Sep212009
Have you read a book if you’ve listened to the audio version?
Filed under General by david brooks at 8:35 am
When somebody asks you if you’ve read a certain book, and you’ve only listened to it in audio version, what do you say? “Yes?” “Yes with an asterisk”? “No, but I’ve heard it”? “No”?
I’m wondering about this because I am listening to the last of the 20 novels by Patrick O’Brian about British naval life during the Napoleonic wars, which are sometimes known as the Aubrey-Maturin series after the two main characters. (One of them was made into the movie “Master and Commander.”) I’ve been taking the audio books in order - on casette, because analog rules! - from the local library for more than a year, filling up my commute.
They’re quite good, but I believe they’re made much much better by the reader, a British actor named Patrick Tull.I don’t think I would have enjoyed them as much reading them, nor would have worked my way through the whole series.
So the question is, have I read them? Part of me thinks No - that what happens in your head when you read words with your eyes is too different than when you listen to it. Further, I was doing something else (driving) while listening, whereas when reading the only other thing I do is eat, which requires far less mental processing power. The whole experience is radically different - so different that it shouldn’t be called reading.
On the other hand, I know all about the books and can chat about them and recommend them, which is what people generally care about when they ask if you’ve read something. I know the stories, the characters, the dialogue; how is that different than reading it?
Any thoughts?
September 21st, 2009 at 7:58 am
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.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:32 am
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.
September 21st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
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.
September 21st, 2009 at 4:09 pm
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.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:41 am
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?
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I'm not sure. But I do know that the skill of the reader is vital to making the results good or bad - which is one of the reasons why audiobooks are so different than print books. It's not just the book you're absorbing, it's the performance
September 24th, 2009 at 5:38 am
[...] of the Nashua Telegraph — a fan of the Igs and an all-around good guy — has a good question on his blog: have you read a book if you’ve listened to the audio version? When somebody [...]
September 24th, 2009 at 8:12 am
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.”
September 24th, 2009 at 10:42 am
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