Read or Listen?

[mormegil]

Okay so I have read LOTR and others multiple times and I just got done listening to it. The actual book on tape version not the dramatized version. I wonder what is your preference and why? They both move me but they do so in different ways.

[Mnemosyne]

I had to choose "read" because I haven't listened to a full unabridged book-on-tape version.

Reading has a lot of different benefits to it, the chief of which is the ability of the reader to skip around. Since I don't have the time I used to I haven't done a full readthrough in about three years now, so being able to look at some favorite scenes again has to suffice when I need a quick canon fix.

One option that I wish you would have put up there (since you included "watch the movies") was "Listen to the BBC Radio adaptation". Since it's a mere 13 hours but it still contains all the Tolkieny goodness a lass like me could ask for it's a good cheap substitute for a full readthrough.

So if that option were up I'd have to put it slightly ahead of "read": not because it's necessarily better, but because that's what I have time for at the moment.

[Inziladun]

Read. Every time.

[Thinlómien]

Reading beats listening, because it's more private and the characters have their own voices, not the actor's voice. (Not to mention that a bad or unfitting actor can ruin the whole story.) While reading you can go on with your own pace and check things that were said before or pause to think about some perceived or imagined incoherence or wise words uttered by the characters.

However, if "listening" includes being read aloud to by a parent or someone else close and loving, I would actually say "listening" because then it has all the magic of old storytelling and also the shared experience with someone important, if I may so without sounding all too cheesy.

[Hakon]

I voted read. I cannot listen to an audio book without getting bored. I usually end up reading something completely different when I am listening to an audio book.

[mormegil]

I have fairly long commutes so I enjoy listening to books. I think listening gives me a whole new dimension of it. It is paced and measured. I tend to speed read during the real exciting parts and I miss things.

[Laurinquë]

I tried to listen to the Fellowship on CD a few years ago, but first of all the CDs were from the library and were all scratched up, and more importantly, the book has too many details for you be able to listen to it and understand everything that happens. If your attention wavers for just a second you miss something important it seems. Reading it allows you to go back and see what you missed much more easily.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

However, if "listening" includes being read aloud to by a parent or someone else close and loving, I would actually say "listening" because then it has all the magic of old storytelling and also the shared experience with someone important, if I may so without sounding all too cheesy.

Lommy has a point there - though I would add the great pleasure, not of "hearing" the book being read aloud, but of "reading" it aloud myself. Tolkien's narrative lends itself so well to vocalisation of any kind, and I have at times, when I had no one to read to, read the book aloud to myself (in a quiet, secluded spot, of course, lest someone should consider me crazy). JRRT's language is so wonderfully suited to speech, not just to words on the page!

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Good point about reading some aloud, like prose poetry.
Most of the Ride of the Rohirrim almost draws you
to read it aloud. Btw, doing shows you how much PJ and
friends botched the charge of the Rohirrim in RotK.
It should have started in the dark, Theoden gives his speech,
horns blow, Theoden sounds Guthlaf's horn and calls to his lads,
charges while the sun appears on his shield, then on him and Snowmane,
then all the host, with the bad guys first panicking and then charging at them
(rather like George Custer's Michigan cavalry at J.E.B. Stuart's troopers
at Gettysburg). "Come on, you Wolverines!"

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Ha, once again Lommy and Esty managed to beat me in saying what I wanted to. Anyway, good that it's been said - I think Tolkien really managed to write a book which reaches the quality of the old sagas, not just in the setting, the theme of the story and things like this, but also in the way how it is suitable for reading aloud. Indeed, if we still were a culture of storytellers rather than readers and movie-watchers, I believe LotR would be a very good tale to narrate in that way. (Okay, in some way even better if it was written in verse )

Personally, I don't have that much experience with listening to LotR, though I have been listening to the Slovak radio adaptation of LotR, which is not pure reading, but acting, of course. It also has its spirit, but I need to second others on this one who have said that the reading makes the story a much more personalised and fitting your own imagination. I think the problem with the listening is that the actor puts his own diction into it, and he stresses things in some way, where you would read it differently yourself. The listening is already an interpretation - and you can think for yourself where to put the emphasis, for example, whether to read "to ISENGARD with doom we come", or "to Isengard with doom we COME", or "to Isengard WITH DOOM we come"... etc.

[Peregrin Took]

Read, of course! The book reigns supreme.

[Pitchwife]

I listened to a German radio adaptation years ago, which was very well done - very close to the text with few cuts if any (IIRC it did include Bombadil, as well as most of the songs and poems); it combined a narrator with actors doing the individual characters, most of the voices fitting the part.
I prefer reading anytime, however, as it's more personal as well as more interactive, so to speak - true, there's the backwards/forwards buttons on the tape recorder/cd-player (does anybody else still use a tape recorder?), but it's much easier to find the exact passage you're looking for in a book. Not to forget that you can decide for yourself (and discuss in a thread!) whether to pronounce the name of Galadriel's hubby Keleborn, Seleborn or Tseleborn (or even Tcheleborn, if you're Italian).

[FeRaL sHaDoW]

It’s always better when you read it. You decide the pace and get to make your own ideas about the characters and places.

[Nerwen]

Interesting. I have never heard a dramatisation of "Lord of the Rings", so I can't go from personal experience on that one. Generally, I've found adaptations of books create slight jarring, because the voices of the characters aren't the way I imagine them.

On the other hand, my first introduction to LOTR was being read to by my mother– she read it to my brothers and me every night for about a year... and that is where my mental image of the characters, including their voices, was set in the first place. (My mother has a fairly low voice and can imitate a male voice without much trouble.)

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I choose reading the books. I love reading in general, and if I actually read then I can mispronounce names and go as slow or as fast as I want. Also, I don't miss things when I read, and if I do, I can always go back a paragraph or whatever and read it again to catch what I miss. It is a hassle trying to rewind tapes or CDs to listen to something that you don't know where it is to begin with.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Interesting. I have never heard a dramatisation of "Lord of the Rings", so I can't go from personal experience on that one. Generally, I've found adaptations of books create slight jarring, because the voices of the characters aren't the way I imagine them.

Me on the other hand cannot seem to read something that Frodo says anymore without hearing Ian Holm.

[Elmo]

I love the BBC's 'Fall of Gil-Galad'. Everything else in my opinion is just dumbed down Tolkien. Thereore every else is not worthy a comparison.

[Nogrod]

Even if it has been said here already, I think the difference between a "dramatisation" or an "adaption" should be clearly differentiated from "reading the book aloud".

Dramatisations etc. are another thing; they are artistic products made by someone and should be assessed with different standards - as not the real thing but versions or interpretations of it, like the movies or other adaptations.

But reading the book aloud, word by word, being present in the situation (or listening them on a CD / mp3 / whatever - where it is read but not "acted" by someone) is a different thing.

Tolkien's books are stories to be read aloud like the stories of old he was imitating - even if they are clearly products of the twentieth century prose. But nevertheless. They are stories to be read by a campfire, as bedtime-stories... Reading them alone and quietly by oneself is just a poor substitute for the real thing.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But reading the book aloud, word by word, being present in the situation (or listening them on a CD / mp3 / whatever - where it is read but not "acted" by someone) is a different thing.

Tolkien's books are stories to be read aloud like the stories of old he was imitating - even if they are clearly products of the twentieth century prose. But nevertheless. They are stories to be read by a campfire, as bedtime-stories... Reading them alone and quietly by oneself is just a poor substitute for the real thing.

Whereas agreeing with what you say, I disagree. (Ha! Lovely ) I mean, you are right about the storytelling (well, I said that very thing already above), but I disagree with the last sentence. The invention of reading and literacy for majority of people makes it possible for you to read elsewhere than just in the circle around the fireplace with the old tribal bard narrating. It creates options for crawling into your private corner and reading the book in your own self-centered world, closing yourself completely against the outside. However it also creates options for letting your personal imagination loose to its utmost heights, unhindered by the reader's performance. With the storytelling, only the storyteller has the very personal contact with the tale, the others' experience is only transmitted. The reader has the option to and bestow his feelings (in a limited way) upon the others, but denies the others a part in their own imagination, and also things like the management of the time and way of reading (like for example TGEW said).

And by the way, I also believe it is of a big difference to listen to a book being read aloud by someone sitting next to you and on a recording. In this way, the recording actually goes far far far lower on score for me than the reading. The "live" thing makes space for contact, feedback, from both the audience and the narrator (like gasps from the audience when Frodo is suddenly being attacked - the image of Bilbo from the movies telling the hobbit kids about the trolls comes to my mind - and the possible adjustments of the narrator's way of reading based on the audience's reactions or mood). And it is experiencing the story in a communion, passing through it together. With the narrator's voice on a CD you are actually again just alone, but even without the possibility to let your imagination completely loose as you have in reading yourself.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

The "live" thing makes space for contact, feedback, from both the audience and the narrator (like gasps from the audience when Frodo is suddenly being attacked - the image of Bilbo from the movies telling the hobbit kids about the trolls comes to my mind - and the possible adjustments of the narrator's way of reading based on the audience's reactions or mood). And it is experiencing the story in a communion, passing through it together. With the narrator's voice on a CD you are actually again just alone, but even without the possibility to let your imagination completely loose as you have in reading yourself.

This makes me think of my little brother. I am reading The Hobbit to him and every paragraph he has something to say or to ask. Mostly about Bombur, because that's his favourite. He will stop me and say "Who is Beorn?" or "Those goblins were funny!" Since I am reading to him I can stop and answer his question or have a mini conversation with him on the subject that he wants to know about. Also, I can read faster or slower if I see he is getting bored with a particular part or I see that he needs to get a better grip on what's being said. It works out better that way, even though I am not the best out-loud reader.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Reading them alone and quietly by oneself is just a poor substitute for the real thing.

I'd have to disagree with that also. There is something to be said for listening to a live reading, but a peaceful, solitary read allows me to get much more into the story. It's more of an escape that way, if I don't have to pay attention to a reader. I can disregard the real world entirely and become totally immersed.

[Son of Númenor]

I used to read The Silmarillion aloud to my family by the fireside in the evenings. We got through the book in a couple of months, and I really enjoyed the experience. I agree with Esty that Middle-earth was made to be heard! Eä!

Can someone recommend a good audio version of LotR, preferably un-dramatized? I have never thought to use this medium, but perhaps it will be good this coming winter (my preferred season for reading the trilogy), as I'll have so much other reading to do for school that my brain will do well by relaxing and letting someone else do the work of reading my favorite book to me.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Can someone recommend a good audio version of LotR, preferably un-dramatized? I have never thought to use this medium, but perhaps it will be good this coming winter (my preferred season for reading the trilogy), as I'll have so much other reading to do for school that my brain will do well by relaxing and letting someone else do the work of reading my favorite book to me.

I checked it out from the library but it was Robert Inglis who read it, he really did a good job with the voices. Here is a link to Amazon that may work.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lord-Rings-C.../dp/0007141327

[Guinevere]

If I have time, I actually prefer reading, for the same reasons that Legate and Inziladun gave. I can read at my own pacing, can go back and reread if necessary (for better comprehension or special relish of favourite passages) and can immerse much better in the story.
On the other hand, Tolkien's wonderful language fairly calls out to be read aloud - I often catch myself moving silently my lips while reading.

Several years ago I saw an unabridged Audiobook of the Lord of the Rings (read by Rob Inglis) in my English Book shop, but I wasn't sure if the narrator's voice and performance would be to my liking. It seemed an awful lot of money for buying "a pig in a poke"!
Well, after listening to some samples on YouTube of Rob Inglis reading from the Hobbit I finally made up my mind and ordered the LotR Audiobook.

I am not disappointed - Mr.Inglis really does an excellent job, even with the songs!

I mostly listen to the CD's while ironing or doing other household chores that are not noisy and don't require too much concentration. I am actually looking forward to such work now!

[xMellrynxMaidenx]

I prefer to read as well. I already have the character's voices pegged out in my mind, and if I tried to listen to it and the actor's voice isn't the same as the voice in my mind, then the two clash and I end up unable to follow along with the rest of the story. Aside from that, I would fall asleep if I listened to it. Our English teacher, when I was in my Jr. year, played Beowulf on tape for us...I fell alseep and snored, and quite loudly too might I add, through the entire thing. I just enjoyed reading it more and in general enjoy reading anything.

[alatar]

Read.

Robert Inglis does an excellent job reading the unabridged audiobook version, but after a gagillion times you begin to tire of his voice.

[Galadriel]

Definitely reading. My mind tends to wander when I listen. When I took my TOEFL test I noticed I could barely concentrate during the listening section.

[Galadriel55]

I prefer to read, because I can concentrate better. Also, every once in a while I have the sudden urge to flip back a few pages and check on this or that fact. It's easier for me if it's written down than if I'm listening. Plus, I can reread a certain passage as many ties as I want before continuing. I have very weird reading habbits, don't I? And when I reread a book, I never do it cover to cover; a bit here, a bit there: that's my way.

[Mithalwen]

I haven't voted yet because the BBC adaptation holds such a special place in my heart as does the the Jackanory Hobbit which prolly counts as a listen.

My parents were readers but neither would have read Tolkien. My father read mainly military history and my mother was not have read fantasy/scifi. So if I hadn't heard the blessed Bernard Cribbins read The Hobbit I might never have got into Tolkien -none of my RL friends are remotely interested save one who is more of a film bod and I didn't meet him til university which was between my tolkien phases.

I was given LOTR the Christmas after I read the Hobbit but struggled and didn't finish that time. I heard the radio LOTR adaptation repeats just after I had tried again, suceeded and got hooked and so that interpretation is closely interwoven wiht my own impressions. I still prefer the Frodo and Sam thread on the Radio version. The brilliant acting of Ian Holm and Bill Nighy (with Peter Woodthorpe as Gollum and Andrew Seear as Faramir) make the bit of the book I find hardest to read absolutely riveting.

So as things stand it would be read (I have not heard the plain reading or had it read to me) but if listen to Beeb adaptations were an option it would be hard. Now if it were the Silmarillion - well Ihave CRT's recordings and that would be a definite listen save that they are only extracts. Amazing stuff.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I prefer to read, because I can concentrate better. Also, every once in a while I have the sudden urge to flip back a few pages and check on this or that fact. It's easier for me if it's written down than if I'm listening. Plus, I can reread a certain passage as many ties as I want before continuing. I have very weird reading habbits, don't I? And when I reread a book, I never do it cover to cover; a bit here, a bit there: that's my way.

Ditto. I simply have to keep checking on facts. Especially when I read Hugo (he tends to be a tad confusing ).