Is it better to listen to a book then read one?

[Parson]

I would have answered a thunderous "No!" to that question only about 2 months ago. But, well embarrassing as it may seem I now am not at all sure. The last couple of months I've been listening to books on my phone through Kindle Unlimited and Audible and I find myself entranced in the story during my 5 mile run/walk, and whenever I drive more than about 15 min. The last book I finished was The Fire Starters by Richard Farr. I listened to most of it, but when my wife and I had to baby sit 4 of our grand kids the other night. It would not have been polite to tune out the world with my earphones on, and so I started reading it on my phone. But I found it was nearly so engrossing. In fact when I next listened to my book I went back to where I had started reading and listened to it over again and it was better than I remembered.

Any thoughts about this?

 

[HareBrain]

Though I've never listened to an audiobook at such, I have listened to books read out in serial form on BBC Radio4 (in fifteen-minute slots) and I've almost never enjoyed them as much as reading. Mostly this is because of pacing -- I find myself wanting to run ahead at some points, or linger at others, but I'm forced to go at their speed. It's like being stuck behind a tractor.

 

[farntfar]

It's very dependant on who's reading it. Not only if they read well; expressively and at the right pace; but also if you like the person's voice.

Some audio books are great, and as you say, Parson, a terrific way to use the time on a long drive.
But sometimes, although the reader reads very well, there can be something about their voice that just doesn't work for you.

So if you're going to buy an audiobook, I would suggest you always try to listen to a sample first.

 

[Parson]

Good thoughts. The book that I was pointing to was particularly well suited to having someone read it aloud. There were many noted accents and the reader was able to do a Scottish accent (for example) and it gave the character a life in my mind that was not there when I simply read the words to my self. I didn't read a Scottish accent, I simply read the words as my Midwestern mush mouth would normally speak them. Also there were a lot of foreign quotes in the book which the reader handled with an aplomb which was amazing. I've thought about seeing if I could read books for Audible or some such, but this reader makes me wonder if I would have that ability because simply being someone who reads well alone and people enjoy hearing seems like too little now.

 

[HareBrain]

I've started to doubt my earlier reply now because last night I caught Ian McKellen reading one of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, and I was entranced. So I'll amend it to say that where the reader is so good, it can work for me.

What sort of people do read for Audible? I know nothing about it. Are they mostly amateurs rather than known performers?

 

[farntfar]

being someone who reads well alone and people enjoy hearing seems like too little now.

That sounds like a pretty good start to being qualified to me.

the reader was able to do a Scottish accent

On that point, I would be quite happy with someone who read in their own voice, and would far prefer it to someone who made a poor attempt at accents and mimics that they couldn't achieve.
I say go for it if you feel inclined.

 

[Parson]

HairBrain - I have no idea. The readers are mentioned as performers and their name is given, but beyond that....? Audible is headquartered in Grand Haven Michigan, a place where I have some contacts so mayhap some day I'll check it out a bit. Not today! I'm swamped and Sunday's coming. ---- What am I doing here??? ---- I'm an addict I guess.


Fantfar - Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do think I'll check it out someday. My retirement is only a couple of years away and that sounds like a good part time job. Maybe I'm completely wrong about that?

 

[farntfar]

I have no idea how people are chosen to do audiobooks, but certainly not all of them are great actors or orators, so I can't see why you shouldn't try.
On the other hand, I suspect it's pretty hard work to get it right, and probably the practice of learning lines like an actor is good training.
Maybe giving sermons is too.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I love audiobooks and have done for years. I take in more and it allows me to "read" when I am doing other things.

Usually the person reading them is an actor - David Tennant and Richard E Grant are two are my favourite readers of audiobooks.

 

[Parson]

AnyaK ... I have listened to a few "books on tape" before this. Usually they were things like "Seven Habits for Highly Effective People" from Steven Covey and the like. Most of those were actually read by the author which sometimes was less than inspiring. (Covey was pretty good as I remember it.) I know that none of these "Audible" books done by "Brilliance Audio" that I've listened to is done by any actor known to me.

Farntfar ... I was in drama in high school and college, even 1 kinda professional gig. So "learning lines" is not unfamiliar to me. I would guess that to read out loud well you would need to read the book at least once, likely more than once, and then read your portion before you would read for the "tape." But I doubt there is any actual memorization going on.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

The books I've had from Audible have been the unabridged books and have been read by reasonably well known actors. My most recent have been Stephanie Cole, Patricia Hodge, Robert Glenister and Tim Piggott-Smith. All four are fairly well known British actors.

 

[farntfar]

Parson.... the more you speak about yourself, the more I think you're right for the job. But, as I say, I really know nothing about it.
My thought was that you would need to know what's going to happen next, to know how to read any given passage. I would also expect you to need to do several "takes" of some passages, to get them right, which lead me to believe it would be hard work.

When reading a book, I often have to read a passage several times to myself before I'm sure I've understood, so it's bound to be even worse reading out an audio book.

Anyway, let's not get bogged down in this. I suspect you'd be good at it. Leave it there. (I know that I would not be. )

 

[Highlander II]

Farntfar ... I was in drama in high school and college, even 1 kinda professional gig. So "learning lines" is not unfamiliar to me. I would guess that to read out loud well you would need to read the book at least once, likely more than once, and then read your portion before you would read for the "tape." But I doubt there is any actual memorization going on.

The way it was explained that James Marsters did the reading for the Dresden Files audiobooks (which he's done all but 1 of and many hope they'll have James redo that one) - was he would read a page, record it, then read the next page and record it. There were also stories of him getting really into the story and leaping onto the table during recording. =)

I don't know if everyone who reads for audiobooks does them this way, but I'd think the process is fairly similar.

I'm partial to the Dresden Files audiobooks (I have most of them). I haven't had much experience with others, but the reader would have to be entertaining for me to keep listening and be engaged in the story.

 

[j d worthington]

To reply directly to the question... as others have said, it all depends. I'd argue that it not only depends on the person reading, but the writing itself. Some writing lends itself to vocal expression better than other types. Some it enhances marvelously; especially writers who were raised on the classical type of writing which is so closely related to rhetoric. (Think, for example, of Sir Thomas Browne.) Conversely, writing which is particularly idiomatic can also be enjoyed more when read aloud than silent reading, as this brings out the cadences and "music" of such an approach. Others really are much better read silently, where one can easily go back and reread a passage in light of a later passage to clarify or appreciate the interplay of various parts....

 

[Foxbat]

Initially, I'd have said no but recently tried to read Finnigan's Wake and soon realised that it was written to be spoken aloud.
So, whilst I still believe it's better to read, there will be exceptions to the rule. Horses for courses.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

My favourite way to listen is after meditating whilst lying on my bed. The one thing I will say is audiobooks are the one thing I still think work best on cassette tape than any other medium.

 

[Parson]

Thanks for all the well thought out answers. As I think what J.D. said, I believe that he is right that some books lend themselves to it more than some others. There has been a time or two while listening to the books where the reading suddenly went a bit flat with a lot of "he said," "She said," which often makes for clear writing but having the work read with varying voices makes it sound dumb. I may have been lucky with my choices so far.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think there must be something about the calibre of the reader - Covey, for instance, was a great public speaker and was passionate about his theories. It stands to reason he'd be very good. I might seek out a copy of that - having him introduce segments in training sessions on his theories could be very cool.