[bct] Re: Our favorite books and narrators

  • From: "Lynnette" <superlynne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:24:36 -0500

Ah... Well, definitely this e-mail thing isn't always the clearest form of communication. It only took me seven tries to spell that darned word. <grin>
Lynnette



----- Original Message ----- From: "Onj" <onj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 6:39 PM
Subject: [bct] Re: Our favorite books and narrators



No no no you miss my point, totally, completely, and entirely.
Lol what I'm saying is I can not listen to abridged or unabridged audio as a
CD, mp3, or other human-read content unless it's a dramatic production.
I can however, read it on the pc just fine. I've read books that in text
alone take up over 2 and 3 megabites in size before.
Unabridged is of course definitely the best medium, as you said, abridged
you miss way too much, and the stuff they usually choose to cut out is that
which makes the book what it is. Very stupid in my personal opinion.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynnette" <superlynne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: [bct] Re: Our favorite books and narrators



| Hi Onj,
| Maria and I are just the opposite. We must have nothing less than the
full
| version. Abridgments cause us to feel we're missing something. Most of
the
| time, you can really tell.
| Lynnette
|
| ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Onj" <onj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:30 AM
| Subject: [bct] Re: Our favorite books and narrators
|
|
| >I must agree there.
| > I tend to read a lot with my Pc, as I guess I've turned into a freak.
| > I find human readers too slow actually, which may seem strange.
| > for me to get into an audio book I have to have listened to it for a
very
| > long time, so I get used to the cadence I think. Only then, I can
really
| > enjoy it.
| > Dramatic stuff is fine, but unabridged audio books make me bored.
| >
| > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: "derek Lane" <derek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| > To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:10 PM
| > Subject: [bct] Re: Our favorite books and narrators
| >
| >
| > |I also listen to some books via synthetic speech.
| > | However, I wouldn't want to hear synthesized speech on a tape though!
| > | ----- Original Message ----- | > | From: "Joni Colver" <joni.colver@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:35 PM
| > | Subject: [bct] Re: Our favorite books and narrators
| > |
| > |
| > | Jamie it is a shame to lose a lot of the old wonderful narrations.
| > | According to the NLS website Jim Walton narrated Huck Finn. All of
the
| > old
| > | books I just looked at, including that one and Little Women narrated
by
| > | Terry Hayes Sales, have been withdrawn. I have not heard of any plans
| > to
| > | try to preserve the books in a digital format. I imagine people who
| > know
| > a
| > | lot about the process can give explanations as to why this is not
| > feasible.
| > |
| > | There are some good narrators nowadays, but, I feel, perhaps
| > nostalgically,
| > | that overall some of the earlier talking book narrators were better
than
| > | what I encounter today.
| > |
| > | Narration of a book can either increase or decrease a person's
enjoyment
| > of
| > | a book depending on the narrator's skills. I have really begun to
| > prefer
| > | listening to books with synthetic speech due to its predictability.
| > |
| > | At any rate, it is sad to lose the original narrations of those old
| > | classics.
| > |
| > | Joni
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
|





Other related posts: