[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re:Audio Books

[Sherry Gomes]

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dina Lerret
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:42 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re:Audio Books


On 6/22/05, Leeann McCullough <libtax10375 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dina wrote:    *Giant Snip*   Going back to the audiobooks, am I the only
one amused when folk
> reference 'reading' in relationship to audiobooks?

> I'm sure Dina is not slamming those who prefer audio books, but I wanted
to point out something.

I'm not and I'm quite dumbfounded by how anyone can come to that
conclusion.  I actually like the audio books since I'm developing an
attention disorder with longer reading material and I've never read
all the books.  I make the distinction by saying I've *listened* to
all the books.

Put it this way: if someone said they were 'listening' to music by
watching folks play instruments but couldn't hear or feel any
vibrations, then I'd find the term ironic by association from
everything I was taught.

Dina

Sherry now:

hi Dina,

Let me give you some perspective from one who must by necessity "read" audio
books.  It is a very important distinction to most of us who are blind, that
we read by audio.  Very few things are available in Braille, and a very low
percentage of blind people read braille anyway.  We also use terms like
"watch TV" "see you later" "look at that."  To us, reading is reading no
matter how you do that reading.  It doesn't necessarily need to be done by
the eyes or the fingers for that matter.  Many of us have often had people
imply--which I absolutely understand you were not--that only visual reading
is truly reading and that audio reading is somehow inferior.  Yet blind
people have earned their doctorates by using audio books and sighted readers
and other options like that.  So, though obviously, we are in truth
listening to a book, to us it is indeed reading the book, and it's important
to us to think of it that way.

I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense the way I've tried to explain it.
It's so basic to me, that I'm not sure how to express it.  Again, i know you
weren't implying that listening is inferior.  I just wanted to try to
explain how some people will consider listening to be reading even though it
is with our ears.

Did it make sense at all?

And is anyone else getting double messages on this list?  Suddenly, just a
while ago, every message I get on OT-chatter is coming in twos.

Sherry