My children will probably be surprised to find that their father's taste for reading material is changing slightly. It used to be that I would read, almost exclusively, non-fiction material. Now I find that probably 50% of the material I check out of the library to be fiction. I phrase it that way because Carolyn has made me a convert - I listen to as many "books" as I read.
But why should it make a difference what the media is? Aren't there non-fiction books on tape and CD? Certainly there are although not as many. But it is not the numbers or variety that make the difference as much as how well the media fit the materials. Perhaps this will change at some time but for now I listen to fiction much as I would listen and watch a good play and the better the reader or "performer" the better the play/book. But I listen to non-fiction much as I would a lecture and no matter how good the performance or how talented the reader/speaker, it is still a lecture. I find myself preferring to take it in small chunks so that I can digest and accept, reject, or put on a shelf the ideas presented.
So when you see fiction reviewed on my blog there is a good chance I have listened to the book rather than have read it. I may not make the distinction in my review.
I think Lisa and I would agree that the reader has a big effect on the piece.
ReplyDeleteIn high school it was very popular for English teachers to have students read "round robin" style. What makes it worse is that it was usually reading Shakespeare. The Old English prose often prove to be a large hurdle for high schoolers.
I am also of the opinion that Shakespeare is meant to be performed rather then read, even by a skilled orator.
Steven still exists?!?!
ReplyDelete(Sorry, haven't seen him post a comment in a long time.)