Gauging Interest - Mueller Report [LAUNCHED]

ColleenMc · Post by **ColleenMc** » April 18th, 2019, 4:37 pm

I agree on stating the full tag, or else read it fully for the first time when you encounter it in each chapter and abbreviate after that, because people are going to dip in and out and listen to chapters they are more interested in. Which would be a PITA for the DPL to keep track of and check for each chapter!

It's a government document, it's gonna be clunky. The Watergate report was stuffed full of tables and tedious figures but we plowed on through it!

Footnotes: I think we should go with the standard approach of reading them if there is any interesting information in them but not if it's just a reference or a citation. And just read "Footnote....end of footnote" without the footnote numbers.

Not sure about reading citations that occur within the text. I'm working on a Supreme Court decision project and the rule there is to not read citations within the text.

I'm about to record the Intro/Exec Summaries of both volumes and I plan to read them completely, including in-text citations but not footnote citations. I'll let you know how awkward it is after I finish!

Colleen

stinssd · Post by **stinssd** » April 18th, 2019, 5:28 pm

Sure!

ktzn · Post by **ktzn** » April 18th, 2019, 5:42 pm

On the citations within the text, I think it's fair to quote chapter and verse. i.e. 18 USC 'Squiggly S' 951 (a) should, technically, be read as Title 18 United States Code Section 951, subsection (a). The squiggly S which I can't replicate here meaning 'section'. No different than a bible verse, really. This is the way it's done in the legal field. Instead of John 3:1, Gospel According to John, Chapter 3, Verse 1.

However, I don't think it's necessary for the footnotes. I would prefer not to do footnotes at all, but agree that it's relevant and we should do it when it's interesting/relevant. When it's interesting should be designated as such by the reader.

Post by **TriciaG** » April 18th, 2019, 5:47 pm

§

Gotta get into your character map and copy it from there.

ktzn · Post by **ktzn** » April 18th, 2019, 5:48 pm

Tricia, you are too cool for school!

BurgundyGrace · Post by **BurgundyGrace** » April 18th, 2019, 6:12 pm

This is a bit beyond my capacity to BC, but I'm *Very* interested in reading a section or several.

Please let me know if I'm able to help with anything; I'll be happy to assist.

KIBBONAFIDE · Post by **KIBBONAFIDE** » April 18th, 2019, 6:55 pm

viewtopic.php?p=1580809#p1580809

Here’s the thread in the Launch Pad!

BurgundyGrace · Post by **BurgundyGrace** » April 18th, 2019, 7:02 pm

Oh! Thank you!

RobMarland · Post by **RobMarland** » April 19th, 2019, 1:16 am

ktzn wrote: ↑
April 18th, 2019, 5:42 pm
On the citations within the text, I think it's fair to quote chapter and verse. i.e. 18 USC § 951 (a) should, technically, be read as Title 18 United States Code Section 951, subsection (a). ... No different than a bible verse, really. This is the way it's done in the legal field. Instead of John 3:1, Gospel According to John, Chapter 3, Verse 1.

Yes, I agree. It's things like this that I think we should be consistent about, because this is already going to be a difficult document for listeners to follow.

I encourage our valiant BC to make a list in the first post of the main thread of all the reading rules he wants the readers to consistently stick to.

ColleenMc · Post by **ColleenMc** » April 19th, 2019, 5:53 am

I asked a lawyer friend and gave him the example of the clause "see, e.g., Justice Manual (squigglysquiggly) 9-13.400, 13.410" and he said he would pronounce it as, "see, for example, Justice Manual sections nine dash thirteen point four hundred, thirteen point four hundred ten"

Also, there are some Latin abbreviations that come up regularly and we should decide something consistent on reading those. I don't really have a problem with pronouncing them just as they appear on the page -- reading "i.e." as simply "i.e." but I've seen others say that you should substitute the meaning just like you automatically would read "Mr." as "Mister".

So:

etc. - "and so on"

e.g. - "for example"

i.e. - "that is"

et al - "and others"

inter alia - "among other things"

et seq. - "and following"

It might be good to decide whether to read these consistently one way or the other, but I don't think it's that big a deal. When some laws are being cited the abbreviations get more complex, like "28 C.F.R. (squiggly) 600.4(a)" -- C.F.R. means Code of Federal Regulations and a lawyer might read it as "Code of Federal Regulations, Title twenty-eight, section six hundred point four, subsection a" but reading it exactly as it appears (other than substituting "section" for "squiggly") would give it in a way that someone who wanted to understand the exact reference or even write it down to go look up could do so, and it would not get too long and clunky for casual listeners.

I usually just read the abbreviations as they appear on the page, and most people have a good idea of what "et cetera" and "e.g." and "i.e." mean even if they don't know the Latin, but now that I've looked all these up, I might substitute the English meaning going forward, especially on the less familiar ones like inter alia and et seq.

I do think we should set a standard for this to make it easier for each reader to know how to do these and so the prooflistener has a standard to refer to as well. I admit I'm a nerd about these things and probably notice more than a lot of listeners, but I do get mildly distracted when listening to a collab work and different readers pronounce things differently. But I also freely acknowledge that I may have a little mind with hobgoblins...

Colleen

RobMarland · Post by **RobMarland** » April 19th, 2019, 6:39 am

ColleenMc wrote: ↑
April 19th, 2019, 5:53 am

I usually just read the abbreviations as they appear on the page, and most people have a good idea of what "et cetera" and "e.g." and "i.e." mean even if they don't know the Latin, but now that I've looked all these up, I might substitute the English meaning going forward, especially on the less familiar ones like inter alia and et seq.

Colleen

My feeling is that we should read everything exactly as it is on the page ("e.g." is "e.g." and so on). Not everyone will understand the abbreviations / Latin when we say it, but they wouldn't have understood it if they read the original document. And that's fine. Plus, it sticks closely to the general Librivox guideline not to add or change anything.

I am more for having rules about how to deal with the symbols (§ and ¶), which some readers here might not recognise (the section symbol is new to me).

KevinS · Post by **KevinS** » April 19th, 2019, 7:58 am

I think there are more important things for volunteers to record.

If the sentiment for recording government reports of this kind is genuine, then let's see it done as a part of a larger scaled project. Otherwise, I think we will be seen as far too singularly focused and rather soaked in the contemporary.

I don't oppose this project, but it certainly is not why I came to LibriVox.

ktzn · Post by **ktzn** » April 19th, 2019, 8:26 am

Fair enough Kevin. There's plenty of space for us all at Librivox.

ej400 · Post by **ej400** » April 19th, 2019, 8:28 am

KevinS wrote: ↑
April 19th, 2019, 7:58 am
I think there are more important things for volunteers to record.

If the sentiment for recording government reports of this kind is genuine, then let's see it done as a part of a larger scaled project. Otherwise, I think we will be seen as far too singularly focused and rather soaked in the contemporary.

I don't oppose this project, but it certainly is not why I came to LibriVox.

I agree. I also think that it is sad that some countries could potentially ban librivox, because they'd see librivox in a negative light. We talked about that earlier in the thread, and maybe it won't be the U.S, but it could happen to some other countries where we have some nice volunteers.