Audio Books
Audio Books
(OP)
When someone asks if you have read a book, but you actually listened to the audiobook version on your iTunes, or in your car, do you still say, yes I’ve read it. Or do you give a long-winded explanation that you listened to the book?
I feel a bit dishonest saying I read a book that I listened to, especially when the package clearly states “an abridgment of reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi”. I’m not sure how much gets left out, but it has to be closer to reading the book than seeing a movie would be.
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"





RE: Audio Books
But since it seems to be a slightly important distinction to you, why not be true to what you think is right and give the simple answer something like "I listened to the audio version" and eliminate any possibility you will feel like you are lieing/misleading (I doubt the other person would care about the distinction)
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Audio Books
I really enjoyed Stephen King's Dark Tower series on audio, especially those read by Frank Muller.
RE: Audio Books
Ciao.
RE: Audio Books
RE: Audio Books
Saying "I listened to the audio version", as electricpete said, is the most succinct way of getting the point across.
I did an 8 1/2 year stint of a 124 mile commute and "read" many books in my car during that time...
If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS
RE: Audio Books
RE: Audio Books
RE: Audio Books
RE: Audio Books
I guess I'd say I'd listened to the audio version, but I've only 'listened' to 2 books and it's never come up.
As to the abridged issue, if it's just a passing conversation it probably doesn't matter. If it's more in depth or in a situation where it otherwise may matter (some kind of interview or something maybe) then saying it was abridged is probably appropriate.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Audio Books
RE: Audio Books
This book that I am listening to now is actually the first. I’ve purchased other audio books for my mother, who is blind, but I never tried any myself. This one is actually for her, but I decided to download it to my iTunes before sending it.
It was my mother who mentioned that most audio books she has are slightly abridged. In talking to other people, I noticed that most just say they read the book, but they actually listened to it being read to them. Personally, I think it’s an important distinction, although not as much as saying you read the book when you actually only saw the movie.
This one is 18 hours of recorded speech. The print version is almost 3,000 pages which includes 958 pages of end notes and 170 pages of source notes which I am guessing in not in the audio version. Neither are the 32 pages of photos.
After I send this off to Mom, I might just go get the print version, even though it is not a subject that has been of any particular interest to me.
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
RE: Audio Books
If someone asked me, and I'd listened to an abridged version, I'd probably say "pretty much".
Upon further reflection, I believe the version of To Kill A Mockingbird that I read was in my grandmother's Reader's Digest Condensed Book collection, and I still say I've read it.
I read the abridged version of War And Peace, too, and I still say I read that. I figure that distinction doesn't matter since either way I remember nothing.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Audio Books
RE: Audio Books
RE: Audio Books
The hubris of those who "read it the hard way" is ridiculous.
RE: Audio Books
I don't get it. Why?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Audio Books
On the other hand, my brother is severely dyslexic so by the time he's made it to the end of a page, he's forgotten what happened on the page before. But he has an incredible audio memory so play him an audio book and he'll be quoting lines from it for years to come.
RE: Audio Books
Some books can be whipped through in no time (e.g. those books by Dan Brown that were a hit a few years ago). I remember the vague plots of those. Other books take me ages to read (e.g. books by Niall Griffiths) but I feel I know not only the plot, but every inch of every character by the end. The audio versions would of course be the same length. Would I be able to absorb the same amount from a shallow book as I could from a deep book if the experience lasted the same amount of time?
RE: Audio Books
electricpete,
The subject matter, the investigation of the assassination of JFK, now seems very interesting after listening to the book. I'd like to see the photos as well. Also, I've always liked Vincent Bugliosi's work. Besides, once I send it to my mother's, I'll never again be able to refer to anything in the book. She lend it to various relatives and everyone will deny that they have it.
This way I'll have my own, unabridged copy.
BTW, I told my mother not to buy it, that I was sending it to her. She offered to send one to me, a book about Pearl Harbor. I've never been a history buff and never into politics, unlike the entire rest of my family. I might just learn, and retain something!
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
RE: Audio Books
I avoid abridged audio books like they were diseased. I listened to an abridged version Tom Sawyer after having read the paper version a dozen times, the parts that were missing simply removed the soul of the book. A few years later I accidentally bought an abridged copy of James Michener's Centennial (another story I'd read in paper) and threw it in a roadside trash can after the first tape and listened to music for the rest of the trip. My complaint about both books is that the author felt the story needed the bits that are chopped out in abridgement and I've never seen an abridgement that wasn't worse for the surgery (I avoid Reader's Digest for the same reason.
If you've enjoyed, been informed, been entertained, or been annoyed by an author's words, then you've "read" the work.
David
RE: Audio Books
Yes, some read with their fingers...
RE: Audio Books
I know a bit off topic, but related...
"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" Oddball, "Kelly's Heros" 1970
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
RE: Audio Books
Actually for a literature course, it depends, but basically if you are into textual analysis then I think you do need to read it.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Audio Books
Ask your professor,only he/she knows if it matters to them.
However if I were the professor I would be looking for your reaction to and interpretation of the material. An audio book is going to convey the tapes reader's reactions and interpretation by the way they emphesize and stress certain words and passages. This is fine for simply listening for entertainment purposes. I am almost certain an experienced professor can, over time, begin to pick out which students have listened to which audio tape version by the similar patterns of the interpretation.
RE: Audio Books