Is the hate for audiobooks a meme?
reading
>destroy your eyesight
>forced to sit still, deteriorateing you body
>might learn to spell some words, big deal
Audiobooks
>same fucking content
>get to activate your body along with your mind
>mostly comfy voiceactors
discuss
Other urls found in this thread:
Audio is far too slow. Depends on your speed but reading should be 3x faster at least. Doesn't mean audio is bad. Lots of people cannot read well and you can listen to books in your car or while cleaning and such.
I don't think books were meant to be read to you. That's just my opinion. And an audiobook will never engross you the way a book can. Reading can be such a refresher for you. Sit still, learn new words, read at your own pace, read something however many times you want. I just prefer books and these are my reasons.
>you can listen to books in your car or while cleaning and such
I feel like this doesn’t really do any good, reading (in this case listening) is an active thing
that’s idiotic
I feel like when it is played at 2x or 2.5x speed listening is almost as fast. However sometimes its nice to just take your time with a book and just sit with the words.
Hm maybe your right. Didnt people only read out loud until like 900s or something tho?
Fair point.
Multitasking is a meme.You are just taking longer, and half assing two things at once. I guess if you're the kind of bug that describes books as "content", it doesn't matter how you consume Game of Thrones or whatever. Who cares right? Do whatever you want.
How so?
Books dont have content? Tell me what do they contain to you? Well ultimately I dont care, I am just curious why people on this board seem to dislike audiobooks in general.
I listened to the Timaeus on my commute and I don't feel like I got it. I heard it all but I didn't really comprehend it the way I could reading.
It's good for light reading though.
It probably works for some people but I can't get into audiobooks the same as real books. I get distracted much more easily, I'm not very good at multitasking. I have a friend who is nearly blind and they are great for him though, so I don't hate them and I'm glad that there are a lot of them now.
I dont know about all that. I mean, I enjoy audiobooks as well as reading, but I find that I will usually retain much less listening to a book than I would if I was sitting down reading it (when i can also reread passages and take the time to look up things I'm unfamiliar with). Also maybe some people are better at multitasking than me but unless I'm doing something completely mindless like driving or going for a walk, I cant focus on an audiobook enough for my liking
>played at 2x or 2.5x speed
It depends I suppose but I can read faster than the words in speech would remain comprehensible.
I just tested this on youtube (I don't listen to audiobooks at all) at 2x it already sounds ridiculous. I feel like 1.75 is a barrier.
>wake up in the 50s
>get newspaper
>eat breakfast
>put on bath robe
>read random line of poetry with cigarette
good times...
If you're James Deen.
I do both
I don't know if the hate is a meme or not but would say that, for me at least, fiction can be "consumed" both ways but non fiction does require the active role of reading rather than the passive role of listening (while driving in my case).
An addendum to this is that, even in fiction, u might miss some nuance or go without appreciating some of the bookcraft laureate tier writers can put in, but this can boil down to practice and how good the narrator is
>Deen.
Its James Dene retards
There used to be a program on NPR in the morning where a nigga read a book over the course of a week or so, it was pretty comfy. I think such a thing would work for light works and most fiction but some stuff I find myself rereading to let an idea roll around in my mind a bit. I dont see it working so well for more difficult or dense works.
I used to dream about having a radio station that was only literature. Light history in the morning, novels in the day time. Maybe some more heady stuff in the evening. Nietzsche at Night.
Books have content, but they are also more than just content. Reading is about then just consuming the information contained in a book. There's this correlation I'm finding between people who describe books, and nearly all other forms of media, as "content" and assholes who only do things just for the sake of being able to tell people they've done them.
If you don't want to actually take the time to read a book then fine, but listening to someone read it is not the same thing as having parse the text yourself. I don't know if you're an ass or you've just picked up the the smell of one, but I think the reason you don't understand why the turn of phrase bothers me is related to why you don't see difference in reading or listening to something. It's a completely different.experience. Then again, it won't make a difference to you if you only see books as content.
He's implying you are a hyper consumerist living in our world of accelerated capitalism. You only care for consuming entertainment at a rapid pace simply so you can say to yourself and others, "Yes, I have read/watched/listened to that book/film/TV show/song."
I enjoy both. Honestly, using audiobooks when traveling and doing other tasks is as enjoyable as listening to music imo. Reading requires me to put time aside for a single task. Also I personally never take out books from the library but I use the app Libby to get free audiobooks which makes them convenient.
Because you phase out for 2 minutes and don't bother rewinding because it's a fucking audiobook
Have you done it? It absolutely works.
Voice actor here. Reading speed is usually dictated by the director or the people who choose the specific actor, those people sometimes being the author themselves. I typically try to go faster, but you have to balance the speed with how long the words leave an impact. If you're reading it at a normal without that perfect bit of silence, then the words don't have the time to leave an image in the reader's brain. Also, sometimes, we get paid by how long it takes to do the book. Only occasionally, though. Basically, we go that speed because it can be more understandable to a broader audience for people's broad attention spans.
Wasn't meant like that. I'm saying the verbalization itself takes longer than visual comprehension.
My mistake, then. My reading comprehension must be going to shit.
I don't care for them now, but audiobooks and e-readers with adjustable type size are going to be a godsend when we're all old men.
I listened to an audiobook and later read it. When I read it, the entire thing seemed unfamiliar.
The oral tradition is much older than the written. Books weren't meant to be read.
This. I usually put the file in my DAW and speed it up, EQ it, add some nice compression, and a touch of spring reverb.
at night i put on an audiobook and crochet blankets. you guys should try it
it's more akin to listening to a podcast imo
>destroy your eyesight
When will this meme end
why do all bookish nerds wear glasses, huh?
checkmate!
whats a good app for listening to audiobooks on phone