Librivox is all growed up now.

[williamjones]

We already worry about understandability.
One of our criteria - mostly intended for foreign speakers of a language - is "being understandable by a native speaker".

If you are ever concerned about somebody not being understandable in one of your BC projects, you can always contact your MC for another pair of ears to listen.

In "Anne-speak", this suggestion sounds like divisive censorship by an autocratic, self-appointed jury of one, the MC.
To Ol' Bill Jones it sounds good, as far as it goes, but is contradicted by the frequent MC admonition that we are not allowed (dictatorship, censoring) to mention a narrator's accent or pronunciation.

A question for the MCs: If BC-X submits to his/her MC that narrator-Y's accent breaks the EASILY Understandable criterion, what options are available to the MC?

[Availle]

No. If I have a problem with anything, I will talk to the other MCs and we'll come to some sort of conclusion one way or the other. So don't fear, the "committee" already exists, in some way. You're just not on it.

Your statement, "The main goal is for readers to read and secondary for the listeners to listen." [...] this implies that LV should become place where readers (i.e., narrators) can practice, for their own pleasure, recording things and there is no need to list or advertise the titles of what the narrator has recorded because he/she has already had their fun and there is no need for other people to hear it. Is that what you mean? Do you see that LV is just a "write-only" device for the amusement of the narrators? This is the hidden meaning of the "reader-centric" posture I hear bandied about mostly by old time MCs.

Awwww, William, you figured it out.


Yes, this is indeed what LibriVox is doing and was always meant to do.
And it hasn't changed at any time in the last 16 years.

We keep reading books - whether people listen or not. Our listeners are not our main concern.

[BengtW]

Kind of yes. I see this site, Librivox.org is for the readers and other channels like YouTube is for the listeners using the this as input and will present what is of listeners value by the help of algorithms and user feedback. What is of poor quality will not be presented just like the majority of what is put on YouTube. The YouTube algorithm solves this problem for us.

[williamjones]

Awwww, William, you figured it out.


Yes, this is indeed what LibriVox is doing and was always meant to do.
And it hasn't changed at any time in the last 16 years.

We keep reading books - whether people listen or not. Our listeners are not our main concern.

[/quote]

Thanks for the (sardonic) applause.
Your comment is a bit shameful. I've been thinking that LV was meant to be a boon to the world; but, your revelation wipes away all the noble intent I had supposed. Even the final group of forest-dwelling book-people in "Fahrenheit 451" had a humanitarian goal: to SAVE the world's literature for others to enjoy in the future. Your view of the goal for LV seems to be "let's provide a playground for would-be orators.

If listeners are not your main concern then it sounds more than a bit like narcissism; and y'all's agenda for the week would be Day 1: stare at your navel, Day 2: record something, Day 3: stare at your navel, Day 4: record something, etc. ad infinitum.

Such an agenda is neither philanthropic, nor noble nor admirable, in my opinion. Thank god that us listeners can still glean a little good from the mixed bag of LV's offerings.

[ChipDoc]

To be fair, a playground for would-be orators is a whole lot more likely to attract potential readers. And we all have favorite readers, and ones whose readings we enjoy less.

Another perspective is that people who do this (or anything else for that matter) often enough, actually do get better at it. If it bothers you, don't listen to it. But let them try.

[williamjones]

To be fair, a playground for would-be orators is a whole lot more likely to attract potential readers. And we all have favorite readers, and ones whose readings we enjoy less.

Another perspective is that people who do this (or anything else for that matter) often enough, actually do get better at it. If it bothers you, don't listen to it. But let them try.

To quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious."

"...But let them try." OK, But why let them try on Librivox? In my original posting, I quoted a friend of mine who lamented that mid-way into a novel, there suddenly appeared a series of sections by nearly unintelligible narrators, interrupting my friend's enjoyment of the novel. This is a likely common event of the "...but let them try" policy.

[ChipDoc]

In what possible way can I not be serious?

While it's certainly true that some readers are better than others, only those who believe it's worthwhile even make the attempt. So in the end, we each ARE doing this for ourselves. We like it when listeners enjoy our work, but there are many who are simply seeking a venue for performance.

But while I appreciate your friend's irritation, Librivox isn't their only source for audiobooks. There are plenty of professional voices out there working in well-equipped studios whose concern for high production value is extreme. And yes, their labor is well compensated. But their audiobooks are generally available through your local public library, and in these days of web connectivity you can borrow them from the library without even leaving the house.

So yes, I am serious

[TriciaG]

"...But let them try." OK, But why let them try on Librivox? In my original posting, I quoted a friend of mine who lamented that mid-way into a novel, there suddenly appeared a series of sections by nearly unintelligible narrators, interrupting my friend's enjoyment of the novel. This is a likely common event of the "...but let them try" policy.

Perhaps your friend should stick to listening to solo recordings.

Random thoughts:

LV isn't 100%, totally, completely focused on the reader. Of course we want people to listen, and society to benefit, from the recordings. But putting a barrier up such as you describe would certainly cause otherwise good readers from attempting this.

I get enough negative reviews of my recordings on some of those apps. I must ignore them, or else I'd quit. And if I quit, those who tolerate my recordings would not have the audiobooks I have recorded. If I had known there was a panel of listeners waiting for my audition when I first started, I wouldn't have started. Even if I knew they were just trying to weed out the worst of the worst, I wouldn't have started. And I bet many others would be in the same position as I. Our reader pool would dry up.

Our prime directive is "to make audios of public domain works and release them, for free, on the internet" (or something very similar). Of course the "release, for free, on the internet" implies people downloading and listening to them.

I have listened to (and BC'd, and DPL'd) group projects in which sections were read by people hard to understand, or people who read monotonously/"poorly". Every BC wants their group project to be "perfect" - or at least as good as it can be. But I recognize that without the freedom for readers to read, even the "bad" readers, they won't develop into "good" readers, and many "good" readers wouldn't have given themselves the chance. So I sigh and carry on.

On a practical note, we have enough problems having people to check 1-minute tests in a timely manner, just for the technical stuff. I can't imagine trying to gather and hold together a panel of members who would give an ear to up to a dozen tests a day, 7 days a week.

[williamjones]

In what possible way can I not be serious?

So yes, I am serious

The McEnroe reference was to your first line: "To be fair, a playground for would-be orators is a whole lot more likely to attract potential readers."

Think about that for a moment.
The bald statement as it stands strains my credulity; thus the quote from Johnny Mac.

[philchenevert]

Bill asked

A question for the MCs: If BC-X submits to his/her MC that narrator-Y's accent breaks the EASILY Understandable criterion, what options are available to the MC?]

Let me clarify first off that the criteria is 'understandable by a native speaker' as I understand it, not 'easily understandable', a considerable difference. But with that caveat, the options I know about as a highly paid and practicing MC are 1) if it is in English and not understandable in my opinion, the section will be opened for another reader. 2) if it is understandable in my opinion then I tell the BC to let it stand. Understand that there is considerable negotiation between the BC/MC and the reader before a section is considered unacceptable; possible re recordings, etc. This is not done lightly and I have had to do it only 2 times in my 8 year stint as an admin. In both cases other ears have been asked for opinions. hope you can join us tonight Bill.

[ej400]

Let's talk about some realistic questions to be answered about this topic:

1- Who is to decipher whether a narrator is "not understandable?" Perhaps someone hard of hearing or with a language barrier may find difficulties, but this is where the DPL comes into play. If it's not understandable, the DPL makes a PL note asking for clarity! Rarely does this happen, but I've stumbled over words before and it's just a line to correct.

2- Perhaps a narrator is actually not understandable. Why would we toss them away from the project? A different mic, maybe help them pronounce and give tips and tricks for clarity rather than driving they're projects away or rejecting them the fun of making audiobooks!

3- We can just judge someone's narration based upon how they speak or sound. Someone else might think they speak wonderfully, who is to argue a case this reader isn't "LV standard" for FREE public domain audiobooks? We have guidelines and certain things our PL's watch out for all the time, making this FREE public domain much above what should be FREE. We offer thousands of readings with multiple versions.

[Steve]

Bill, I'm really not sure what to do but since you seem to be a man of profound insight and wisdom, perhaps you could advise me, please?

You see, I received this review for one of my audiobooks from an esteemed listener:

Worse narrative ever.had to drop it after 5 minutes. So dissapointing.

Ah! But you've already provided an answer for that scenario:

Bad narrators must be removed. Their appearance in a Librivox cataloged item leads one to believe that Librivox is cheap and 2nd class.

But then I noticed that I had received a couple of other reviews for the extact same audiobook:

So many interesting entries ... contained in this book ... Thanks are due to the reader who brought the words to Life. This West Country listener enjoyed hearing his East Country accent too.

&

Pleasant description of village life nicely read !

I guess that any aspirations that I might have in recording further audiobooks for Librivox would depend on who got to listen to and review my recordings first?

Steve

[m8b1]

Years ago there was a reader whose recording style I did not care for at all. They read a lot of chapters in group projects, so at least in what I was listening to, you would come across them often enough..

Then I kept listening, and listening, and grew to enjoy listening to this person so much, I specifically sought out solos that they read. They would never have been sought out for professional work. They did not have my accent. They were not an exciting reader at all - quite boring actually. But I grew to appreciate what they had to give.

Someone might think a recording is awful. The next person might love it. It is all in the "ear" of the listener.

Librivox would not be Librivox if we made participating subject to someones opinion.

(I have also gotten completely opposite reviews on the same recording as well. You just have to laugh and shrug it off.)

[Darvinia]

I'm British born and have lived in Canada and England. English is my native and only language.. There are native English accents that I can't understand from areas of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Who are we to judge which of that vast variety of accents is correct for Librivox and which are not? And this is only referring to native English speakers recording in English! Choosing areas from which I have difficulty understanding the accents, a person from eastern Canada, southern United States, or northern Scotland would be most happy to hear stories in their native English accents. Who are we to deny them that pleasure simply because we cannot understand their accent?

There are 46 languages available in the Librivox catalogue. Assuming a minimum committee (jury) of 3 for each language (2 possible opposite opinions and a tie-breaker), that would require 138 volunteers to be on these committees.

I have to say no. I think this is a bad idea.

[Leni]

Your statement, "The main goal is for readers to read and secondary for the listeners to listen." Is kinda frightening...this implies that LV should become place where readers (i.e., narrators) can practice, for their own pleasure, recording things and there is no need to list or advertise the titles of what the narrator has recorded because he/she has already had their fun and there is no need for other people to hear it. Is that what you mean? Do you see that LV is just a "write-only" device for the amusement of the narrators? This is the hidden meaning of the "reader-centric" posture I hear bandied about mostly by old time MCs.

Yes. Yes, that is exactly what I think LV is and I hope it continues being. What is VERY frightening is to think it would turn into a place where we are trying to have more readers and cater to their needs, instead of the readers'. Because, you see, I am a foreigner, that one thing you said should be banned, because some listener came and said "I chose this Librivox book to hear a story, not as an exercise to figure out what a foreigner is saying." That kind of attitude has a name, it's xenophobia. And this is the kind of attitude that will by itself turn people away. Even though I purposefully avoid seeing any reviews of my recordings, I have seen once one that said I pronounced words wrong. That made me stop recording for a long long time, until I gathered my courage back up. And I know I am not the only one that will stop recording if we are to be judged. That is not what I signed up for. I am here to record books, because I like that. If other people benefit from it, it is secondary. And this is not a hidden meaning - it is right there in the main page of Librivox (https://librivox.org/pages/volunteer-for-librivox/) for anyone who cares to read. It is plainly said that LV is here for the readers. It is also in the wiki and FAQ. I don't see why anyone would think it is a hidden thing at all.

I can speak only for myself in this regard, but when I record a section for some LV project I am HOPING that someone, someday will listen to it and enjoy or appreciate it. I get some positive feedback when I see the download counts roll up on Internet Archive. (foolish pride!)

Yes, you are speaking only for yourself. Keep that in mind. You certainly are not speaking for me or for other readers who do not want to be judged, who do not want to be shamed in public, and who are happy recording, organizing recordings and just liberating them without a thought about what will happen next. If YOUR high is the foolish, very foolish pride of thinking that everybody that downloaded a book a) listened to it, and b) loved your reading, you do you, and upload it and promote it. But do not count me among those, and please do not make this space, a safe space for readers, into another social media where people want to gather more likes. I hope we can keep this spirit away from Librivox - or it is just time for this foreigner that will ruin the English language to move on, since Librivox has GROWN up.