunciation right and they were embarrassed when they blew it. I have no real way of knowing if that's still true.

It's the rare ebook that doesn't have at least one misspelled word and many have a lot more. I'm currently reading Edna Ferber's "Showboat" and it's full of them and a lot of them are misspelled over and over. Most of the misspellings are clumsy and I doubt they're intentional although I really don't know that.

Barry

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by barryem

I was pretty active on BBS systems in the 70's and 80's but I don't recall any books there. Maybe they were there and I didn't notice them. I don't think they can have been discussed much or I'm sure I would have noticed them.

[edit] I just realized this sounds skeptical. It's not. I was surprised by your comments about books on BBS and I was expressing that surprise. I don't doubt you at all.

Barry

I remember a few of them coming through on my BBS in the early years. A couple of years later I dropped allowing user files being transferred through my system due to issues with too many people wanting to trade copies of games. Not all that many systems allowed user to exchange files and I was kind of sad to drop them. Alas, Frog Hollow, I remember you well.

Anyhow, time to let this discussion go to the great bit bucket in the sky.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by issybird

Well, sure, and I have the same reaction; the odd typo annoys and persistent typos would ruin a book. But the cold reality is that I run across almost no typos in the books I read, while mispronunciations are rampant in audiobooks, especially in non-fiction.

One of the most annoying I've encountered recently was a narrator who pronounced "Maori" as "Ma-OR-ri". What kind of an idiot doesn't know how "Maori" is pronounced?

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One of the most annoying I've encountered recently was a narrator who pronounced "Maori" as "Ma-OR-ri". What kind of an idiot doesn't know how "Maori" is pronounced?

Raises hand.

Originally Posted by HarryT

One of the most annoying I've encountered recently was a narrator who pronounced "Maori" as "Ma-OR-ri". What kind of an idiot doesn't know how "Maori" is pronounced?

The pronunciation that irks you so much is not far off the accepted standard here, where Te Reo Māori (the macron matters) is an official language. Correct pronunciation of Māori words, including the word Māori, is becoming increasingly important here in Aotearoa. There are also regional variations in pronunciation, several of which do sound very much like Maa-OR-ri.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by stuartjmz

The pronunciation that irks you so much is not far off the accepted standard here, where Te Reo Māori (the macron matters) is an official language. Correct pronunciation of Māori words, including the word Māori, is becoming increasingly important here in Aotearoa. There are also regional variations in pronunciation, several of which do sound very much like Maa-OR-ri.

The standard British pronunciation is "Mow-ri", with "Mow" rhyming with "How", and that's the standard I'd expect a British narrator to use, regardless of how its indigenous speakers pronounce it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

The standard British pronunciation is "Mow-ri", with "Mow" rhyming with "How", and that's the standard I'd expect a British narrator to use, regardless of how its indigenous speakers pronounce it.

The fact that a narrator pronounces the word differently to the way you do does not make them an "idiot". Especially when the pronunciation they use is well-supported in both Māori and English. Your derisive, pejorative question would likely be asked of you by many.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by stuartjmz

The fact that a narrator pronounces the word differently to the way you do does not make them an "idiot".

My opinion is that it does, when the word in question is a common word with a completely standard British pronunciation. You are of course welcome to have an opinion which differs from mine .

Originally Posted by HarryT

My opinion is that it does, when the word in question is a common word with a completely standard British pronunciation. You are of course welcome to have an opinion which differs from mine .

My opinion is that I ought not have wasted my time engaging with someone who resorts to ill-informed ad hominem slurs.