DISQUS

Herb · 3 months ago

Its funny you brought this up today. My wife and I went to the Eastern States Exposition this weekend and on the way by I mentioned that I had "read" this certain book. She immediately corrected me by saying "you mean to listened to the book". We then had a discussion that lasted about 10 miles on the Mass Pike over what was the proper way of announcing that you've read, seen, or read the book. We decided not to agree (typical LOL). But my feeling is you are the only one who knows how you gained knowledge of the book so who cares. Just tell people you "read" the book and leave it at that. Its none of their damn business how you got the contents of the book into your cranium anyway.

janandrea · 3 months ago

I went through Aubrey/Maturin the same way (Patrick Tull is awesome, isn't he?), and then bought the series in hardcover. Because I read very quickly, I never get as much out of paper reading as I do out of audiobooks, particularly in densely literary books like those. I'm currently listening to Jane Austen's canon, and there's no way I could make it through those in paper... although I will probably read them the old-fashioned way when I'm done with the audiobooks. I had no problem reading The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but The Silmarilion definitely needed listening to first. It's not quite the same as reading, but for me, it's usually better.

Rusty · 3 months ago

Yes, this is how I read the Harry Potter series (Jim Dale is a great reader, his voices really brought the characters to life). Thanks for the Aubrey-Maturin tip.

earlerich · 3 months ago

WGBH radio from Boston used to have a half hour reading every day. I listened while laying out circuit boards or designing circuits. I still remember those readings better than most of the books I've read in the usual way. I've checked out a couple of those afterwards from the library to read. I've been a little disappointed that I didn't have the same emotional response to the written page.
Perhaps it's because I read much faster than the audio version. Spoken words have a better chance of being absorbed because it is slower. A good reader can, though inflection and tone, create more colorful pictures in the mind as the story flows along.

I've never used audio books, preferring to listen to current talk radio on PBS. From this discussion, I think I'll try it on my next long drive. Thanks for the tip.

mrwg · 3 months ago

I haven't ever listened to a book... I like quiet on my long drives... but in theory will try it some day.

My question to book listeners who also read is... Do you think "wordier" books go better on tape than "page turners" because relative speed matters?

DaveBrooks · 3 months ago

I'm not sure. But I do know that the skill of the reader is vital to making the results good or bad, and that this skill may even be more important than the structure/level of the writing - which is one of the reasons why audiobooks are so different than print books. It's not merely the book you're absorbing, it's the performance

carrie02144 · 3 months ago

My boyfriend and I have had a similar disagreement. His parents are blind, and he often speaks of them "reading" together in the evenings. But what he means is listening to audio books, not a paper braille book (which they also do, but not as often). My point is that it doesn't matter how you get the content of the book into your head, but as a verb, "reading" is distinctly different than "listening."

TV Shows · 3 months ago

We decided not to agree (typical LOL). But my feeling is you are the only one who knows how you gained knowledge of the book so who cares. Just tell people you "read" the book and leave it at that. Its none of their damn business how you got the contents of the book into your cranium anyway