Hi, i'm new to this board and looking to get more into books. I was just curious as to what the general consensus on audiobooks is.
They ruin good writing, no punctuation, set pronunciation and pacing, etc.
They also make complex books very difficult to understand.
What is it with the ridiculous amount of newfriend threads lately? Is this some soft trolling attempt of another board or is r/books down? Read the wiki and delete the thread.
I have a more lenient stance on audio books than most of lit. I think they are fine to listen to if you have already read the work.
It you are listening for first time you should just kill yourself.
>>7734763
Listening to non-fiction on your commute is admirable
Replacing reading in your down time is despicable.
If you want to hear someone else's perspective about a book, listen to them as they read it. If you want to get your own perspective about a book, read it yourself.
>>7734763
They can be helpful if you're doing something with your hands, but it's always better to create your own voice and go at your own pace for a book and you don't get that from audiobooks.
writing is ought to show sound. it's only natural that now that writing's getting obsolete it replaced by sound against. i hear there have been books with picture, too. they call them "motion pictures". they're the best.
>>7734763
Audio books are good if you are doing something else at the same time.
But if you are doing something at the same time you aren't paying full attention to the book.
You should pay full attention to a book or you won't understand it.
Therefore, audio books are useless.
Unless it's some genre trash or fantasy
Project Zenta. And so far it is pretty awesome !
Sorry. I entered an answer in to the wrong thread. But to your question I think the audio books can be really great if they are well narrated. I have some of Jules Verne and they are simply epic !
they can be good or incredibly shit.
nonauthors don't understand the point of literature, and so generally take offense at the mention of them.
