Read or Listen?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Ha, once again Lommy and Esty managed to beat me in saying what I wanted to. Anyway, good that it's been said - I think Tolkien really managed to write a book which reaches the quality of the old sagas, not just in the setting, the theme of the story and things like this, but also in the way how it is suitable for reading aloud. Indeed, if we still were a culture of storytellers rather than readers and movie-watchers, I believe LotR would be a very good tale to narrate in that way. (Okay, in some way even better if it was written in verse )

Personally, I don't have that much experience with listening to LotR, though I have been listening to the Slovak radio adaptation of LotR, which is not pure reading, but acting, of course. It also has its spirit, but I need to second others on this one who have said that the reading makes the story a much more personalised and fitting your own imagination. I think the problem with the listening is that the actor puts his own diction into it, and he stresses things in some way, where you would read it differently yourself. The listening is already an interpretation - and you can think for yourself where to put the emphasis, for example, whether to read "to ISENGARD with doom we come", or "to Isengard with doom we COME", or "to Isengard WITH DOOM we come"... etc.

[Peregrin Took]

Read, of course! The book reigns supreme.

[Pitchwife]

I listened to a German radio adaptation years ago, which was very well done - very close to the text with few cuts if any (IIRC it did include Bombadil, as well as most of the songs and poems); it combined a narrator with actors doing the individual characters, most of the voices fitting the part.
I prefer reading anytime, however, as it's more personal as well as more interactive, so to speak - true, there's the backwards/forwards buttons on the tape recorder/cd-player (does anybody else still use a tape recorder?), but it's much easier to find the exact passage you're looking for in a book. Not to forget that you can decide for yourself (and discuss in a thread!) whether to pronounce the name of Galadriel's hubby Keleborn, Seleborn or Tseleborn (or even Tcheleborn, if you're Italian).

[FeRaL sHaDoW]

It’s always better when you read it. You decide the pace and get to make your own ideas about the characters and places.

[Nerwen]

Interesting. I have never heard a dramatisation of "Lord of the Rings", so I can't go from personal experience on that one. Generally, I've found adaptations of books create slight jarring, because the voices of the characters aren't the way I imagine them.

On the other hand, my first introduction to LOTR was being read to by my mother– she read it to my brothers and me every night for about a year... and that is where my mental image of the characters, including their voices, was set in the first place. (My mother has a fairly low voice and can imitate a male voice without much trouble.)

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I choose reading the books. I love reading in general, and if I actually read then I can mispronounce names and go as slow or as fast as I want. Also, I don't miss things when I read, and if I do, I can always go back a paragraph or whatever and read it again to catch what I miss. It is a hassle trying to rewind tapes or CDs to listen to something that you don't know where it is to begin with.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Interesting. I have never heard a dramatisation of "Lord of the Rings", so I can't go from personal experience on that one. Generally, I've found adaptations of books create slight jarring, because the voices of the characters aren't the way I imagine them.

Me on the other hand cannot seem to read something that Frodo says anymore without hearing Ian Holm.

[Elmo]

I love the BBC's 'Fall of Gil-Galad'. Everything else in my opinion is just dumbed down Tolkien. Thereore every else is not worthy a comparison.

[Nogrod]

Even if it has been said here already, I think the difference between a "dramatisation" or an "adaption" should be clearly differentiated from "reading the book aloud".

Dramatisations etc. are another thing; they are artistic products made by someone and should be assessed with different standards - as not the real thing but versions or interpretations of it, like the movies or other adaptations.

But reading the book aloud, word by word, being present in the situation (or listening them on a CD / mp3 / whatever - where it is read but not "acted" by someone) is a different thing.

Tolkien's books are stories to be read aloud like the stories of old he was imitating - even if they are clearly products of the twentieth century prose. But nevertheless. They are stories to be read by a campfire, as bedtime-stories... Reading them alone and quietly by oneself is just a poor substitute for the real thing.