In Note-taking as an Art of Transmission, Ann Blair makes us think about note-taking’s fundamental role by allowing knowledge transmission, which most people take for granted. In her words, “notes recorded from reading or experience typically contribute to one’s conversation and compositions,” and it perpetuates a “cycle of transmission and transformation of knowledge, ideas, and experiences.” (p.85) Note-taking was and is a crucial factor for us to evolve as a society. For me, that became very clear in Blair’s explanation of how learning practices based on note-taking enabled us to access cultures based on oral knowledge transmission:
“From earliest antiquity, teaching was mostly oral; what we know of ancient teaching is largely dependent on the notes that listeners took. What we call the works of Aristotle, for example, are thought to be mostly composed from student notes.” (p. 91).
As I am a learning experience designer and often use digital tools for collaborative note-taking, the most interesting thing I found in the reading was her argument on how our tools shape note-taking, and that current digital technologies are still to be better analyzed by scholars. Based on this call for action, I will share my thoughts comparing two tools for note-taking that I often use in my professional routine: Mural and Google Jamboard. I will share their main characteristics and use the authors’ framework with the main functions of note-taking (storing, sorting, summarizing, and selecting) to reveal their affordances, especially in how they enable collaboration and flexibility in adding notes.
Mural
With a free and paid version, Muralis an online collaborative whiteboard platform that enables distributed teams to work with digital notes.
In terms of storage, users can write text and upload images as files from the computer or the web. After creating whiteboards, users can keep them online or export them in different formats (PDF, PNG, PPT, HTML and CSV).
Users can organize their notes using templates, such as “user journey template,”” brainstorming template” etc. Inside each of them, they can outline a way to read the notes, as we can see in the picture below:
Mural workspace
The tool has a search bar, which is a helpful tool for finding specific information inside the notes. Whiteboards can also be arranged in different rooms, which is essential when working with different teams or projects.
As sticky notes are good for short texts, it naturally makes the writer summarize information. However, as Mural enables users to add hyperlinks t the notes, summarizing becomes easier.
Anyone with an account can create, share and join boards with other users, take notes simultaneously and organize them, changing their position, size, format, and color. As each board enables a good level of zooming in and out, users can insert a good amount of notes and organize them easily. Users can also add different media, such as images, icons, videos, and audio, and use hand drawings instead of text. It provides excellent features for synchronous activities, such as timer and voting tools.
Google Jamboard
Jamboard is a digital interactive whiteboard developed by Google to work with Google Workspace. It is free, but to use it, you have to create a Google Account. Users can draw, create shapes and lines, add text, use sticky notes, and turn their touchpoint into a digital laser pointer. In terms of storage, users can keep their files online or export them in PDF and PNG.
Users can organize their notes using different colors and sizes and also divide them into different whiteboards, which are pretty similar to slides, as we can see in the images below:
Google Jamboard
Jamboard facilitates summarizing note-taking not just because of the post-its but also because the zooming is a bit limited. Users can’t add too many sticky notes, drawings, and images on only one board.
Final thoughts
Both tools are excellent to collaborative note-taking. People can use them for free and on different devices.
However, Mural usually requires an extra step which is having people sign up if they want to create their own whiteboards. Sometimes that can also be the case using Jamboard, but as many people already have a Google Account, the signup step is less frequent.
In terms of flexibility, Mural is way ahead of Jamboard. It is a much more sophisticated tool, providing more options for adding media, facilitating groups, and organizing content. On the other hand, Jamboard is a simple, easy-to-use tool, and I prefer to use it when I have to work with people that are not so tech-savvy.
Bush’s work is quite possibly one of the most artful discussions I’ve ever seen of the future of technology. It is an incredible document, mentioning not only the state of technology as he knew it, but also describing what he viewed as the future. It comes at an interesting time period- what we now know as the end of World War II he did not yet know. He postulates that the next war may be less focused on scientists creating instruments for war, and unfortunately he couldn’t have predicted that the creation of the computers he talks about were first created and used as a tool for war with the Cold War in the late 50s and early 60s. This has, of course, seriously affected the direction that computing went, and in my belief is part of our currently stunted growth computationally (at least, from the side of the common user).
The problems he poses are ones that, to an extent, we have yet to solve. We are still unable to aggregate the sheer amount of published information in a way that is both useful and efficient, however we are getting much better at it. This is still true, though, for older documents that may not have been stored with best practices, and is especially the case both for social media and in the age of the ever-evolving internet.
There are additionally many cases that Bush accidentally? predicts the future of technology. There are many times I found myself saying “well, yeah he’s right!”
“The world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound to come of it.”
He essentially predicts what would become to Go-Pro, although he couldn’t have possibly predicted the digital age. He discusses his belief that technology would rapidly improve, as it had been at the time, but even Moore’s Law has unfortunately seemed incorrect in our age. I’m interested in further exploring why his predictions for our interactions with note-taking don’t quite line up (why we’re still directly interacting with typewriting); my theory is that this is related to the concept of legacy features of technology being incorporated to make it easier for legacy users to pick up new technologies, which he doesn’t discuss (it seems that this wasn’t a practice at the time). He correctly predicts, even, fields where this automated technology may come to be of use, like in finance or math, particularly with regard to logic.
“Formal logic used to be a keen instrument in the hands of the teacher in his trying of students’ souls.”
He also discusses the all-too-familiar difficulty in finding written material relevant to your research at a library; a problem which, for some, is no longer an issue, however there are some folks like historians who still struggle very much with the digital availability of material.
There are plenty of things, although, that we haven’t quite streamlined in the way he’d hoped, like the department store problem; we still have to enter lots of different information into different little systems that are largely not interconnected in a helpful way. He also touches upon the fact that humans and computers were likely (and now we know, are in fact) going to be too different logically speaking–that humans would have to learn to interact with computers instead of the other way around.
Nearing the end, he addresses the concept of the Memex- a sort of all-performing desk for every task you could possibly need to research. And while this is relatively different from the phones and laptops we have, it really does descriptively emulate the computer desks and systems of the latter half of the 1900s (a phrase which makes me deeply nauseated).
Simply put, Bush is full of love for technology and research, and it really shows. As a work, this is fascinating for both its writing and its historicity. However, my final note is that it is also a DH piece, with this final quote:
“There is a new profession of trail blazers, those who find delight in the task of establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of the common record.”
In Wolfgang Iser’s piece The Implied Reader, we are given insight to the evolution of the author-reader relationship. As an author, you are given creative license to mold your readers mind to the interests of the characters and world you have created. Iser describes the aforementioned relationship as a simulated partnership that “gives the reader the impression that he and the author are partners in discovering the reality of the human experience”. However Iser notes that this assistance of the writer has shifted after the 18th century as literature was no longer considered a form of leisure and luxury but rather an arduous task that requires the reader to fend for themselves when uncovering what the author intended with their work. In taking on this task the reader may rely heavily on the narrator to provide clues. The narrator, as Iser mentions, is the one that communicates directly with the reader as a somewhat character in the book. This is independent from the author of the book as well as the implied author- who Wayne Booth, author of Rhetoric of Fiction describes as the one who’s attitudes shape the book. Even though these three roles are separate from each other, the reader relies on all three to work together to piece together the puzzle of the book in order to sink into the reality it has taken place in. Reality in general is something Iser mentions cannot be replicated in a novel. Even in a realistic novel the vast occupancy of reality is not something that can be conveyed through mere text. Therefore, the narrator and implied author jointly put the reader in the experience of the sentiment of reality the book has created. The implied author arranges the events while the narrator comments on them. The narrator can take on the role of the guide but can leave space for interpretation on part of the reader. This allows the reader to make themselves part of the social reality that constitutes the book.
The reader themselves are sometimes kept at a distance from the characters as they are experiencing the events of the novel with them. This coupled with the narrator’s intended commentary gives agency to the reader to make critiques themselves. In other words the reader can be set in reality while also questioning it. The analysis of the situations and characters on part of the reader are facilitated by the narrator who can change the perspective, but it is the reader who accounts for the book to be considered reality. Thus the participation of the reader is essential in materializing the facets of the novel. The author is no longer projecting their own view on to the reader but rather expanding his vision “in order to compel the reader to view things for himself and discover his own reality”.
I found Iser’s piece to be extremely thought provoking. The perspective of the author shifting from “lawmaker” to hub for outside involvement is a most interesting thing to note. As a reader and writer myself I can see both aspects through my very own experience. Funny enough as a reader I am looking to dissolve myself into the world the author has created. Even if I am not familiar with the setting and situations being provided, I like to imagine myself as the character and go through the motions as they do. In other cases I like to imagine myself as a background character; observing as I go along but also somewhat taking a part in the action. It is almost instinct for me to try to find some relatability with the text that I am reading. However in the context of Iser, I can admit that there have been times where as a reader I found myself not being able to connect and relate to the characters at all. This is where my role of critic is summoned. I can sit and read a novel and judge the characters for what they have done and frown upon their exploits as they navigate the plot of the story. It is a bit mind boggling to think that involvement of the reader is a modern novel asset as I can’t imagine reading a book without my own input being thrown in the mix. I am glad that reflections and criticism can be shared with the novel without taking credibility away from the author. After all there is a difference between critiquing the characters and their actions and critiquing the overall writing style of the book. The latter takes aim at skillset while the former invites interest in the story. Polarizing characters and plot details make for interesting analysis and without it I’m not sure half of the English lit classes I took in school would exist. The idea of the narrator managing the reader without speaking for them makes room for multiple theories that go outside the scope of what the author may have intended. Book clubs and fanfiction have been created on that very same principle. I would argue that without space for the reader to become a part of the reality of the novel, the novel may be forgotten. It is because of the reader that the work lives on, which I feel is exactly what the writer has intended. Uncovering the intention of the author is rudimentary in understanding the novel but with allowance of interpretation we can answer the question of intention whilst also theorizing our own possibilities of what that may be. As a writer I relish in the idea of individuals assuming what they can with the details I have provided (stories, poetry etc). Even if their exposition is one I have not even considered while writing, I can still be excited by the theories being made. I believe an author in the modern age goes by the same mindset and with that the idea of uncovering the pieces of the puzzle to make sense of a story is not all that arduous as one might assume. It is now easier than ever to comment on written work as platforms and internet threads have been dedicated to it. The roles of narrator, author and implied author may go through another shift as we continue on this trajectory. With fanfiction already allowing readers to change the plot of stories, is it possible that we rearrange the importance of the roles? Will the reader be the main provider of involvement? Is modern text just a vehicle to be manipulated and critiqued?
A/N: My apologies for the lateness, the holidays and this journal article I had to submit ran up against each other and my schedule fell apart like a wet sandwich.
Prior to this project, I honestly didn’t really pay much mind to audiobooks. I’ve listened to a few, and I knew about all the arguments in the various communities that claim rights to audiobooks as a media type, but I thought they were all too dry to pay much attention to and didn’t really grip me.
What I found from our own audiobook is that, the way we mixed audio in really actually reminded me of podcasting, to the point that in my own notes I kept accidentally writing “10/17 – DH720 blog post about podcast due” and suchlike. I think podcasts really have a much greater tendency towards using soundscapes in a way that audiobooks usually don’t, perhaps due to its history in radio rather than the very oral (“mom and dad telling me a story” oral) history of audiobooks. My parents always tried to stay true to the text, unless they were doing voices when a character was described a certain way. I was taught in my Speech and Debate class in high school and numerous acting classes that, when reading Shakespeare, you must pronounce ellipses. It’s a strange concept to me that feels very unnatural, however in our audiobook (I almost wrote ‘podcast’ again) Sean and the editors manage to make those pauses or drawn out noises feel smooth. My theory, in terms of the philosophy of whether audiobooks are just radio or podcasts or that podcasts are radio etc, is that a lot of these differences come down to the use of soundscapes and adherence to the text. Dramatic readings of Tumblr posts, as per my previous blog, then, are definitely audiobooks due to a lack of relevant soundscaping and relatively strict adherence to the text. This differs from podcasts, which involve quite a bit of soundscaping and are not necessarily based in any text. However, they are not audiobooks in the sense that they lack the air of overconfidence and pretentiousness that comes with audiobook culture.
I definitely came away with a better appreciation for Hemingway, that’s for sure. He’s a trip. His life was wild, and his writing was also pretty wild. His early work, as we read, reads way differently from his later work… his later work has less of that youthful fire.
As far as my role is concerned, audiobooks aren’t exactly my forte, but I know I’m quite the presenter, so I felt the role fit me well and I was able to help in a way that suited the group. I did wish I could’ve been more apart of some of the decision making about the audiobook, but honestly I got so lost when I tried to understand what they meant that I just stood back and watched the geniuses work! The real advantage of being a presenter rather than an editor or something was that I got to see the audiobook from an almost outside perspective, while already being familiar with the source material to an extent. I think it gave me a lot of additional perspective and understanding that improved my “reading” of the text.
I’m honestly surprised at how this group was able to turn something I considered dry into something I felt was worth a listen. Go team!
“The Story of an Hour and The Box Social into The Yellow Wallpaper”
Our group’s goal was to create an original audio piece by splicing and rearranging three different texts: “The Story of an Hour”, “The Box Social”, and “The Yellow Wallpaper.” These texts were chosen because all three had the same theme of women finding a response to their oppression and wanting to take control of their lives.
As we didn’t want to turn the final story into a play, we decided to use only voice acting, without other background elements. In my perception, adding sound effects would be interesting to engage the audience, but it might cause interference in focusing on how the stories were combined.
My role was to record the voice for “The Box Social.” Written by James Reaney, the story is a concise narrative about Sylvia, a young woman that designs a box to present in a rural farming town’s box-social. I had never read this text before, so I started my work by researching information about the author and the piece. As the narrator, I understood that I had the duty to do some diving into the context of the story. That way I would be able to express the characters’ emotions adequately.
However, when I started narrating the text, I got stuck with pronunciation difficulties. I had to rehearse several times to produce the final recording. Some expressions were new to me; therefore, I wasn’t sure how to pronounce them. As English is not my first language, I tried avoiding errors using a text-to-speech tool. It was helpful, but as it produced a robotic reading, I couldn’t rely entirely on it to do my work. In the end, I decided to read in a way that I felt comfortable with and in which I could express the characters’ emotions. In other words, I just embraced my accent and decided that this element was necessary for the listener to experience how a foreigner interpreted the story.
This experience also made me think about the work of a narrator in producing meaning while reading a story. I felt like a co-author in a certain way, as there is no such thing as being neutral in making an audiobook.
When I finished my work, I had no idea what the final result would be. As we didn’t discuss how each reader should interpret their texts, I didn’t know if my contribution would be very different from the rest. However, the sound editors of the team mentioned that our pace and volume of speaking were quite similar, and therefore the final result was good.
After we presented the work, we discussed how it would be even more interesting if we could provide the listener with the agency to choose different ways of listening to the three stories. That, of course, would involve much more significant work in interpreting the texts. Maybe creating a tagging system would be a good way to start.
Our team chose Ernest Hemingway’s in our time for the audiobook project. I like this choice because it is very challenging to do an audiobook of such a work that is concise and experimental. Its unusual narrative style and different versions once brought us many questions. Which version should we record? Should we give a note in the beginning to notify readers which version/publisher we choose? To what degree should we insert sound effects or background music that is not disturbing or twisting the original text? While preparing for the project and reading some research papers about Hemingway, I learned that he is famous for a writing technique called the iceberg theory that argues for a minimalistic style without explicitly presenting underlying content. Then it took me some time to consider what kind of edits would convey this message or if it is necessary to stick to this style for an audiobook.
As one of our group’s editors, I tried different things in different chapters and even broke the original order of chapters in the 1924/1925 versions. The result would not be a smooth reading for readers familiar with Hemingway and probably confuse new readers. So first, we asked Sean to record a production team’s note at the beginning telling readers about two versions of our time and the publisher’s information. Second, we received Sean’s amazing recordings of the 18 chapters and three additional short stories in the 1925 version. Third, I began my editing process: I am responsible for the note, the first nine chapters, “Indian Camp” and “The Doctor and the Doctor’s Wife.” I inserted a soundtrack (Etude No 1 for String Quartet) as a prelude to the story. I like the unstoppable and rapid progress expressed in this soundtrack and believe it matches my understanding of underlying themes in Hemingway’s writing. This music is my answer to the question of how we should convey Hemingway’s message without explicitly explaining the background.
I first tried the Noise Reduction feature in Audacity for all the chapters and stories and got a clear draft. Thanks to Faihaa’s time stamps, we created a collaborative mode by editing and contributing to our shared google doc. I tried to search for suitable sound effects based on Faihaa’s explanations but also discussed with her to see if we needed specific sound effects or not. For example, the horse steps sound (regular volume, faded in and out) in Chapter 1 is a great example to help readers get into the atmosphere. But I also carefully chose to reduce some sound effects’ volume (Chapter 2 bull-hitting wall sound), so they wouldn’t interfere with Sean’s voice. Gunshot sounds in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 are a bit tricky. Finally, I figured out which types of gunshot sounds I should use to match the period. (machine gun, pistol, rifle, etc.) I also intentionally made one chapter with no sound effects. In Chapter 8, to avoid overshadowing the praying voice, I talked to Faihaa and decided not to add sound effects.
Two additional stories: I appreciate Sean’s prompt response and his amazing new recordings for the three additional stories in the 1925 version.
Indian Camp: I put sound effects for the first several scenes but chose not to insert sound effects starting from 9:07. No woman screaming throughout the story, considering here the Indian woman’s pain is not “important.” (Nick’s father’s comment)
The Doctor and the Doctor’s Wife: I chose not to add sound effects for this story because I think the two stories here have an opposing but unified structure (wife, husband, son, doctor, home, getting away from home, pain), which we could read together with a chapter in the 1924 version (bullfighting) to talk about the theme of pain. I am unsure how readers would feel when listening or if they could notice these differences, and looking forward to exploring possibilities of analytical discussion in the making/reading audiobook versions of classics.
To summarize my editing experience, I tried to be bold in exploring different options, always discuss with my members for the editing choices, and be prepared to embrace failures. Also, thanks to Hampton for his edits and combining all the files, and to Teddy and Nuraly for the final presentation.
My group “The Yellow-Wallpapered Box Social Story of an Hour” consisting of Majel, JP, Raquel, Natalie, Kai, and Brianna did a wonderful job of creatively exploring the possibilities of the audiobook. At the outset, I wasn’t clear how 7 people could accomplish this task. Luckily, Bri’s suggestion of “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1892) started us on a path that followed with JP’s pick of “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin (1894) and Natalie’s recommendation “The Box Social” by James Reaney. Our decision to splice the stories (with Bri’s deft handling of the editing) resulted in an unconventional kind of audiobook – a conceptual audio collage where the idea is more important than the actual execution. A listener of this audiobook may not necessarily understand what exactly is happening – 3 storylines, 3 narrators, multiple characters coming and going. But, if you’ve read the stories, you may pick up on how they intersect through the similar emotional and physical states the female protagonists find themselves in.
For my part, after reading the stories (on my computer) and sitting with them for a time, I started taking notes on possible music, sound effects, auditory cues and other things we could do. However, after deciding that Raquel, Majel and I would be readers, I decided to take a different approach. As Rubery noted, “We are not even sure what to call this voice. The terms reader and narrator generate needless confusion when used to describe a book’s speaker… Other terms such as speaker and performer have their own baggage”. I really wasn’t confident how to read “The Story of an Hour” out loud. Do I alter my voice for the main character? Do I try to act out the scenes in a theatrical way (having no interest in acting)? Do I speak in my regular tone and pitch? I became stuck on the idea of performance and then started to relate it back to reading, in a non-theatrical context. Reading is a type of performance from the movement of our eyes, to the voice in our head, to the visual interpretation of typography, to the way we turn the pages. On a digital device, we might perform by swiping the pages, scrolling or annotating through hypothes.is. There are many ways to perform a reading so I decided not to put too much pressure on myself. I disregarded my previous questions, found a quiet place to record, practiced multiple times and finally ended up with an audio file I felt was true to the story, my physical space and my headspace at the time. I read it aloud and however I was feeling at the time, whatever empathy I felt toward the presumed window (the main character), that’s what ended up in the recording. Coincidentally, both Raquel and Majel had similar approaches in their recordings.
As for the final product, lucky for us that Kai and Natalie knew how to wrangle the audio files which was no easy task. I think we made the right decision of not including any sound effects except the elongated scream toward the end. The impact of that effect is very powerful, unexpected, and definitely ear-catching. Too many other sound effects would have turned our empathetic readings into a theatrical production. The simplicity and quietness of the final audiobook speaks volumes! In the end, I found this process of deconstructing the texts in search of something new to be a very valuable experience.
Continuing on our escapade into the stimulating world of audiobooks, the class and I were given the task to compose our own version of the modern text medium. Reiterating the sentiments from my last blog post I will once again state that audiobooks are not something I was all too familiar with before this course. Before diving into this project I was already intimidated by the prospects of what may come out of it. I knew the goal wasn’t to achieve perfection but rather a sense of agency; a way to procure experience in a new form of reading. With that in mind I still wanted to produce a piece of work that was suitable for the audiobook genre and with the help of my team I truly believe we have created that.
PROCESS/ROLE
Our process began by first discussing the source material we wished to base our audio on. To avoid time being spent ruminating on the possibilities of what text from the literary world was best to record, we decided to make things a bit easier on ourselves and look into the examples that were already provided to us via the prompt. Unanimously we came to the decision that Ernest Hemingway’s novella In our Time was the preeminent choice. Hemingway’s writing is known to play off of vivid descriptions and dramatic tone of voice. Both of these elements were ideal for our text to audio conversion. Once we zeroed in on the components of Hemingway’s writing we wanted to feature, we started the recording process. Team member Sean was the first to record. Sean’s background in linguistics provided our team with someone who was quite proficient in the art of narrating. His tone of voice and cadence was pretty much perfect for what we were trying to achieve. This coupled with Sean’s enthusiasm for recording as much of the text as he could made us come to the quick decision that our audio should have one sole narrator. This decision was a great advantage for us. Not only did it make our process more organized, as we were now getting audio from one source instead of multiple, but it also resonated with the elements of Hemingway we wanted to maintain. Hemingway was clear and direct with his words while writing, it only made sense that one steady voice was best to convey that. Once we had compiled all the recorded chapters it was time to experiment with background noises. Although we were all aware that the use of sound effects might distract from Sean’s narrations, we were adamant in having them in place to bring Hemingway’s graphic images to life. This was in fact a work of literature that revolved heavily around themes of war and battle, not adding a noise feature seemed counterintuitive.
This is where my role in the project came in. Listening through all recorded chapters I concentrated on parts where I felt a sound byte would be suitable. The areas I deemed could be appropriate for background were time stamped along with a short description of what sound I felt worked best for the sound mixers and editors to add in. This turned into collaborative work as I worked with the sound mixers to hone in on what can be used and what can be disregarded. Below is an example of our mini exchanges on our shared google doc.
Example 1 Example 2
During this process our team unfortunately hit a bit of a snafu. Turns out there aretwo versions of In our Time, both published a year apart from each other. Although both feature some of the same vignettes, the 1925 version does disregard quite a few from the 1924 version( parts that we had already put in time recording and time stamping!) 1925 version also adds new stories into the mix by including time spent at an Native American camp and the witnessing of a cesarean section. With not much time left to re-record we decided to make the decision to work with what we have while adding a couple more chapters from the 1925 version as well. Furthermore our audiobook also features a disclaimer in the beginning to let readers know of our mistake to dissuade any confusion. Once we got past our small setback editing in the sounds began to take place. Led by Miaoling and Hampton’s talents, our audio was brought to life!
LESSON LEARNED ABOUT AUDIOBOOKS
With the completion of this project I can definitely say our audio is something I was proud to take part in. I was already forming an appreciation for the audiobook genre when I first went on a search finding one to present to class. I was fascinated by the idea of having a text read to me as a viable form of “reading”. I must admit that in the past I felt audiobooks were too much of shortcut, a easy medium for those who wanted to tell people they read a book without actually reading it (in the traditional sense). Looking back I feel this might have been a trait of my pompous English major past. Although I still feel reading a text directly and hearing an audiobook version of it are two completely different experiences, I don’t think one is necessarily more superior than the other. The audiobook provides the listener/reader the opportunity to have a more sensory experience. It allows you to sit back and have a story be told to you without the physical labor of constantly carrying a text in hand. Hearing back the audio from our project I was able to listen while lying down comfortably in bed. This provided me with the privilege of letting the story wash over me as I visualized along with the words. Although I always liked the feeling of turning the pages of a book, I will admit that staring at a text for too long does get a bit draining. A lot of the time I find myself also getting distracted and having to re-read certain parts if I don’t feel the text is engaging enough to hold my attention. In the audio format I’m more inclined to listen as the story is being presented in a way that’s more appealing. I can honestly say that reading Hemingway is way better in audio. I truly don’t think I would have been able to get through In our Time without skimming at least five chapters if I had to read it myself. In all I feel audiobooks are a great alternative for texts. Not only for convenience sake but for engagement as well.
For our audiobook project, I was in a group with Majel Peters, JP Essey, Raquel Neris, Natalie Kretschmer, Kai Prenger, and Patricia Belen. I’ve been so struck with the note in Price’s piece about people cutting poems out of anthologies to create their own anthologies, that I knew I wanted to suggest something inspired by it to our group: a collection of short stories instead of one text. I figured this was also a very practical approach to a group project as selecting multiple short stories meant that more than one person could pick a text.
As it’s getting close to Halloween, I wanted something a bit spooky, so I started with the suggestion of “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1892), in which a new mother dealing with mental health issues is driven mad by the rest cure prescribed by her doctor husband. Everyone was on board pretty quickly, and in a short span of time we had agreed to also include “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin (1894), as suggested by JP, and “The Box Social” by James Reaney (likely written in the late 40s or early 50s, but not published until 1996), as suggested by Natalie. No one in our group had read all three of the stories, but we all had a sense they were told from the perspective of women, at least two of them somewhat unreliable narrators, who were unhappy and confronting feminist issues (inadequate mental health resources, confining and unfulfilling marriages and domestic spheres, and date rape).
Originally, I thought we would record each story and then decide which order to have the audience listen to them, or perhaps we’d let the audience decide which order they wanted to listen to them in, which would let us think about how the stories speak to each other differently depending on the order in which they’re heard. But the assignment rubric literally asked us to be adventurous and take risks, so I said what if we challenge ourselves and create a new text by splicing all three of the stories together. Reading aloud is itself an interpretation of the text, so why not embrace that and start by reinterpreting the text on the page first.
Everyone was on board, and JP recalled that the narrator in “The Yellow Wallpaper” is a writer, so perhaps these other stories are the ones trapped in her head as her husband refuses to let her write during her rest cure. I’m an editor by day, so I took on the challenge of creating our spliced script. After reading and rereading each story, I was struck by how much similarity there was between them, in theme, but also even in the descriptions of certain objects (e.g., wallpaper, chairs, views from windows). “The Yellow Wallpaper” is by far the longest of the texts, so I began with that as the foundation, and when she speaks of wanting to write but being unable to, I took those moments to introduce each of the other two stories. Then I inserted snippets from each of the other two stories when the themes and descriptions overlapped, until they all reach their dramatic conclusions together, the stories’ climaxes all building off of one another. The resulting text is both new but also entirely faithful to the originals. Every word of every story is presented in its entirety and in the order in which it was written, which I think speaks to and embraces the inherent tension in the relationship of audiobooks to their source text.
I shared the new text in our group Google doc so we could tweak and agree on the final script together. We had a rough idea of individual tasks from the first class in which our group was made, especially given that we had two people with audio editing experience: Natalie and Kai. With our final script, we agreed that it was important to have each of the stories read by women, and thankfully we had enough women in our group to do this. We also thought that as we have three stories, we want three readers, hoping that the different voices would be sufficient to demarcate the different story lines without extra audio flourishes. Raquel was worried about how her accent may affect her reading (none of us thought it did), so she took on the shortest of the stories, “The Box Social”. Then Majel and Patricia flipped a coin to see who would read the other two, with Majel getting “The Yellow Wallpaper” and Patricia “The Story of an Hour.” I created individual scripts for each of the readers so they could have only their story in front of them, and I indicated where the text was being spliced so they knew where they could take longer pauses and/or breaks in recording as needed.
Each reader turned their recording around very quickly, and the raw audio was great. Kai did the initial audio edit to put everything into its correct place within the full script, and Natalie did the final edit. We didn’t want to undermine any of these women’s stories, so we agreed on a more subtle audio-editing approach. However, there is a moment in “The Story of an Hour” where there’s a piercing scream, and we really wanted to include this one sound effect. An audiobook offers affordances you can’t get in text, so we wanted to acknowledge and embrace this aspect of the medium. This left JP in charge of successfully presenting our audiobook in class, which we shared notes on via email beforehand.
Overall I’m so happy with how our audiobook turned out, and I very much enjoyed working with this group. We used email and Google drive for our communications, which was sufficient, but perhaps we should have used some other way to communicate with one another or stay organized. I also wonder if we should have better defined deadlines and deliverables for each of our roles. It would have been nice if we could have played around with the audio file a bit more (would other sound effects have added or detracted from the final product?). I think we could have benefited from someone being a project manager. If we had more time, I would have also loved to be able to learn more about audio editing, as it’s something I know very little about. But these are small issues and something to think about for future group projects. I certainly have a much greater appreciation for the skills of my classmates and the audiobook format having completed this project.
Before this assignment I had never listened to an audio recording of a work that originated in print. On the rare occasion, I’ve been engrossed in audio-native storytelling. It was easy enough to get swept up in Serial, a suspenseful telling of a twisty-turny real life mystery sitting on the border between journalism and entertainment. So this was new territory—and initially quite overwhelming. What would be the best way to become acquainted with the sensations, possibilities, and distinctions of this particular form of storytelling? Ultimately, I chose to visit characters who I am fully familiar with—partly to whittle down the seemingly endless list of possibilities, but also to provide a grounding and basis for comparison with my personal experience with the story confined to the page. I say confined, but in reality a fictional story is only confined to the page if it is left unread. As soon as we engage with the string words threaded together to incite emotion give shape to settings and voice to characters—the stories spring to life in our minds and intermingle with our own experiences and impressions. In fact, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, perhaps overly familiar to many, have long inspired interpretations in film, television, and, I’ve now discovered, audio recordings. The lengthy list of productions related to their stories could almost make you forget that they had been born in printed short stories to begin with.
For this assignment I chose to listen to three presumably amateur recordings of A Scandal in Bohemia by Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle. I chose all of my recordings from PubliVox, the non-profit open source website that allows anyone from the public to upload recordings of texts in the public domain. Each of my three readers brought the story of a Bohemian king’s panicked attempt to contain his scandalous association with a wily and charming female performer to life in a completely different manner. Each one approached the representation of Holmes and Watson as well as their relationship to each other with such wide variation that it was almost surprising to imagine that, after so many existing expressions of these characters more subtle shifts were left to be made.
Recording 1:
TBOL3
My first recording was created by the user TBOL3. No real information is provided about them personally, but if I were to guess this reader is an American male, 14-17 years old, who may wear braces. His reading style is halting at times, his pronunciation of both English and German vocabulary is spotty, and his recording instruments and techniquescreate a tinny distance in the sound quality. At times a shift is felt in the pace of his reading, as he presumably nears the end of a page and prepares to turn it…which you also hear. Paired with the gentle initial lisp dotted the recording—this created an almost endearing quality akin to peeking in on an older brother reading to their sleepy little sibling.
Although TBOL3 did attempt to render a British accent for our hero and sidekick, it was simply too difficult to maintain throughout the text or render the characters fully distinct. The accents come in and out of focus, never quite feeling authentic. Interestingly, as the text shifts from a solitary Watson to a visit with Sherlock, the attempt at an English accept ramps up—almost as though their proximity unconsciously prompted the reader to emphasize it. Upon the arrival of our Bohemian Prince, we find that the idea of a second foreign accent is simply too much or, maybe the impact of German on the English language is just unknown by our reader—our King speaks in an American rendering of a British accent, but emphatically—as if a more pronounce accent of any sort will help distinguish his higher social standing.
Overall, I was left wondering if perhaps this young reader was using the PubliVox platform to improve their reading skills,if this semi-casual hobby, or, finally, if this recordings stemmed from a class assignment as well (the recording of the full anthology was done collaboratively). The characters never quite stepped away from the basic assumptions that have been made about them—Watson the unassuming and even a bit childlike wingman to Sherlock’s commanding intellect. Beyond English, it is hard to interpret any personal details from the way the characters are rendered—our reader simply needed to get through the text. Mispronunciations, ( Prague as “pragooo” and carte blanche as “carty blanchy”), wavering accents, and the overall speedy cadence of someone unable to fully render the fullness of his characters made it impossible to become immersed in the story.
My second reader clearly has a bit more experience under his belt. A trained voice and professional equipment elevated the experience starting with the title page. An American male ~40-55 years old, he created an almost cozy rich “silence” to house his low velvety delivery of the material. Interestingly, his training may have hindered him at times. Despite excellent enunciation and a smooth flow, he fell into an almost robotic delivery and cadence that can best be compared with the swiftly spoken “small print” of a radio ad. Despite there being no PubliVox limits on his recording time, the steady clip suggested the awareness of someone used to squeezing into scheduled time slots and attempting to limit post production cuts.
The text starts off with Watson’s inner dialogue read in the readers American accent. Not until Watson shares space with Sherlock does the English accent appear—applied to both characters unevenly, and more pronounced when specifically British phrasing appears. (Example: usage of words like “Indeed” or “quite ”—“It’s quite too funny.”). Mr. Smith’s Sherlock feelsflippant and almost whimsical, a stark contrast from some of the more sober Sherlock’s we’ve seen in the past (Jeremy Brett!). It’s almost as if this Sherlock is deriving a bright joy from toying with his interlocutors and digging into a little challenge, instead of the almost dry misanthropic exasperation that commonly seeps out of the pores of some earlier Sherlocks.
Mr. Smiths attempt at a German accent in English is a loose approximation, possibly inspired my American tv or film, but not drawn from any first hand knowledge of the German language. Knowing how much Sherlock Holmes prides himself in his complete a thorough knowledge of any subject at hand, it didn’t ring true when he mispronounced the King’s title— and it became even harder to give into the story when the German speaker himself mispronounced German words and inconsistently applied German phonetic treatments to English words (ex. “Gesellschaft”’ss not pronounced like a “z”, “Ormstein”’s “st” not pronouncedas “sht”.)
Overall, this reading was just fine. It faithfully retold the story as it appears on the page, and there was a professional flow that kept the energy lively and engaging enough, but when compared with my personal experience with the characters or even existing renderings in television and film (and the final recording review in this blog), it felt like a missed opportunity to create a more engaging and rich experience. I would be concerned if this were someone’s first or only experience with these beloved classic characters.
My third and final recording featured a British woman, ~50-60 years old who is clearly a very talented professional audio book reader. Her PubliVox profile did, in fact, feature a link to her webpage which alludes to her professional recordings and experience. The production quality of the recording is professional and intimate, but without the almost overly smooth or cozy effect of Mark Smith. Ms. Golding’s voice is confident and smooth without needing to be buttery. This actually gives her more range, as she is not always trying to overlay a velveting quality on characterizations that do not merit it.
Her command of the material would almost lead you to believe she wasn’t reading at all, but speaking directly from the mind of the characters. Of course she has an advantage, naturally having a British accent and a better command on a range of possible expressions of it, but how she employs this in service of the story is what really struck me. At the opening of the story, Watson’s inner dialogue feels so natural as to draw you in—it pours out, as if following a spontaneous train of thought and exhibits emphasis on certain words and phrases as though the feeling had naturally come to light in the mind of our doctor. Watson is rendered as a man Infused with emotion and quickly clear, through Ms. Golding’s delivery, that he holds deep empathy for and attachment to Holmes. All this while Ms. Golding simultaneouslymaintains the balanced and sober delivery becoming a respected doctor of his time.
Where it gets particularly interesting is when Watson is in the company of Sherlock. Ms. Golding’s Sherlock has a drawn out speaking cadence, as though he is at all times coping with a tendency to languish. There’s a wistfulness, maybe stemming from his regular escape into deep thought and substance abuse. Overall he feels self-content, somewhat distracted, and unbothered. Watson’s tone however, now expressing himself vocally to Sherlock, shifts away from the sober flowing cadence of his inner thoughts. His voice becomes a bit high pitched and his speech is clipped and precise. This helps create a deeper contrast between the two main main characters, but it also creates a distinction between Watson’s inner and outer voices. This provides a depth and richness to the character and the story itself, that inspired an entirely new personal experience of the story. Watson is often depicted as “straight man” to Holmes’s moody brilliance. Holmes’s quirks and genius are set in relief by Watson’s more pedestrian presentation. Ms. Golding, in making such a stark distinction between Watson’s inner and spoke voice, asks us to consider the the characters inner depth and his role and expression in society.I, personally, had always looked at Watson as a kind of second fiddle, but Ms. Golding’s rendering of him made me question if I had not missed the point of the stories entirely. Was the anomaly of Holmes’s genius really just a catalyst to better understand the impact of being confronted with the deep awareness of human behavior and suffering that Holmes’ represents? Essentially, are the clever intricacies of the mysteries the window dressing, but Watson’s inner musings and reactions the real substance of the stories?
Ms. Golding continued to impress with her range of character voices—shifting her voice deeper to bring weight to our Bohemian king, and giving him the German accent he deserves (and Holmes the appropriate command of the German language). The dainty and high pitched renderings of the female characters might feel unexpected, but perhaps feeling the need to make a dramatic shift from her own female voice, she opted to render them unquestionably distinct. Like the other readers, she avoided sound effects, although she did give depth to a shouting crowd by overlaying several recordings of her own voice in different characters.
Ms. Golding’s recording really inspired me to reconsider my understanding characters that considered utterly familiar—known quanitites. Her telling fully immersed me in a world that was both familiar and surprisingly new all at once, rekindling the enjoyment I felt as a young reader of the same tales. Her talent showcases the distinct qualities and power of an audio rendition of an originally printed text, and the critical attention to casting an artist who can make all the different between a recording falling flat or truly singing.
Loading Comments...
Need help with the Commons?
Email us at [email protected] so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:
Example 1
Example 2
