re-awakening audio and book combinations

I've begun to notice more books-on-CD (or tape) combined with the original books.

The last time this group talked about it was march of last year. The consensus then was that a combination would only occur if the whole text of the original book was recorded, with some (including me) disagreeing. Is this still the case?

Now there is another wrinkle to this question. Since translations of books into modern languages are allowed for combinations, are the audio books that contain the full text of the translations allowed?

Also, regarding modern translations of modern books into Ancient Greek or Latin: why am I seeing these combined with the original works? That's like combining the Klingon translation of Hamlet with Shakespeare's Hamlet. The translation is artificial at best and probably inaccurate (to original speakers of those lanuages {the real ones anyway}) at worst.

My vote is still and always for combining unabridged audio recordings with their paper siblings.

I'd say translations work the same way... I listened to Inkheart last year, but I think that should still connect me to people who read Tintenhertz in the original German, and on paper.

I'm all for combining unabridged recordings, but I'm less certain about the abridged ones, though.

Or, to put it another way, ignore the fact that it's audio. Combine as you would if it were in print.

Agreed wtih 2 and 3.

Also, regarding modern translations of modern books into Ancient Greek or Latin: why am I seeing these combined with the original works?

Because there are a lot of people that don't read or follow the rules.

#1: "... why am I seeing these combined ..."

Because not everyone is following enlightened guidelines, or even reading the few hints given on the combining page. That's why members of Combiners!, including you I'm sure, do a lot of separating too.

But on the subject of audio books: my opinion is that if the text is the same, it doesn't matter whether the book is issued in 10-point Times New Roman or as a large type edition or in Braille, or indeed as audio - it's the same work. And if it's the sort of book whose main purpose can be achieved by a translation into a modern language, then whether that language is written using the latin alphabet or some other writing system or is spoken, it's still the same work. But, as implied above, I, as apparently most others, see a translation into a classical language as serving a different purpose.

As a listener of audiobooks, I feel that the abridged recordings should be considered part of the same work as the print version. Oftentimes, the abridged version is the only audio version available; and I don't believe that there's any significant social difference between the two versions of the work.

#6

I would disagree with you and say that only the unabridged work should be combined.

Why? Because if you allow abridgements for audio-books then surely you should allow abridgements in written books. There are abridgements of longer novels for younger people. Some of these are a tenth the size in terms of pages. So quite obviously not the same work.

As for social connections there obviously is one but it is weaker than the social connection between people who have read/listened to the same text. It is not of the same order.

Maybe. There's definitely a difference of degree in the abridgements, though; the young adult versions of books which you cited, especially when they're so severely trimmed, hardly have the same social context as the original text (and aren't intended to!), unlike audio abridgements where they're meant to have the same contexts.

Is the connection between someone who listened to the audiobook and someone who read the print version weaker than between two people who read the print version? Maybe slightly. Certainly not an order of magnitude, though, unless it was an extremely poor adaptation (like Star by Star's).

#8

If the audio book is abridged there is a social difference. The number of points of social connection are reduced. In some it may be slightly reduced in others greatly reduced - it depends on the amount of abridgement and the quality.

However even the best abridgements have to condense and even remove sub-plots, passages and even characters at times. The whole idea is to significantly reduce the amount of time taken to record the item (and also reduce the number of tapes / CDs).

Would you say that a print abridgement (not the ones for kids) should be combined with the original? I wouldn't. I judge audio-book abridgements in the same way as I do print abridgements. I don't try and make a special case for them which is what you would like to do.

I second your point: combine the audio version the same way you would the print version.

Absolutely abridged editions, print or audio, should not be combined with unabridged editions.

I would NOT consider someone who had listened to an abridged audio version of a novel to have the same social connections with me that someone who had read the novel, or who had listened to an unabridged version, has, and I feel so strongly about this that I would rather separate ALL audiobooks from print editions than see abridged versions creeping in, if I couldn't tell the difference.

ATimson, you appear to be alone in your belief.

While I also agree to keeping abridgments in any form separate from unabridged works, I can see ATimson's point. The social connection between someone who has listened to an abridged audiobook and someone who has read the complete work is vastly greater than the connection between either and someone who has not read or heard any edition.

I see: there's a connection here that the system isn't able to make.

I came up with a "vertical bundling" idea a while back, in which a larger work (Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings, say) would sit at the top of a bundle of its constituent smaller works (The Fellowship of the Rings, The Two Towers and The Return of the King). Perhaps this whole how-to-combine thing could be solved with "horizontal bundles".

In horizontal bundles, one work -- Austen's Pride and Prejudice, for example -- could be designated as the main work. But related versions which aren't quite the same work -- such as abridged editions (in print or audio), or things like The Annotated Pride and Prejudice (link) -- could be designated as being closely related works.

Damn does this computer need help. I was under the impression that all of the touchstones I used in my last post worked except for the last one (which I linked to).

Edited to add: They suddenly started working when this message got posted. Don't ask me why. I don't get it either.

#9: Would you say that a print abridgement (not the ones for kids) should be combined with the original? I wouldn't.

I think it depends on the abridgment in question, honestly. I can't think of any easy way to separate "good" abridgements (ones that are strongly connected to the original, that don't lose significant portions of the work) from "bad" ones.

But, obviously I disagree with others on this subject, and here on LT majority rules. :)

It would be nice, though, if there were some way to differentiate between two works other than the title; in my library, at least, both the book & the audio version will end up with the same title, so I don't really have a choice to not combine them.

You can edit the title to be whatever you want... e.g. my copy of The Perfect Storm (abridged audio). The book and the abridged audio should also have different ISBNs, so they won't be suggested for combination on the Debris page of either work.

I'm in the group that thinks that audiobooks (abridged & unabridged) should be combined with the original work. The social connection is the key.

and I don't check TAGS for a book when combining, I check the author & title... and sometimes the publisher & other book information. If I have "special" information about the book, I note it in the title.

My copy of The Dip is labeled audiobook/cd. I'm not sure if it abridged or not, but if I want to discuss it, I'm not going to quibble if the other person used a print or audio version... if my copy is abridged, then I will learn more about the book & concepts than with someone who has not read the book. There is a connection.

In my opinion, the argument for abridged & adapted works for young people would fall under the same umbrella as with other variations, such as graphic novels. The social connection is not there (well, maybe for some graphic adaptations, but not most of them)

The adaptations for a different audience, in most cases, for young people, are not directed at the same audience, so not the same social connections. Those should be kept separate.

(let the debate continue)

#16: Except I don't want the "(abridged audio)" to be part of the title; if I do a title search on "bridge", I don't want all my audio books to come up too. (I don't know if LT searches by full word only or not... just a quick example that came to mind.)

I'm not sure of any good way to separate them, though… A format field might work, but unless it's a dropdown using it to tie works together sounds painful.

skittles @17, that seems selfish to me.

In my mind abridged audio has no more business being combined with a full version than the Cliffs Notes do. I wouldn't want to start a conversation with someone about a favorite novel only to find that they didn't remember a subplot or character because it had been omitted from the version they listened to -- that would be a total waste of my time. I'm not here to educate you about what you missed by listening to the abridged version -- you want to "learn more about the book and concepts", then read the thing (or listen to an unabridged version). Personally I don't think an abridged version is directed at the same audience as an unabridged version -- whether it's intended for a younger audience or just one with a shorter attention span doesn't really matter. (And how would you tell, anyway, when combining?)

I'm really dismayed at people using the argument "social connections!" (here and in other threads) to try to maximize the QUANTITY of connections rather than the QUALITY. I don't think you benefit form having lots of shallow and meaningless connections (which seems like a MySpace-style "how many 'friends' can I get" mentality), but from having fewer GOOD ones. IMO, of course.

Or, to make the point maybe a little less controversially, we're all concerned with the social connections, splitters no less than lumpers. It's just that those of us who want to separate abridged and unabridged think over-combination is detrimental to social connections. Sharing a title with 100 people isn't a priori superior to sharing it with 80 in terms of social connectivity.

#19 lorax, I'm sorry that you feel I am selfish in my opinion. It is my opinion, that's all. You have your opinion. Neither are completely wrong, neither are completely right... they are opinions.

We see it differently, that's all.

different isn't bad.

or selfish.

skittles @20, I'm aware of what an opinion is.

The specific bit that seemed selfish was your focus on how YOU as the owner of the abridged audio edition would benefit from the combination, rather than on whether *both* sides of the equation would benefit. Sorry I was unclear in that.

#19: Personally I don't think an abridged version is directed at the same audience as an unabridged version -- whether it's intended for a younger audience or just one with a shorter attention span doesn't really matter.

In the case of audiobooks, abridgements are often the only version available on audio. I don't see any reason to believe that they aren't directed at the same audience as the main text, though (except perhaps being additionally targeted at the blind, an audience the print text can't reach).

And how would you tell, anyway, when combining?

IMO, if the abridged audiobook was released at the same time as the original, and by the same publisher, it's probably aimed at the same audience. :)

I don't think you benefit form having lots of shallow and meaningless connections (which seems like a MySpace-style "how many 'friends' can I get" mentality), but from having fewer GOOD ones. IMO, of course.

That's the crux of this debate: are such connections really shallow and meaningless? Generally, I think that there's not a quality difference between my connection to someone who read the print book of Cloak of Deception, and to someone who listened to the abridged audiobook thereof (having, in this and other cases, read/listened to both). Obviously, you disagree.

In the case of audiobooks, abridgements are often the only version available on audio. I don't see any reason to believe that they aren't directed at the same audience as the main text, though (except perhaps being additionally targeted at the blind, an audience the print text can't reach).

What about when the only German translation is ann abridged version? (Not a particularly uncommon thing!)

Pretty much the same argument applies as with audiobooks.

I felt the same way you did ATimson about abridged audiobooks. After all, I had had my book education working as an out of print book searcher pre internet in the days of the cards sent in response to ABA ads. I think I was weaned on the feeling that RDC books were the scum of the earth. (Well, actually, my Mom has always liked them. :) )

Anyway a couple years ago I had a very interesting online conversation with a well known contemporary fiction author. We were discussing audiobooks, and I dissed the abridged ones, fully feeling that she would agree with me. (How could she possibly like anyone cutting her words?!)

But she gently educated me a bit. She said that the audio books are very expensive to produce and the unabridged ones are outside the means of most individuals and even many libraries. The abridged versions are more in line price-wise with the hardback version of the book; unabridged versions can run several times the cost of the hardback. She likened the abridged audio buyer to a paperback buyer--one who wants to expand their library but cannot afford the total experience.

This author read both her abridged and unabridged versions for audio books. She said she was very pleased with the abridgements and said that in at least one occassion, she preferred the abridgement to her original!

Sometimes we get into the mindset that what is published is sacred but this author had no such illusions about her words. She would have had no doubt that abridged and unabridged versions of one of her titles were the same work.

Since talking with her, I've become a huge fan of listening to audiobooks on my daily drive to work; I listen to both abridged and unabridged titles. I prefer the unabridged, but am certainly not one who can shell out $69.95 for the latest best seller.