Audiobooks discussion
Archives
>
Listener Q&A
This is a piece I wrote a couple of years ago and posted to my blog:
http://dogearedcopy.blgspot.com/2011/...
It's still as relevant now as then :-)
http://dogearedcopy.blgspot.com/2011/...
It's still as relevant now as then :-)
As has been mentioned in this thread, audiobooks have become extremely popular, and the talent pool of narrators has grown, is growing. At one time, I was simply glad to get a fairly recent publication in audio format at all and wasn't picky about narration. Now, I guess I do seek out those narrators I enjoy the most. Scott Brick, Davina Porter, Rob Inglis, Ron McLarty, Dick Hill, Simon Vance .. too many really. With Davina Porter, it's pretty much one author, Gabaldon.But, and this is quoting Steven King in his book "On Writing", "...story trumps all." If it's a really good story, the narrator is, imho, taking a back seat, and the reader is absorbed in the story. The story-teller is the author.
This would be the case, for me, regardless of ethnicity or dialect or geography or accent.
If a narrator is REALLY good, I'm not paying much attention to him/her. Hope that makes some sense, but it's true.
Samyann: I have to report that I'm currently listening to a story with a weak plotline Retirement Homes Are Murder, where the narration is carrying the story to an extent that I don't think the text would keep me reading the print book.Also, some readers become too identified with a series. For example, I can recall listening to C. J. Critt reading a book, thinking, "Wait! What's Grandma Mazur (from the Stephanie Plum series) doing here?" She was recycling some of the character voices almost exactly.
John wrote: "Samyann: I have to report that I'm currently listening to a story with a weak plotline Retirement Homes Are Murder, where the narration is carrying the story to an extent that I don't think the tex..."I think you've sort of made my point (Steven King's point). "Story trumps all." If it's not a good story, I can't get past the first few chapters, whether printed or narrated. Course there is that narrator that would put you to sleep :-) no matter what they read.
John wrote: "Samyann: I have to report that I'm currently listening to a story with a weak plotline Retirement Homes Are Murder, where the narration is carrying the story to an extent that I don't think the tex..."John, I really have to agree with you, but also agree generally with the idea that the story is the thing. It truly is unique to audio that mediocre plot can be overcome with great narration, although even a fairly bad narrator can't undo a great story. But a truly bad story can't be overcome by even the greatest narration. The thing I live for is when a good story and good narrator come together to make something that is greater than either alone. This seems to be a matter of personal taste, but for me some examples are The Iron Druid Chronicles, Tales of the Otori, and even LotR read by Rob Ingliss and Jim Dale reading Harry Potter. There are many more, but these are a few that quickly leap to mind. The blending of story with narration is almost alchemical, and can result in a final product that is both gold and magical.
Jeanie wrote: "John wrote: "Samyann: I have to report that I'm currently listening to a story with a weak plotline Retirement Homes Are Murder, where the narration is carrying the story to an extent that I don't ..."Jeanie, Rob Inglis reading LorR is awesome. I just LOVE the singing. Makes me smile every time I listen.
Jeanie -- the characters in the book are quite likeable (except for the unbelievably abrasive homicide cop), but the plot is so unrealistic that it doesn't strain credulity so much as shred it into pieces. The narrator brings those characters to life, where I don't think the printed page would enough to overcome the book's shortcomings.
John wrote: "Jeanie -- the characters in the book are quite likeable (except for the unbelievably abrasive homicide cop), but the plot is so unrealistic that it doesn't strain credulity so much as shred it into..."I've experienced something similar in a number of audiobooks I've read. While not a perfect example, I vividly remember recommending the book, "The Wish List" by Eoin Colfer, to my sister because I had so enjoyed it. All she could talk about were the weaknesses in the plot and certain twists that detracted from the overall effect. I was stunned at her lack of appreciation until I stopped to realize that she had read it in print while I had listened to it in audio. My experience had made me gloss over the weakenesses--although I had to admit to them once noted by my sister--but I loved the characters because of the narration and had only a sense of joy at the end, no disappointment.
A new bit of pondering...If a character who speaks casually, or better yet, a typical teen is written with "Yes" or "going to" in their casual dialog with friends/family members, what sounds more natural to your ear as a listener - "yeah" or a "yes" Same question for "going to" vs. "gonna."
As a reader (not narrator - just reader), I find that while I don't want to "read" "yeah" or "gonna go to the store" in the text, I do in fact hear "yeah" or "gonna go to the store" in my head, because that's how I and most of my friends, family, colleagues, etc. actually speak.
That got me wondering if listeners care...and if authors care...once we get to audio.
For narrators, most publishers will require you to stay true to the actual text (for obvious reason - the author wrote it the way they wrote it). But when reading such casual dialog in a more formalized manner, it can be tricky to stay true to the characterization (especially where accents are involved) when the formal expression isn't inline with the character.
Just curious what listeners think, especially those who print and audio read the same text.
And also very curious what any authors out there think!
I'd say, if the author writes "going to" then that's what should be narrated; assuming it's a chore of some sort, the kid would say, "I'm going to do it later, OKAY?" Same thing with "yes" as an answer, make it as bored/disgusted as possible.I believe I have asked this before, but have you narrators ever consulted with an author as to how names are pronounced? Or, had "instructions" along with the job?
Thanks for the thoughts, John! That's prevailing wisdom and what we tend to do. And yes! On almost every book, I request confirmation from the author on various names/place name pronunciation. If I'm fortunate, I'll be allowed to work directly with the author on this, which leads to a deeper connection with the author's intent and the material itself. On rare occasion, I'll either ask for or will be given unsolicited a bit of backstory or "instruction" on what the author intended with a particular character.
I think the narrators do need to go with what is written - however, I do find, so often listening that the writer uses, what I've come to term, hyper-formalized langauge, and it just feels disjointedits kind of like name tags in dialogue - if there are only 2 people involved in the conversation - do names really need to be used in the convo, as long as there is an understanding/portrayal of the 2 people - I'd say no, because its not like i'm going to be in a conversation with Xe for example, and start or end every statement with Xe - its been driving me nuts for a while now
Dee wrote: "its kind of like name tags in dialogue - if there are only 2 people involved in the conversation - do names really need to be used in the convo, as long as there is an understanding/portrayal of the 2 people - I'd say no, because its not like i'm going to be in a conversation with Xe for example, and start or end every statement with Xe - its been driving me nuts for a while now "Ha! Oh Dee, couldn't agree more! That gets to be crazy-making when narrating as well...also the constant "So-and-so said" when there are only two in the conversation. What makes sense in print doesn't always make as much sense aloud for sure.
I don't even think it makes that much sense in print - I just think that its less obvious...I about threw my ipod out the window the other day because of massive amounts of convo's like that in the book - I just wanted to scream
that and redundant words - like saying chest twice in the same sentence, but with a comma...I wish I could remember the exact one - it drove me nuts and then I started hearing it more and more in books
I too prefer a narrator to read exactly what is on the page. But I don't have a problem with 'Yeah" or "gonna" if that is what the character would say. I know that certain conventions are hard to break--maybe even publishers insist--but certain words or phrases simply cry out for expression. Another convention is not using contractions, which really does sound stiff in audio. One last example is "er" to indicate uncertainty, a pause, or delay. This is fine in British books because of the way Brits pronounce "er", but American English requires the r to be voiced and I don't know anyone who actually says "errrrr" when trying to think of a word or when stalling. American English should spell it "uh", but evidently publishers think this looks too vulgar ;)
In print books, when I see redundancies right off the bat, such as a character's name more than twice in paragraph, that's it!Those tags should be rare in two (or even three) person settings. The author should manage :
"I didn't do it!"
"Yes, you did!"
Nancy paused for a moment, before finally admitting, "I was with Billy Snerd that night."
Jeanie: I'd use "Ummmm ..." for that sort of delay.
i would probably notice when I read, but my eyes just register and move on - its not like listening where I hear every word (does that make sense?)
John wrote: "In print books, when I see redundancies right off the bat, such as a character's name more than twice in paragraph, that's it!Those tags should be rare in two (or even three) person settings. The
Jeanie: I'd use "Ummmm ..." for that sort of delay.
..."
"Uh" and "Uhm" are two valid ways of spelling the sound when one is filling a pause, but "uhm" isn't always the sound I produce when stalling. And the convention in even some American English books is to spell it "erm", which seems to be a filler for "I don't know" rather than searching for a word. I first realized this because of Harry Potter, of all things. A riddle in one of the books was about a sound produced when searching for a word. The answer was "er" and formed the final sound in "spider". I checked out the print book and that's when I discovered "er" and "erm" and realized I'd seen these spellings in many American books too.
I guess whether uh, uhm, er, or erm are used is a matter of author preference--if the publisher doesn't force the choice.
I hadn't thought about those fillers and how difficult that must be to do aloud. It really does depend on the character and what they would say depending on their age or where they come from. But a good author should be thinking about that when they're writing, because I know at least for me, I try to think about how it sounds in my head, not just what it would sound like if someone read it to me. I too HATE repetitious language, whether names or other words. Use a thesaurus! But I can understand where this could get challenging when someone is narrating a conversation with little punctuation in between, especially if it is between two or three people of the same gender. In that case, maybe a cue to the narrator of which "voice" they should use for each sentence could be helpful, but I don't think I would want to see it in the print version. Hm, interesting to think about how to handle that.
John wrote: "I'd say, if the author writes "going to" then that's what should be narrated; assuming it's a chore of some sort, the kid would say, "I'm going to do it later, OKAY?" Same thing with "yes" as an an..."Like Xe already explained, it's often necessary to be in touch with the author, particularly where the names of characters/places are concerned. Right now I'm recording a nonfiction book with a lot of surnames that are of European origin even though the events took place in the U.S. The author has been great about getting back to me. I've found that they usually are very cooperative (with a couple of exceptions). :)
Lee Ann
I'm really enjoying this thread, and I thank all the listeners here for taking the time to give these in-depth responses. I've attempted to engage with listeners in other forums in the past and had limited or negative results, so this is an amazing resource.Thank you!
"Uh, Uhm & Ummmm"Is someone writing Twilight fanfiction?
I jest!
Great to have you here, Corey! We love hearing about your experiences in the audio industry.
For the "er/um" thing, I usually try to make it sound natural. So instead of specifically voicing "errrr" in the sentence "And then I, er, opened the door" I might say "And then I, eh, opened the door". The "eh" is the same sound one might make when actually speaking- except I don't know how to WRITE it. It's more like "ehurm"... sort of. I should record it, heh.I HAVE voiced the actual "errr" if the character would have or in cases where they were intentionally playing up a stumble to another character.
The trick I've found that works is to carry on the conversation with myself and listen to how it would sound, then adapt that to make it work within the constraints of the text.
One thing I always avoid is actually changing the text. Interpreting "er" as "eh" or "ehhhr" is one thing, but it's pretty much not cricket to change any actual text.
Corey wrote: "For the "er/um" thing, I usually try to make it sound natural. So instead of specifically voicing "errrr" in the sentence "And then I, er, opened the door" I might say "And then I, eh, opened the d...Interpreting "er" as "eh" or "ehhhr" is one thing, but it's pretty much not cricket to change any actual text."
Love the British pun!
Several of you have hit on the issue...that the written version of the sounds isn't actually what we might actually say/what sound we might make. But there are some publishers that will request a correction to the exact phonetic interpretation of the text. I'll confess that that can be quite difficult to do naturally, at times.
Xe wrote: "Several of you have hit on the issue...that the written version of the sounds isn't actually what we might actually say/what sound we might make. But there are some publishers that will request a c..."I'm wondering if audio has unintentionally uncovered a literary/publishing convention that has persisted because "it has always been done that way" rather than anyone stopping to figure out, for example, why american writers should use "er" or "erm" at all. That's how it has been written for a couple hundred years, therefore that's how we write it today. Shall we start a movement to make American publishers move into the twentieth century? Of course, now that we are in the twenty-first century and publishing itself is being transformed, we'll probably just be making an improvement on the literary version of a buggy whip.
This is interesting, because I was an author first, listener second and publisher last. I have a book where the author had a particular character say ha ha at the end of some lines. We worked that to an actual chuckle, which is a thousand times better.
David wrote: "This is interesting, because I was an author first, listener second and publisher last. I have a book where the author had a particular character say ha ha at the end of some lines. We worked that..."I remember reading an interview with Jim Dale where he noted that for his Harry Potter narrations the folks at Listening Library were such sticklers about sticking precisely to the text that that if there were a string of ha's to indicate laughter, they counted exactly how many there were and made sure he said them all--not one less, not one more.
As a listener I like the sound of the actual chuckle, as you mentioned, but in the Harry Potter case, fans were such sticklers about "canon" that I can see how the audio publishers felt bound to reproduce every jot and tittle on the page.
I have just listened to a scene in which a character is very nervous and fearful. Never once did Kate Reading say um, er, or uh. She used the verbal equvalent of ... (An ellipse? Is that the word?) and said, "I...I had to do it" rather than "i, um, I had to do it". It conveyed the emotion perfectly, and set the scene for future action.
Personally, if I hear one of the fillers listed above, it always makes me wonder if the narrator has lost his or her place in the text. But I am coming to realize that sometimes they just don't have a choice,
Personally, if I hear one of the fillers listed above, it always makes me wonder if the narrator has lost his or her place in the text. But I am coming to realize that sometimes they just don't have a choice,
Actually, David brings up an interesting point. When I narrate, sometimes there will be something like:"Yes, I know," John said. He sighed. "It's not that simple, Jenny."
When I narrate that, I'm pretty likely to include the sigh. Or when the text says he snorted, chuckled, sniffed, whatever, and the dialogue immediately follows, I will usually voice that sound, although I keep it fairly "small", if that makes sense.
No one's ever complained, so far at any rate.
For an audiobook, I'd say that qualifies as a "stage direction" rather than text to be included.
Yeah, John, sometimes I think to do an audiobook perfectly would take the author going through and annotating things like that.
I had thought professional narrators go through the work first to note that type of thing ahead of time?
I wanted to mention that the practice of reading the text absolutely verbatim goes back to the days when professional narrators were more or less trained in the Library of Congress's recordings for the blind. The idea was that the visually impaired deserved every word, not one word more, not one less. There was a lot less stress on the performance aspect than the delivery.
Some audiobook publishers are more strict than others when it comes to "verbal pauses" ("ers" and "ums") and how to interpret them. I worked for a company that was very strict about every word and verbal pauses, the policy being that the audiobook is supposed to be in service to the words that the author wrote and that the narrator needed to make it work within those parameters. Adding in words or linguistic stylings when not indicated in the text runs the risk of compromising the author's intent and; eliminating words, even one makes the book abridged. Authors often agonize over just the right word and it's not the audiobook publisher's or the narrator's job to run editorial oversight except in the most egregious instances (and then only with permission from the author and/or publisher.)
Are mistakes made in the recording? Sure! Even the most aggressive QC departments are unlikely to catch every single instance of a missed/added word; but the goal is "every last "HA", no more, no less."
The narrator is supposed to pre-read the text and be able to note "stage directions" ahead of time (amongst other things.) After that it's a matter of interpretive style e.g. whether you actually sigh or just read the line and use the stage direction as a listener cue. Funnily enough, the mis-read/mis-interpretation I most often encounter is when a character is "nonplussed."
Some audiobook publishers are more strict than others when it comes to "verbal pauses" ("ers" and "ums") and how to interpret them. I worked for a company that was very strict about every word and verbal pauses, the policy being that the audiobook is supposed to be in service to the words that the author wrote and that the narrator needed to make it work within those parameters. Adding in words or linguistic stylings when not indicated in the text runs the risk of compromising the author's intent and; eliminating words, even one makes the book abridged. Authors often agonize over just the right word and it's not the audiobook publisher's or the narrator's job to run editorial oversight except in the most egregious instances (and then only with permission from the author and/or publisher.)
Are mistakes made in the recording? Sure! Even the most aggressive QC departments are unlikely to catch every single instance of a missed/added word; but the goal is "every last "HA", no more, no less."
The narrator is supposed to pre-read the text and be able to note "stage directions" ahead of time (amongst other things.) After that it's a matter of interpretive style e.g. whether you actually sigh or just read the line and use the stage direction as a listener cue. Funnily enough, the mis-read/mis-interpretation I most often encounter is when a character is "nonplussed."
I'll go through a book ahead of time but I'm not looking for things like "he sighed", ers/ums or laughter; I'm looking for words I don't know how to pronounce, coming up with character voices, and notes on specific scenes, and also making sure I have a good grip on the author's intent with each character, the story in general and so forth.I *do* read every word in the book, but the way that certain non-word sounds are spoken varies, and I'll absolutely say "he sighed", but then put a slight sigh in on the immediately following dialogue. It helps keep the listener in the narrative, I think.
Corey wrote: "I'll go through a book ahead of time but I'm not looking for things like "he sighed", ers/ums or laughter; I'm looking for words I don't know how to pronounce, coming up with character voices, and ..."I've encountered several examples recently of narrators doing what you said, reading "he sighed," and then adding a fairly small sigh (yes, I understood what you meant, well said--or other designated sound. I like it when they do this and wouldn't want the printed direction left out of the narration; otherwise, I'd be wondering if that was the author's direction or an interpretation of the narrator.
Back to an example from the Harry Potter narration, in Order of the Phoenix Delores Umbridge often said, "Hem, hem". Jim Dale read this making the sound intended rather than speaking the word "hem". It was very effective. Evidently the sticklers producing the audio version found this acceptable--so did I, it was perfect for the character whereas the spoken word wouldn't have been.
Jeanie wrote: "otherwise, I'd be wondering if that was the author's direction or an interpretation of the narrator."I do agree on this, when it's something like "He sighed." That is a written out to describe what's going on, not an onomatopoeia (I had to look up how to spell that!), so I do want the words spoken, but like Corey said, I like the actual sigh added, because I think it helps shape the tone of the following words in a more natural way: He sighed *sigh* "Julia, don't you think you're overreacting?" It helps change the sound of the voice to sound exasperated, as a sigh might imply. When, however, it's an "er" or "hem" or even an animal sound like "woof", those are all onomatopoeic and, to me, definitely should be sounded out naturally, unless something else is implied from the text (Such as someone teaching a child to say "woof, woof!" to make the sound of a dog).
But, that's just my feelings as a listener, and others probably vary.
There is a way to deliver a line "sighingly" without actually sighing, just as there are ways to deliver lines that are whispered and yelled without actually whispering and yelling. Being able to do so is what delineates the narrator from an actor, the textual cues from actual stage directions :-)
Tanya/dog eared copy wrote: "There is a way to deliver a line "sighingly" without actually sighing, just as there are ways to deliver lines that are whispered and yelled without actually whispering and yelling. Being able to d..."This may come down to personal preference, but I've found it sounds quite natural when a reader encorporates the chuckle, snort, cough, sigh, or other specific textual description. I've heard it both ways, "He chuckled, then said, 'Maybe next time'"/"He chuckled, then said, (small chuckle) 'Maybe next time.'"
When done naturally, the latter sounds more effective to me. In fact, although specific examples elude me at the moment, I've frequently noticed the absence of such sounds when a narrator chose not to encorporate them. At any rate, I've never found such vocalizings to be a detraction when done by a good narrator--the above narrators in this thread may now take a bow :)
Jeanie wrote: This may come down to personal preference, but I've found it sounds quite natural when a reader encorporates the chuckle, snort, cough, sigh, or other specific textual description. I've heard it both ways, "He chuckled, then said, 'Maybe next time'"/"He chuckled, then said, (small chuckle) 'Maybe next time.'"When done naturally, the latter sounds more effective to me. In fact, although specific examples elude me at the moment, I've frequently noticed the absence of such sounds when a narrator chose not to encorporate them. At any rate, I've never found such vocalizings to be a detraction when done by a good narrator--the above narrators in this thread may now take a bow :) .."
I agree. For a narrator to sigh, then say "he sighed." works well for me. Lois McMaster Bujold uses 'Hm' in conversation (no 'he sighed') for her Miles Vorkosigan and other characters, and Grover Gardner is particularly adept at putting different inflections into "Hm" as appropriate - really a thinking pause, or a quizzical one, etc. OK, OK, y'all know I'm a GG fangirl.
On the other side, I find that sometimes an author's writing style makes it annoying when the book becomes an audiobook. I love the Robert B. Parker Spenser books, and was happy to find Joe Mantegna's readings, until I realized that Parker writes dialog with 'he said', 'she said', after EVERY sentence in a conversation, no matter how short. Even with Mantegna's excellent voice, this becomes annoying very fast. I'm going to try these again, now after a long hiatus, and see if I can ignore the interruptions.
ETA: Sorry, didn't see the month-earlier comments about the 'he said', 'she said'.
CatBookMom wrote: "I agree. For a narrator to sigh, then say "he sighed." works well for me. Lois McMaster Bujold uses 'Hm' in conversation (no 'he sighed') for her Miles Vorkosigan and other characters, and Grover Gardner is particularly adept at putting different inflections into "Hm" as appropriate - really a thinking pause, or a quizzical one, etc. OK, OK, y'all know I'm a GG fangirl. "
But GG never adds a word or vocalization that isn't in the text already, nor does he edit out any of the text (e.g. "he said.") Even in the Inspector Montalbano series, which many attribute as GG has having given the characters their distinct voices and mannerisms, the interpretation is mandated by the text, every stutter and verbal pause.
Outside of audio drama, there is a fine line between interpreting the text with color and becoming too actorly or worse, becoming a showcase of character voices. As I mentioned before, a sigh is subtle and small enough in overall narration to not be a big deal either way; though for the more thorough proofers/editors, the added vocalizations are going to get flagged. It's when you get into the other interpretive cues (e.g. whispering, said softly, yelling, screaming, nonplussed) that delivery as a narrator differs from that of an actor. In the Vorkosigan series, GG never actually whispers or yells, but I bet many listeners get the impression that he does :-)
But GG never adds a word or vocalization that isn't in the text already, nor does he edit out any of the text (e.g. "he said.") Even in the Inspector Montalbano series, which many attribute as GG has having given the characters their distinct voices and mannerisms, the interpretation is mandated by the text, every stutter and verbal pause.
Outside of audio drama, there is a fine line between interpreting the text with color and becoming too actorly or worse, becoming a showcase of character voices. As I mentioned before, a sigh is subtle and small enough in overall narration to not be a big deal either way; though for the more thorough proofers/editors, the added vocalizations are going to get flagged. It's when you get into the other interpretive cues (e.g. whispering, said softly, yelling, screaming, nonplussed) that delivery as a narrator differs from that of an actor. In the Vorkosigan series, GG never actually whispers or yells, but I bet many listeners get the impression that he does :-)
Tanya/dog eared copy wrote: "But GG never adds a word or vocalization that isn't in the text already, nor does he edit out any of the text (e.g. "he said.") Even in the Inspector Montalbano series, which many attribute as GG has having given the characters their distinct voices and mannerisms, the interpretation is mandated by the text, every stutter and verbal pause. ."You are correct. Thanks for clarifying this for people who may be new to GG.
@CatBookMom: LOL, from one GG fan girl to another :-)
Yeah. I've listened to some narrators recently who should go to GG for training in how to do it correctly.
I prefer an actual sigh to "he sighed", but I also prefer "making a disgusted noise" to actually making the noise. So I'm in favour of whatever sounds most authentic for this character in this scene.
I don't know if "yea" counts in this discussion, but R. C. Bray, the narrator of The Martian, read the word yea, but he did it with so much enthusiasm that I laughed out loud.It's a very funny book by the way, last I read someone had picked up the movie rights.
Audiobooks
Books mentioned in this topic
The Unchangeable Spots of Leopards (other topics)The Unchangeable Spots of Leopards (other topics)
Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience and Redemption (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
Retirement Homes Are Murder (other topics)
More...
I couldn't agree more!