Does listening to a book on tape constitute reading a book? (poetry, literature)

[♪♫♪♪♫♫♪♥]

Does listening to someone reading a book constitute reading it yourself?

Does watching someone else eat food constitute you eating it?

Are you going to get in shape by sitting down and watching other people exercise?

[Mahrie]

Originally Posted by ♪♫♪♪♫♫♪♥

Does listening to someone reading a book constitute reading it yourself?

Apparently - according to Mirriam Webster's Pro Version (for writers).

Does watching someone else eat food constitute you eating it?

Nope, the word 'eating' has a different etymology which is not as broad in its application.

Are you going to get in shape by sitting down and watching other people exercise?

Again, no, but we're discussing the meaning of a specific word here, reading, and it cannot be applied across the board to any or all other words in the English language. Language is extremely precise, yet we grow comfortable with our own perception of a word, rather than the actual meaning of it.


The only question asked and answered in this thread is "What does and does not constitute reading?" We can talk about eating and exercising later, if you like. I love etymology!


Have a spectacular evening, won't you? I must go and pamper my hubby now.


Shalom Aleichem,


Mahrie. http://stillthevision.truepath.com/images/emoticons/angel3.gif (broken link)

[Gunluvver2]

[quote=Mahrie;

I'm legally blind, so I listen to the Bible on CD all the time - and get more out of it.
Mahrie. [/quote]

Mahrie,
If you don't mind I have a couple questions for you. First what kind of program do you use on your computer to convert text to audio?

You listen to the Bible on CD. Which Translation and the Narrator?

I have the older cassettes of the Bible done by Jerry Falwell and I love the way he read it but my tapes are wearing out and I would like to upgrade to CD or DVD. I believe he was reading from the King James version in his narration.
Thanks,
GL2

[D217]

I actually read books and find this thread insulting! lol

[LongtimeBravesFan]

So if I go to a performance of Hamlet, can I say I have read a Shakespearean play?

[PNW-type-gal]

Since I'm frequently doing something else while listening to a book on CD/mp3 (driving or walking or knitting or gardening), I don't think that I get quite as much out of the material as when I sit down with the Kindle or the book in my hands and just read, without distraction.

It also seems as though sometimes the audio narrator makes or breaks the book and stands between me and the material, sometimes helping and sometimes a barrier.

[netwit]

Originally Posted by Mahrie

Fascinating! Would you say that a person who 'read' a book in Braille had, in fact, read the book, Dave? After all, they didn't see the words, they used another sense, touch, in this case, to glean the content of the manuscript.

If I were to ask a person if he or she had read a book, my interest would most likely be in learning whether they were familiar with the content or not. Which sense they employed to internalize that content wouldn't matter to me.

I'm legally blind, so I listen to the Bible on CD all the time - and get more out of it.

Are you aware that proofreaders are required to listen to the books they are proofing? The reason for this is that the eye is forgiving while the ear is not. The eye will gloss over material that the ear will 'catch' - from outright mistakes to subtle nuances.

BTW, none of my novels are read by one narrator. We hire actors for the different characters in my books and the difference is amazing. I would say that it is comparable in difference to watching a movie in black and white an watching it on Blue-ray. The actors so enrich the story that the reader's enjoyment is heightened to the point that market research shows that they read more books because of it. Put simply, the actors make the story come to life for the reader/listener. It's a great format, which is why I use it.

Shalom,

Mahrie.

I think you are confusing the idea that letters are only in a flat format in your Braille analogy. Braille is still an alphabet that conveys information without the inflection of a third party intruding on the writer's intent.

The 'sense' that is used in reading traditionally is one's mind and one's imagination and no one will interpret that exactly the same way, which is why movies based on books are so often disappointing.

And StarlaJane used a perfect example of why listening to a book and reading a book is not the same thing in her reference to the visual aspect of writing. Here is another example that can't be conveyed through listening to it. Visual Poetics

As far as proof-reading is concerned, proof-reading takes advantage of a different sense - that of hearing - to make sure there are no errors. It doesn't negate the experience of reading words on a page in spite of the fact that the mind skips over some things. People also tune out other people during conversations, so I'm not sure that your point is, other than the purpose of proof-reading is to catch errors anyway they can.

As far as dictionary definitions go, English contains a number of words that are the same but used differently in different contexts, so the fact that one can say "I read those smoke signals" doesn't prove anything but that English is a flexible language.

The common use and understanding of the word "read" with regards to books is to look at them on a page - Braille, Spanish or English, it doesn't matter.

And to reiterate what StarlaJane had to say, that doesn't mean that it is somehow inferior to listen to audio books, only that the experience is different and in the case of visual writing, such as the visual poetry link, some things must be read on paper.

[Mahrie]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

Mahrie,
If you don't mind I have a couple questions for you. First what kind of program do you use on your computer to convert text to audio?

You listen to the Bible on CD. Which Translation and the Narrator?

I have the older cassettes of the Bible done by Jerry Falwell and I love the way he read it but my tapes are wearing out and I would like to upgrade to CD or DVD. I believe he was reading from the King James version in his narration.
Thanks,
GL2

Afternoon Gunluvver2!

Sorry I took so long to answer your query, but I'm working to deadline this month (we're launching my seven-novel saga + new CD on October 1st) and am insanely busy.

I like JAWS for Windows (you can get it for Macs too) and I chose the most recent and comprehensive version, I don't remember what it's called, sorry, but Google will promptly give you a list of all the available versions. I need paragraphs and sometimes pages read back to me when I'm writing my novels, but there are less sophisticated versions available, and the price varies with the number of features required. I researched everything on the market and like JAWS best - by miles.

As for our Bible CDs, we listen to the NASV Translation but I don't have a clue who the narrator is. I'll ask my husband and see if it's printed in small print somewhere on the discs and let you know if I find out.

Fortunately, I wasn't always blind, and so I was given decades to internalize and compare many different Bible translations, which I still do (DH reads me anything I want to compare that I don't have stored in my memory bank) routinely, as I find it gives one a more comprehensive view of most verses and passages.

I chose the NASV to purchase in CD form because that's the 'study' Bible I use. It has notes on every verse and details all the different viewpoints/perspectives on meaning and interpretation held by most of Christianity, and I would recommend the NASV CD collection - the reader is good.

No Bible translation is inerrant, but at the same time, no Bible translation (that I'm aware of) is missing anything important that will interfere with one's understanding of the Gospel and/or one's relationship with God through Christ. So, while I listen to the NASV, I wouldn't say that it's my favorite translation. I like different translations for different reasons. For example, I like the New Word Translation for it's poetic use of language and find that it paints the richest 'word pictures' for me.

I like the King James Translation(s) (traditionl and new) for its stricter adherence to the original manuscripts, or rather, the oldest ones we have. I'm not fond of its arbitrary translation of the Hebrew word 'she'ohl,' and the Greek words 'hai'des,' and 'ge'en-na,' since the first two words refer to the common grave of all mankind and 'ge'en-na,' or 'Ge'hen-na,' refers to the Valley of Hinnom, an old rubbish depository just outside of Jerusalem, which still exists today.

Unfortunately, most of the 2,000+ 'Divisions and sects' of Christianity didn't trust love enough to motivate people and so translated all three words as 'Hell,' and told people that it is a place of eternal torment by fire, which is nonsense, of course, but fear motivation works, so the words that simply mean the grave were translated as 'Hell' instead. Personally, I prefer the truth.

'The wages for sin is death,' the Bible tells us, and not eternal torment, which is a man-made lie.

'Ge'hen-na means the Lake of Fire, which is the second death,' the Bible tells us. (For a description of the condition of the dead, read Ecclesiastes chapter 9.) Death and Hell (the common grave of all mankind) are destined to be thrown into the Lake of Fire along with the 'Devil and his angels,' as Revelation 20:14 tells us.

When Jesus came as a 'Propitiatory Sacrifice' to 'Pay' for the sins of all humankind, He DIED for us, He did not suffer eternal torture. If the 'Wages for sin' were eternal torment then Jesus would still be suffering either in flames or on the cross - and He isn't.

So you see, I mind the manipulation of God's people and have, over the years, collected and studied the earliest manuscripts in existence, and nowhere is it even suggested that people burn in 'Hell' forever. God is Love, He is our Father and He loves us, even those of us who choose not to reciprocate. God would not be Love if He would torture people forever - that notion contradicts everything He tells us about Himself!

The Lake of Fire (or 'The second death') signifies a 'cutting-off' from God, an everlasting separation, during which time all those who meet with that fate will simply cease to exist. Just as 'Death will be no more,' (remember, death is thrown into the Lake of Fire), so will all those in opposition to Yahweh (God).

Please note, 'It is the WILL of God that none should be destroyed, but that all should attain to repentance and have everlasting life.'

Clearly, God doesn't want to destroy, 86, or kill anyone. It is evident, however, that it will be necessary, just as the flood was, as some will choose to reject God regardless of how much He loves them (us)- sadly.

So, now that we know what the will of God is, ('Thy Will be done!) and what the meaning of just a few of the mistranslated words are, perhaps you will agree with me that it is advantageous to have several Bible translations for the purpose of comparison, as well as a working knowledge and understanding of Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. That said, I would still recommend the NASV CD collection by World Audio - just keep in mind the... ahem... mistakes that you'll find in every Bible. It's a good idea to procure a few good Interlinear Translations which will save you the trouble of wondering what to believe.

Shalom Aleichem,

Mahrie. http://stillthevision.truepath.com/images/emoticons/angel3.gif (broken link)
P.S. Hubby just came home and told me that the narrator of the NASV Audio Bible is Steven B. Stevens. Doesn't ring a bell for me but perhaps you're familiar with him?

[Mahrie]

Originally Posted by netwit

I think you are confusing the idea that letters are only in a flat format in your Braille analogy. Braille is still an alphabet that conveys information without the inflection of a third party intruding on the writer's intent.

The 'sense' that is used in reading traditionally is one's mind and one's imagination and no one will interpret that exactly the same way, which is why movies based on books are so often disappointing.

And StarlaJane used a perfect example of why listening to a book and reading a book is not the same thing in her reference to the visual aspect of writing. Here is another example that can't be conveyed through listening to it. Visual Poetics

As far as proof-reading is concerned, proof-reading takes advantage of a different sense - that of hearing - to make sure there are no errors. It doesn't negate the experience of reading words on a page in spite of the fact that the mind skips over some things. People also tune out other people during conversations, so I'm not sure that your point is, other than the purpose of proof-reading is to catch errors anyway they can.

As far as dictionary definitions go, English contains a number of words that are the same but used differently in different contexts, so the fact that one can say "I read those smoke signals" doesn't prove anything but that English is a flexible language.

The common use and understanding of the word "read" with regards to books is to look at them on a page - Braille, Spanish or English, it doesn't matter.

And to reiterate what StarlaJane had to say, that doesn't mean that it is somehow inferior to listen to audio books, only that the experience is different and in the case of visual writing, such as the visual poetry link, some things must be read on paper.

Good points, netwit, thank you. I don't agree with you entirely, but as I said - good points.

Love,

Mahrie. http://stillthevision.truepath.com/images/emoticons/angel3.gif (broken link)

[jtur88]

Does "feeling" a book in Braille count as reading it?