Today I read an article in the New York Times about how apparently there are book group members who get upset with other book group members because they listen to the audio book instead of reading the book. This is some of the stupidest shit I have ever heard of (she says, as she ends her sentence with a preposition). Why would taking in a book through your eyes be more valid than taking it in through your ears? It's the same book. I can see them getting pissy about abridgments, because, yeah, the Reader's Digest condensed version is not as valid as the regular book. But, really? You're *mad* about this? Sometimes people confuse me.
Here is a quote that really really makes my head hurt: "I said that I felt like listening to a book was a copout," Ms. Altman said. "I'm not like a hardcore book group person - a lot of times I don't even finish the book. But my point was that she is a librarian and I thought it was pretty ridiculous. I'm a painter and it would be like me painting by numbers."
The whole article is
here if you want to read it. (Registration possibly required.)
I am fully behind the audio book as a valid form of "reading." I count the number of books that I read every year, and I count the audio books (although I also note them, so audio book haters can subtract them from my total, I guess). Eh. So silly.
Today I am home early because I had a doctor's appointment. I'm making a zucchini casserole for dinner, and then we're going to see The Simpsons Movie. [homer] Woo hoo! [/homer]