These really blew me away. I have a theory that he recorded the narration and dialogue of each character individually and then it was all edited together - it seems impossible to switch back and forth between such incredible character deliveries on the fly. Or perhaps this is just how that kind of work is done. Regardless, an amazing job.
The Hobbit was specifically written to be read out loud, if I remember correctly.
Would you also suggest to the families in the 30s & 40s that listening to the popular radio shows while sitting in the living room could have been a better experience if they had just read the transcript, instead? Or that they should have been multitasking during the shows, else it was a waste of their time?
Some people just prefer to listen. I read well and I read quite quickly -- I don't know how many books I've physically read, but it's gotta be in the high hundreds at least -- but over the past ~10 years I've switched primarily to audiobooks. Rather than being something that I enjoy while I'm doing something else, I typically do something mindless with my hands (weave chainmail, cross stitch, sew) in order to give my full attention to the book.
Some audiobooks also seem to gain over the book; for instance, IMO, James Saxon's narration of "Blandings Castle" is truly excellent and gets out the most of Wodehouse.
hi loloquwowndueo, i was thinking the same thing, but then I thought why you would prefer reading a book while sitting instead of listening - is it about efficiency and that if you CAN read one should (you use the imperative) read?
I also have this view, but when I was young and an avid reader I also enjoyed radio stories immensely as my imagination was also activated. As in the past we were an species with a predominantly oral cultural transmission, arguably more 'embodied', there could be something to say for attending a theatre version in preference of a book. On the other hand, reading often is faster, but it's indirect, you translate the symbols into your imagination yourself, on the upside you perhaps train your mind more. So both have their advantages, one is not necessarily better. I notice I am often looking through a lense of efficiency and then make choices where I loose a certain experience - sitting in the dark listening to someone telling a story instead of reading can be equally wonderful.
Reading is faster - a reason not to do it! There’s a reason that rituals across time and space have had readings from time immemorial- and not just because of the cost of printing.
Especially with a work like LotR it can be very tempting to skim parts; the audiobook will just continue on, which can help you encounter passages you’d normally have skipped over.
Absolutely! I'd read LotR many times before I first read it aloud as a bedtime story season and was abashed to find how much I'd been skipping over, mostly parenthetical details of geography and world-building, while hastening in pursuit of the plot, like the holder of a big box of bonbons gorging target than savouring.
Honestly, you probably don't even take reading seriously if you're reading the book. If you're sitting on an armchair not really doing anything else, you should be reading from clay tablets, as Tolkien would have wanted.
To be fair, Tolkien probably have more in common with audiobooks and reading of works than reading them from printed pages - given his scholarly pursuits were of oral traditions.
Zip file with mp3 in it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b2aPKgVVguOKMOOqWskaliOviYr...
Best enjoyed on a rainy afternoon in an armchair with a cup of tea.