Jonathan and I had this debate last night and I thought I would take it to everyone else and see what their opinions are on this topic.
I think books on cd are a wonderful thing. However, I don’t feel that listening to a book on cd is the same thing as reading a book. They are two different senses: aural and visual. You can’t say you’ve read a book just because you listened to the book on cd.
I feel that when you actually read a book you interact more with the text. You have the ability to make notes in the margins or stop reading to mull over a sentence you’ve just read that might have struck a chord with you. Listening to a book on cd, though wonderful, does not allow you this interaction. Not to mention that you are at the mercy of the narrator’s interpretation of the text and sentence. The inflection of the narrator’s voice can lead you to interpret things one way that if you read you might see differently.
I feel that if I had listened to Tom Sawyer on cd I could not say “Yes, I’ve read Tom Sawyer.” I think the proper answer would be “I’ve listened to the book on cd.”
I think it’s the same thing as seeing the film. “Have you read Tom Sawyer?” someone asks. “No, but I’ve seen the movie” is the same thing as “No, but I’ve listened to the book on tape.”
What are your thoughts? Should you be able to claim to have read books just because you listen to them on cd?
Thursday, September 14, 2006
I've Read That!
Posted by Kirsten at 12:47 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I feel that I have to agree with both positions you take on this issue. For me, there's nothing better than reading and getting to discover how beautiful words can be when used properly. How sentences sound is very important, and I do believe that when a reader reads with her eyes, she's also hearing the words. That's what makes reading so fun to me. True, I love knowledge-- "In fact I yearn for it"-- but I also love the "simple, unadorned beauty of the English language" that a talented writer can convey.
Having said that, however, I do enjoy listening to books on tape every now and then, especially those books which I would probably not read on my own if given the choice. And sometimes a talented actor will read like Meghan Follows in the Anne of Green Gables series or Kate Winslet with Sense and Sensibility which makes it all the more fun.
But would you claim to have read something just because you listened to it on cd without clarifying?
I would have to say that, yes, I would claim to have read it. I do understand your point, though, in that I have not technically "read" it only having heard it read to me, but I don't think that takes away from what I learned from it. I guess I might clarify that I had read it on tape, but I don't think it lessens my experience with the book, it only changes it. That in itself makes the experience more rewarding. It gives a different perspective or insight that I might not have had from reading but that helps enrich the experience even more.
Ah, but you would clarify that you "read' it by listening to it on tape. You wouldn't just say yes and leave it unclarified.
True that, boo.
word.
My point was the lenghts I would have to go to explain how I came to my understanding of a book seem unneccesary. For what purpose? I agree that it is not the same as reading with the eye, but it is still a love of books. In fact, I am using all of my time reading in one way or another. Even when I am driving. So, I don't feel the need to explain to a person that I didn't actually read a book. I "listened" to it, and then explain how I think that is the same. All the while, they grow confused about what we were actually talking about. Instead...
You ask, "Have you read Huck Finn?"
I say, "Yes. It was delightful."
Nice to see you commenting again, Mel.
I have to say that I'm with Jon on this one. It's just too much trouble to have to explain to someone that, yes, I have "read" the book but only by listening to it. To me, the knowledge is the same even though the experience is different and perhaps not as rewarding.
Et Tu Mel? Et Tu Alicia?
If majority rules, I (being able to count) have lost.
I submit because I know that I don't have a chance to win against Kirsten, not to mention the combined force of intelligent women posting their thoughts here. However, I do feel compelled to say that listening to the book does give knowledge, and understanding. The speaker may give different meaning to the text by his way of speech, but I could have as easily been distracted by something going on around me if I were reading it. I do believe it is better to read than to listen, but I question the need to explain, to someone in full, how I came to know what I know. I am also not sure if that means they have literary seniority over me. Should I stand down in conversations over meaning of books because I am just a poor audio listener who is unable to contribute?
Thank you all for a well deserved kick.*
*no offense intended. Some jest was used, and for those unable to read my text, a full audio version is available online at www.itsoktolisten.com
I mentioned the speaker of the audio book as a he. I, of all people, know better. I mean he/she, or she/he, or zem.
Phew!
I am currently "listening" to Breakfast of Champions, and it is read my a boy. Honest mistake.
I'm not saying books on tape don't provide knowledge; I just don't think you should claim to have "read" it without clarifying that you merely listened on tape.
Post a Comment