My audiobook dilemma
To do, or not to do.
I don’t have a long work commute or a routinely long drive to anywhere really, except when I do. And I read poetry and I listen to poets read their poetry, and I often find myself yawning. I yawn, not because it’s bad (though it often is), but rather because I’m not engaged. I like to read sentences with my voice, I like to re-read the words until the sounds of sentences become clear visions. Ah…but this sentiment only applies to poetry, short story, prose, philosophy, and spiritual scripture, definitely not the latest novel to have won 15 awards. And I do want to read the latest award-winning novel, and I want to speed-read through the latest politico-gloom of Charles H. Ferguson and re-read Jacques Ellul and Pynchon and get through Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time”. All of this has led me to finding ways to justify audio-books. The combination of the following articles, written between 2005-2012, might have done the trick.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/fashion/thursdaystyles/26audio.html?pagewanted=all “…the communion between writer and reader…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/the-minds-ear.html?pagewanted=all “It feels banal to observe that the voice is older than the printed word, and has a senior claim upon our attention.”
http://gabrielle-gantz.tumblr.com/post/23432869805/3-articles-about-audiobooks-the-voice-the-new Three articles which I’ve summed up as: more time=more books, oral storytelling through the ages and perfect traffic killers.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of books should be heard, not read..and the rest should be read. Makes sense to me and that’s all that matters.
Time to delete the Beatles catalog from my iPod, if only I can find that “25 free audiobooks” coupon I’ve been saving.