Audio Books
If you listen to an audio book are you reading it. I mean if someone asks have you read Harlan Coben's "Gone For Good" and you listened to it read by Dylan Baker as I did do you say oh yes I've read that or do you say you've listened to it. Do you volunteer that although it took five hours to listen to it that it was an abridged version, authorized by the author. Does that make a difference. If you listen to John Grisham's latest "King of Torts" and although it almost put you to sleep not a good thing to happen driving at 75 miles per hour on I-15 do you claim to have read that boring excuse for a story. Do you assume because this too was abridged that they simply left out all the good parts and that accounts for this slow-paced entirely predictable bit of tripe, that the abridgement just went terribly wrong, or do you conclude as I did that you were indeed fortunate that it was abridged, that the added words would have more superfluous fluff that would have made it even more boring and perhaps led to your death, a sleepy driver rollover. If you keep a list of books you've read do these two make the list, or do you simply write it off as entertainment a mere notch above talk radio. I'd really like to know. You help me I'll help you. I'll give you a brief review of the books you answer my questions. Do we have a deal? I've read several books by Harlan Coben, but it's been several years. I recall that he usually writes about some overpaid sports star the protagonist an agent that has to solve some crisis or another. This book was different. The story is about brothers one of which has been gone for 11 years accused of strangling a young woman. The first half of the book was amusing, suspenseful, and was improved by some original metaphors. You'll have to read the book to get them. My memory is not up to that sort of recollection and I don't have the book and I'm not going to listen to it again. Take my word for it. The second half however was grist for a course in cliches 101. A key turned in the lock, a phrase that was intended to jack up the tension repeated five or six times in the story. It didn't. The story was good plenty of fun twists and turns and kept my interest in spite of the cliches. I give it a two on my scale of 1-5. John Grisham on the other hand gets a minus one, what a piece of crap. I read "The Firm" and "Pelican Brief" both decent reads. "The King of Torts" however was stupid and boring. The nasty pharmaceuticals did exactly the same things we read about every day. Grisham's imagination is bereft of any inspiration. The best he could do was create a drug that, oops I almost spoiled the story for someone, though I could make the case I'd be doing them a favor. I'll admit when the King gets really really rich I imagined how I'd spend all that money, but a lottery fantasy only goes so far. The protagonist was totally unsympathetic and even the love story didn't work. I couldn't believe it when they got back together. Hey babe you got a loser. I found myself wishing him ill, and knowing that when redemption came it would be just as pitiful as the rest of the story. It was.
Comments
I think you have to qualify that you listened to an audio book version of the book, not read it. It just isn't true to say you read it... I mean, you didn't read the book. I've listened to quite a number of books, as I used to have a 40 minute commute to work, and have thought about how to disclose my 'listens'. Part of the problem is the word, 'listen.' It is clunky compared to read. Read need not be inflected for past tense; it is elegant that way. 'Listen' just sounds wrong. I'm not ashamed that I listen to books. There are some advantages. Say you are listening to a book where there is a fair amount of dialect, or accent in the language. You generally have the advantage of a reading by someone more familiar with that accent. Or look at some of these books read by authors, now that can raise the listen a notch. To hear Toni Morrison read her moving tale "The Bluest Eye" somehow brings a certain depth to the words. I don't know. But, I listened to "the Dubliners" read by an Irish fellow, and seemed to benefit from the pronunciation, intonation, and timeing of the readers speech.
Nonetheless, if you are having a conversation with someone about a book, I think you have generally reached a level of depth in personal sharing where details about what method by which the book was absorbed should be readily accepted. Many elements of reading and listening are the same, don't you think? You don't have to read the Grisham novel to know that it is crappy. You can easily make these determinations by listening.
Re: disclosure of the abridged version, I would almost always reveal that as well, particularly if there is interest in the revealing of the first part. I have friends who seem to judge my audio book listening in unfair ways. It is usually because they haven't tried it themselves. I guess there is pride in reading a book, and not much in listening to one. I really could never explain why that would be. I guess because you don't have the written word in front of you, and several decisions about how to read are taken care of for you by the reader. You don't consider the spelling of words, or the punctuation in the text. but relieved of this, perhaps you are able let your imagination swim more freely... oops there comes a truck! aaaaaahhhhh...
Listen at home, too. I have a tape player (mp3 is nice as well) in my kitchen. Sometimes it is nice to hear a story while preparing dinner. Sometimes it is nice to prepare dinner in silence. Anyway. I think pride in reading books is somewhat mythical. Probably stems from our school days where books had to read, thus the feeling of accomplishment. Yeah, listening is perhaps more entertaining, than reading - see... mind swim... above -- but this isn't talk radio. This is literature, language studies, or whatever else they put on audio these days. Listening doesn't change that.
Posted by: Mark Haller | February 27, 2003 8:08 AM | Reply to this comment