posted
Alright, well I have some free time during the mornings (about an hour or so) during which I imagined listening to an audiobook -- this is during a run, so I could use the distraction and I can think of nothing else useful to do during that time.
What I'm wondering is if you think listening to a book would be as useful as reading it -- as far as gleaning useful writing info from it. Do you think I'd be getting nothing but the plot?
I'm not sure. I could imagine that just listening to it would prevent me from really examining the words themselves.
posted
I think it depends on lot on who you are listening to and how much you are listening. I have listened to audio book for years (even got my husband into listening to them on long trips) and while the abridged versions you pretty much get little more than the plot, there are plenty of books out there which are unabridged. - Tolkiens books, for example, can be found in abridged and unabridged versions.
As far as if you feel you will get more out of the written word, I think that truly depends on if you are more of a visual or an audio person as to which you pick up more, or even as much from one to the other. - though if the author is good with their description, it doesn't matter if you are reading or listening.
Hubby has a problem with Rod Sterlings stuff though, because it doesn't matter if he has read it or watched it, Sterling is sooooo good with his description that 5 years down the road he can't tell the difference if he read it or watched it.
For me, Erle Stanley Gardner does a great job, and I can actaully remember the stories on tape better than I can the TV shows for Perry Mason. Readin the books is somewhere in between.
I have also both read and listened to Sue Grafton, and by the end get the same feeling, unless I feel that I missed something because I wasn't listening close enough at some point.
[This message has been edited by mags (edited June 25, 2003).]
posted
I just finished listening to Norman Mclean's A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT AND OTHER STORIES. The novella, A River Runs Through It, is excellent (the two short-stories are okay). I don't remember who read it, but he was very good.
As far as what I learned writing-wise...I think I really learned how words sound together. It's hard to explain, but one line in the story goes like this, "when a big-fish fisherman catches a big fish on the Big Blackfoot, that big-fish fisherman...." I suppose you can say I learned what poetic prose is all about.
1. abridged or unabridged? Abridged is useless. 2. Good reader or bad reader? Bad readers are tedious, but might still work depending... 3. Visual or Auditory? Some people just can't get it when they listen to something. Others get it better. What do you like? 4. Author's style. There are some styles that don't translate well to audio, although good readers can make up for these deficiencies(sp?) For example, authors who don't use dialogue tags often enough in conversation. Good readers who can do voices help you keep track.
Seeing words is not all there is to reading. Actually, the way the words sound is very significant. (For the reason Balthasar mentioned but also for other reasons) Also, listening to the words forces you to hear all the description, you can't skim past it! My descriptive abilities have improved tenfold since listening to books on tape.
The only trouble I've found with books on tape is not being able to see the punctuation and spelling. My punctuation and spelling have gone downhill with a combination of audiobooks and autocorrect on MS Word. I think, though, that if you do both (listening to books and reading them) you won't have this problem. As for me, I just hope I can find a good proofreader.
posted
Thanks everyone. You've been more inspiring than I had hoped. Of COURSE I am only going to get the unabridged versions -- as a matter of fact, since I've been really slacking so far, I just ordered American Gods on audiobook. I'll let you know how it goes.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
|
quote:Hubby has a problem with Rod Sterlings stuff though, because it doesn't matter if he has read it or watched it, Sterling is sooooo good with his description that 5 years down the road he can't tell the difference if he read it or watched it.
Wow. If that's not the best argument for good description, I don't know what is. Now I'm curious if Sterling has a lot of it or just dynamite description.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
