I recently did some research on agents and what not for my soon to be finished book, so I'm in a book mind anyway. But then I read a post about audio books.
How did audio "books" get the distinction of being a book? OK, ok, they are the exact words written in the book. Fair enough.
But isn't it sorta like calling movies "visual books?"
I mean, neither are really books at all. Not in any way, shape, or form. Sure, audio "books" follow the exact narrative of the book, word for word. But in a lot of ways, so do movies. Should these visual "books" be condemned just becuase their medium allows for different presentation? And if so, how come audio "books" aren't held to the same standard?
Just some light thoughts for a Friday.
I'm sure if they could create something that was an exact representation of a book, then it might be called a video book.
ReplyDeleteMovies, arguably, aren't always based from books, thus couldn't always be called video books, and that is a longer set of words than movies anyway. I also don't think movies are condemned for being visual interpretations of books. I think they're condemned when they are BAD visual interpretations of books, just like when a bad reader makes a good book unenjoyable.