On Audiobooks
I've heard a lot of talk over the past few days (from blogs and acquaintances) about the use of audiobooks and/or podcasting, so I thought I'd provide my personal take. Now, before I start on the bad, let me briefly mention the good, just so no one accuses me of having neglected the positives. During the school year, I work part time doing data entry. Basically, you're sitting in front of the computer for eight hours, so if you're a reader, you've got precious little time to do so, save for breaks. Thanks to audiobooks, though, a number of my co-workers are able to catch up on reading while at work. That's the good.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop me from hating audiobooks. Besides the fact that I find them terrible to listen to, I have a more fundamental issue to mention. Basically, it has to do with one of the basic points of literature, in general. One of the great things about literature (whether it be prose or poetry) is that its really plays with language. Literature loves irony. To my mind, one of the defining characteristics of a literary experience is that it need not be the same for everyone. Books can me different things to different people.
Anyhow, here's my point - to take a page from Marshall "The Medium is the message" McLuhan - the meaning of a text is changed depending on the medium by which it is transmitted. Think of the way you read - you visualize certain characters in a specific way, you can imagine their tone of voice during dialogue. Even when reading certain sentences, you can stress or unstress certain words, supplying meaning in the way that resonates most with you. To that end, reading is a performance that comes from yourself.
Audiobooks, on the other hand, necessarily cut you out of this process, because someone is giving you their interpretation of the text. They choose how a sentence sounds, they choose the tone of dialogue, etc, etc. This, then, is the root of my problem with audiobooks. When you listen to them, you're never getting the true text - you're missing out on the interactive experience of reading. Instead, you're stuck with getting the book as it sounds to someone else.
Your point of view? Agree? Disagree?
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop me from hating audiobooks. Besides the fact that I find them terrible to listen to, I have a more fundamental issue to mention. Basically, it has to do with one of the basic points of literature, in general. One of the great things about literature (whether it be prose or poetry) is that its really plays with language. Literature loves irony. To my mind, one of the defining characteristics of a literary experience is that it need not be the same for everyone. Books can me different things to different people.
Anyhow, here's my point - to take a page from Marshall "The Medium is the message" McLuhan - the meaning of a text is changed depending on the medium by which it is transmitted. Think of the way you read - you visualize certain characters in a specific way, you can imagine their tone of voice during dialogue. Even when reading certain sentences, you can stress or unstress certain words, supplying meaning in the way that resonates most with you. To that end, reading is a performance that comes from yourself.
Audiobooks, on the other hand, necessarily cut you out of this process, because someone is giving you their interpretation of the text. They choose how a sentence sounds, they choose the tone of dialogue, etc, etc. This, then, is the root of my problem with audiobooks. When you listen to them, you're never getting the true text - you're missing out on the interactive experience of reading. Instead, you're stuck with getting the book as it sounds to someone else.
Your point of view? Agree? Disagree?
19 Comments:
I agree with your points, however sometimes the voices that read the books open things up in a different light, or make me perceive something as I otherwise never would have.
Because I'm reading the Ender's series I'll use this as an example. I read Ender's Game then did the audio for Speaker for the Dead. The reader show Ender in a different light on some aspects and others matched my 'image/perception' of Ender.
If I really love a book chances are I purchase it anyway and read it. By the time I get around to reading it again it becomes my own 'voice' (as in I read it through my eyes and not someone else’s voice).
I know for me I'd never make it through books without audio. When you work 50+ hours, then have after work activities and then try to get to my writing...well I run out of time. I have THREE books started. I've been reading them for months now, cause time is an issue, yet I've been thru 2 1/2 audio books in that time.
I'll give you too I've come across some bad readers but mostly I've enjoyed them.
I prefer reading the old-fashioned way, but if it was audiobooks or no reading at all, I'd take audiobooks.
Personally, I don't have a problem with audiobooks so long as I don't expect them to be directly comparable to the "real thing", i.e. reading for myself.
The only problem I have with audiobooks is the narrators themselves. Some people's voices just grate my ears, and spending time listening to these people read an entire book might drive me mad.
I disagree with the "missing the true text" point, as I don't think that anyone's personal reading of the text is more objectively "true" than the other, merely more personal. Audiobooks can even be a more authentic experience in certain respects: there are a few excellent british audibook narrators who can reinvogarate a lot of Dickens' works for me, because of their firmer grasp on the accents, the inflections and merely from more familiarity with the work.
And before we acquired stories by reading, it was orally conveyed, so if I wanted to be truly "old-fashioned" this would be the way to go.
It's certainly true that some novels and poems were pointedly made for being read (e.e. cummings as an obvious example) but I don't believe that it's all so very basic. Story-telling has always evolved and we may simply be returning to its roots.
i agree wholeheartedly with your argument.
Here is a question though, that I have thought about.
What about those audio books that are read by the author? You are getting the text exactly as he/she envisioned it.
it still robs the listener of interpreting the text, so it's still bad. I think. Great post!
I am sharing the views of Jennifer on this subject.
I am an author and a performance poet.I like reading and rectals of my poems and I also record them. But, I love to see them bound in hard copies as books and not as CDs of DVDs.
Books will always be books.
I must say that I haven't ever listened to audiobooks, yet, and one of the reasons was what you just mentioned - at the end of the day audiobooks isn't literature, but an interpretive medium. Just like I'd rather read a book before watching the film.
I am still going to try it though to decide for myself.
Good points everybody. Let me make one statement that I didn't really make clear in my argument. Audiobooks, as a supplement to the book, are extraordinary - as Arethusa puts it, they can do much to "reinvigorate" a book. Or, as Jennifer says, they can simply offer a differing perspective. My only problem is having the audiobook as a replacement for the text.
Arethusa - Great comments, in particular. "true" text, I think, was poor wording on my part. You have it right in asserting that different readings are merely more personal. But that personal experience is something I find rather important in literature. On the orality of literature, you may be right. Maybe audio is truly the rebirth of a genuine literary format - but that's another post for another day.
Lisa - You've given the same answer I would've given. Something I learned in a very good critical theory course is that, in all works, there is going on than what the author intended.
I agree completely. Especially where you wrote, "To that end, reading is a performance that comes from yourself."
I might listen to an audiobook/audioplay if it was something I was already familiar with (I love "Thank You, Jeeves" with Simon Templeman). But if it's for a first go, I'd definitely prefer to read it.
I wouldn't argue against someone personally "experiencing" a book for themselves and I wouldn't advocate paperbooks over audio or vice versa. We live in a world where we can have both, why not enjoy it? I just think that the general preference for written word over aural is mostly due to conditioning than any overwhelming advantage of either.
Unless of course anyone here is willing to say that Homer and all that Greek, Norse, Finnish etc. mythology on which 99% of every SF/Fantasy book is based on were just "interpretive stories" and it took Robert Jordan to make it "literature".
Arethusa - I don't disagree. In fact, if oral storytelling were still the norm, you can bet that's what I'd be advocating. For the same reasons, I'd rather watch a play than read the script; I'd rather read the book than watch a film adaptation of it; I'd rather watch a movie than read a prose adaptation of it.
My point is, I suppose, that a story is best experienced in its original format. Everything else should be supplementary.
A good narrator can really add an extra level to the experience. I enjoy listening to audiobooks at work when I need my hands and eyes for other things, but I also still enjoy 'reading' as well.
The two are different experiences, but I don't think I prefer one over the other. And audiobooks are ideal for busy people.
Good Post.
I started listening to Audiobooks for much the same reasons that a lot of busy adults do...I can't just sit and read during the day, I'm too busy. I work only a few days a week, but I drive 40 minutes each way, so this is an excellent way to make this "quality time."
I have since learned to appreciate that certain "readers" just MAKE the story. Case in point, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as read by Rob Inglis. I didn't read these as a kid, for whatever reason, and as an adult, I just never could seem to take the time. I started listening to them, beginning with the Hobbit, and they just became magic. He is truly gifted. I never would have made the time to read them!
Also, the audiobooks help me to stick with a book that I ordinarily would have put down during a dull spell, then never picked up again. Case in point...The Lord of the Rings trilogy!! Cmon fans...you have to admit that he DID go on..and on and on in certain places. Anyway, that's my view, like it or lump it :) BTW, I hit this blog a lot during BE and find it very interesting!
My problem with audiobooks is that I'm unable to concentrate enough on them at work for me to remember anything I've heard. However they work well in the car--driving is habitual, so I can pay attention to something else. Yeah, that crazy driver swerving off the road this evening was me. ;)
I don't understand most things mentioned here.. But there's one thing I know:
When I first watched Le Petit Prince on TV, the magic was gone.. They got the sound of his voice wrong!
:-)
I love audiobooks. But like a movie does not always reflect book, audiobooks can also be different.
I believe that both have their place, but I do prefer reading. From a poetry perspective, there is a drive to performance and I have often been asked what the poem means, what was I feeling, etc. I believe we experience words on the basis of our own experience and, therefore, the role of - in this case, the poet - is not to TELL the audience what to feel, hear, believe.
Audio tends to influence that experience, while written allows the reader more control over how to interpret.
Don't know if that makes sense, but yeah.
I was all set to totally agree with you cavan. But then I read all the comments here and there are some very good points made in favor of audiobooks, or at least the 'well performed' ones. I may have to give them another try. I was going to write about how being legally blind, one would thing I would have an easier time with listening than continuously straining my eyes, but I did not have good experiences with books on tape. For me there is something about the shapes of the words on the page that emote more of the depths of their meaning(s) than any speaking versions of them. I found myself so intent on attempting to visualize the words as I am attempting to listen that I am unable to also visualize the action and landscape of the story at the same time. Thus the essential dream induced by a good story is full of static. But now my head is full of whereases and wherefores and if-then-and/or buts that even a legislative lawyer's head would spin trying to make sense of it. Must be good material for a post or two in this. Someday. Thanx for making me think you all, especially for making me re-think. The librarians are always reminding me of thier fine selection of audio books but to date I've kept wrinking my nose at the thought. I think I will try some poetry and plays.
I don't think that's quite what McLuhan meant by the Medium is the Message; I always took that to mean that since the content of a new medium is the preceeding medium (oral tradition > books > movies > TV), then it wasn't the content (message) that delivered the profound impact, it was the medium.
That said, McLuhan would probably have agreed with your point about audio books by characterizing them as a "hot" medium (no room for the audient to bring any sensory input into the receipt thereof) as opposed to movable type, which is a "cool" medium.
Post a Comment
<< Home