Question of the Week
I finally picked up a copy of Al Gore’s new opus The Assault on Reason, and I’m looking forward to devouring every word. I chose to get the unabridged audio version on 9 CDs, which I will import into my iTunes library and listen to on my iPod heading back and forth to work over the course of about a week or two.
So my question is why the fact that I’m listening to the audiobook on the subway rather than reading the hardcover version at home in my easy chair should elicit snickers everywhere I go, as though I’m somehow cheating or that I shouldn’t get credit for “reading” the book.
First of all, let’s clear this up right now. I’m not in school. I don’t need credit for reading the book. I’m genuinely interested in what the man has to say, and if I can do that more efficiently through my headphones, I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with that.
It’s an issue familiar to any Shakespeare teacher. But is this really the equivalent of renting the movie when you have a book report due? Is it different if you’re watching a full-text version of a Shakespeare play (like the BBC versions) instead of reading it? What if you’re reading a comic book version of Shakespeare in the original language? What if you get together with a group of friends and read the complete text out loud? Does a spoonful of sugar necessarily ruin the gas tank?
Personally, I like to read. And these days I usually have one book running on my iPod while another is sitting on my night table. But with my schedule so crazy around this time of year, it’s usually the same book sitting on my night table for a while (I still haven’t finished The Blank Slate) while I’m able to burn my way through many more audiobooks on a variety of topics. I don’t feel that I’m missing anything by experiencing them this way, and as an auditory learner, it might even be a better way for me.
So why do audiobooks get such a bad rap?
June 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Because you can play solitare while you listen to a book, but you can’t if you’re reading. Reading implies a full engagement that you don’t need if you listening to a book on tape. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against books on tape, but you can’t get the credit associated with reading a big book. Enough with Bill’s blog, I’ve got to go back to work.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
That’s like saying that you can listen to the game while reading a book.
But you really can’t do both at the same time. If you’re listening to the game, you’re not reading the book.
I can’t play solitaire while listening to a book. If I’m listening to a book, that’s all I can focus on. That’s why I do it during my commute. If I’m doing something that requires my attention, I listen to music.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I guess the question is really, what is lost/gained from “reading” a text versus having it read to you.
You reading a text puts you in the driver’s seat; it allows you full control over how you interpret what the author is trying to convey.
Having the text read to you by an actor or narrator limits your interpretation by that actor’s reading of what the text is conveying-up to where he/she stresses which words in the sentence need to be accentuated for whatever affect they want or believe is needed. It frees you up (although that’s debatable too) be able to walk up and down stairs to tranfer from subway trains, but the text is not your own full interpretation. If you’re on the subway actually reading the book, you may have to put it down to get on or off the train, but you maintain full control over how to interpret the book.
Bottom line it’s about how much control you are willing to give up. I’ve never listened to an audiobook, but it’d be interesting for me to get one from a book I’ve read to see how different the experience would be.