Just in case people consider this seriously, I just want to add my two cents: Ulysses although is prose, it's so much more of a poetry than prose compared many other novels. I personally don't think listening to someone's reading of Ulysses will be remotely similar to reading it on page. Some of the chapters are really almost entirely about discovering how to read this chapter. I don't necessarily think it's bad, just the same way you can listen to poetry by going to a poetry reading session, you can listen to Ulysses. Just note that it's going to be an entirely different experience than reading it, and it will likely forever bias your interpretation of the book. Just my humble two cents, I don't claim to know anything.
That's certainly your take on poetry, but not mine. It also may not be everyone's. I think everyone has a unique reading of each poetry, and thus reading and listening are different. There is nothing wrong with listening to poetry, it's just that I prefer to read first (find my own reading) then listen to others. I personally don't think I would have wanted to listen to Ulysses before reading it. Again, you may find it bizarre and that's fine.
Etymologically the word "poetry" comes from the Greek verb for "make," which has no connection to speech or sound. Historically, in many places and at many times, poetry has not fit into narrow straitjacket you're putting it in.
Poetry in some languages and traditions is at least as visual as it is oral/verbal. Calligraphy is tightly bound to some poetic traditions. In others, the form of a poem is chiefly or entirely calligraphic, not oral, acoustic, or rhythmic.
Even if we restrict ourselves to Western Anglophone poetry of the past 100 years, you'll find that the sound of poetry itself has changed drastically. Find a recording of someone reading an English-language poem in the early 20th century. You'll likely find its sound quite alien, not just because of the antiquated pronunciation but because there's a strong element of something like chant -- and delivery is far more affected than it would be today. I'm not so sure the sound of poetry for you would sound at all like poetry to, I don't know, Yeats or Kipling.
In turn, poetry in Greece and Rome was so tightly coupled to music that it would be more correct to say that poetry in these civilizations was defined by its characteristics when sung, not spoken. Hence in Homer and Classical Greek the word "aoidos," singer, is frequently used of poets.
> Poetry is literally defined by its characteristics when spoken. That's what "poetry" means.
Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poetry) tells me that its etymology is through "poet," which in turn means "author" or "maker," and that its meaning is "Literature composed in verse or language exhibiting conscious attention to patterns and rhythm." Neither of those things uniquely privileges its spoken experience. But it doesn't really matter what the etymology or meaning of the word is when discussing the best way to enjoy it, and it's at best useless to try to tell someone else that they're enjoying it wrong.
> and that its meaning is "Literature composed in verse or language exhibiting conscious attention to patterns and rhythm." Neither of those things uniquely privileges its spoken experience.
Pattern can definitely exist in writing without being spoken. (Sometimes only in writing, and not when spoken; see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_poetry.) I would argue that rhythm can as well, though that's less of a slam dunk.
Have you done that successfully for any book? I've never tried, but it seems likely to me to be very difficult, unless you happen to read at exactly the narrator's pace.
Most audio players these days have an option to listen to the media at higher speeds. Through some FFT magic, I think, the tone doesn't go up either; it's just faster. I watch most of my YT vids at ~2x now and most podcasts are at ~1.8x. It can be a bit jarring at first, but you get used to it really fast.
> Most audio players these days have an option to listen to the media at higher speeds. Through some FFT magic, I think, the tone doesn't go up either; it's just faster. I watch most of my YT vids at ~2x now and most podcasts are at ~1.8x. It can be a bit jarring at first, but you get used to it really fast.
I may be protesting too much, since, as I say, I've never tried it. But this seems like a solution to the problem where the narrator's reading speed is a fixed percentage of your reading speed, whereas I have in mind the way that I read, which is that I might go very quickly through some sections that don't need or to which I don't want to pay detailed attention, and then slow way down in the more difficult sections. I think it is fairly rare for audiobook narrators to approach the book this way (but maybe they do it so seamlessly I don't notice?).
I'm not sure about YT, but my podcast app allows for me to map the left earbud's +/- buttons for volume and the right earbud's for playback speed. I can go slower or faster depending on how much I want to listen to a section. What I can't do is map a rewind button, which can be tough if I fast forward through something and miss and want to go back.
The best reading I've found is from Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), Ireland’s national public-service broadcaster. [1] It's treated more as a play, one part per actor. It's special - my closest other experience is watching Shakespeare.
https://sive.rs/ulysses