Way back “in the day” I taught myself to read absorb Shakespeare by going to the library and reading the text while listening to the audio plays on cassette tapes, lol.Thanks @sus and @version i asked because I’m not sure and do vacillate between those two poles. When an audiobook is at its best I do think it brings the text to life and gives it something I don’t get from reading on the page. The best example I can think of is the Murphy/Malone /Molloy trilogy. I had tried half a dozen times to get on with those books but the audio opened them out for me - the rhythm of the prose, the voice came through. I think someone like Beckett is a performative writer - he wants the ear as well as the eye. I think Dickens is the same - there are definite cadences in there. Melville wrote wrote huge chunks of Moby Dick in iambic pentameter - he wasn’t doing that just for the eye. However, there are other books I’ve listened to where I have felt it would be a more intimate experience with just the words on the page.
Yes audio-text pairings for the Wake is the only way I think.Way back “in the day” I taught myself to read absorb Shakespeare by going to the library and reading the text while listening to the audio plays on cassette tapes, lol.
I read ‘Finnegans Wake’ a year or two ago while listening to a really well read version of audiobook. It was magic! Going to do the same (thanks for the reminder) for the Beckett titles I own but haven’t gotten through.
Y’know, I wanted to mention the experience of listening and reading that text as being almost hallucinogenic, but I didn’t want to sound like some shroom addled neo-Druid.Yes audio-text pairings for the Wake is the only way I think.
It's always been read, too; even back in the 60s recordpressings circulated as freely as the papertext. Robert Ashley was a huge fan. Ginsberg is rumored to have taken one of the discs with him to listen to during his first acid trip, administered by undercover CIA agents in a Stanford lab.