Poll: Are Audiobooks Shameful?

[Agayek]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with listening to audiobooks. It's definitely not my preferred method to consume literature, but that's simply a matter of personal taste. I much prefer to have the book in my hands and to read it; I'm a major bibliophile, have been since I taught myself to read back when I was 3. The simple act of reading is very relaxing and pleasant for me.

That said, I do have a good sized library of audiobooks on my MP3 player, specifically for use on long drives. Nothing's better when I go on 6-12 hour drives than a good audiobook. It's practically the only thing that can keep me truly alert and awake the whole time.

 

[Grimh]

Yes, you have brought great shame to you and your kin.
You must now carry the Monolith of Words to the top of Mt. Literacy as it is the only place it will reveal it's sacred text.
There you will read what the monolith brands upon it's surface and ponder it's message for 42 days.
Only after doing this will you be redeemed.

And by that I mean, no.

 

[game-lover]

Hell no. Audiobooks are awesome!

I've just gotten into them myself and they're great. Granted it depends on the narrator but you get a good one and it's just music and love for your ears. Some things are more intense, more emotional, more hilarious when you hear it then if you read it yourself and try to imagine it.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Yes because the kids who read books are notorious for being the coolest kids. I remember in high school I always got beat with gym bags full of Stephen King novels because the debate team found out I liked football. Dark times.

No. Honestly audiobooks got me back into "reading" because I can do other things while listening to them. There's no shame in having other shit to do.

 

[Dimitriov]

I listen to audiobooks while I work. I also listen to them to enjoy books at a slower pace. I always read exceptionally quick so if I know the book is going to be really good I get it in audio form and really enjoy it.

IF anyone tried to mock me for listening to books instead of just reading them I'd just laugh in their face. I'm an avid reader hitting at least 120 to 150 books a year. I'd simply not be able to manage that with out the convenience of audiobooks.

Uh, if reading books is too fast, so you listen to them in audio form (which is slower) to savour them, then why can you only "read" that many books in a year because of audio books. That doesn't make any sense...

Actually I'd say it makes perfect sense. I read a lot of books and since audio books enables me to utilize more of my time reading than I'd otherwise be able to read I get a net positive gain despite the fact audio books take longer because I'm using a higher percentage of my time reading.

Well that does make perfect sense. Although it adds some more rather relevant information! Personally I can't think of too many situations in my life where I could listen to an audio book, but not read. I can, however, imagine a few.

 

[Ghaleon640]

I look down on my busy friends with busy schedules who go through dozens of audiobooks, because I, you see, haven't read anything in a long time! .... wait...

No need to be a hipster, whatever format gets you to get the story is the format you should use.

 

[Eamar]

I wouldn't use the word "shameful" by any means, but... well, ask an honest question, get an honest answer:

I have to admit I do instinctively think less of people who listen to audiobooks rather than reading the thing themselves.

Before I elaborate: people, I know it's unfair and I know there are legit reasons why someone might prefer audiobooks. Please don't get irate and come back at me with logical counterarguments or try to explain to me why I'm wrong, because I'm well aware of the arguments, and this isn't something based in logic, it's a gut reaction. Also yes, I have tried audiobooks myself in the past.

I'm honestly not 100% sure why I feel this way. Partly because of the inevitable distractions if you're "reading" while doing a bunch of other things, particularly important things requiring focus like your job or driving. I do feel that reading is something you should give your undivided attention to, and I certainly can't imagine carrying out other tasks while reading myself - I just get way too absorbed.

Then there's pacing and interpretation: an audiobook doesn't really allow you to go at your own pace, to really mull a paragraph or line of dialogue over before continuing, or to stop and appreciate a really nicely written section. Sometimes I need to re-read something a few times before I fully understand it, particularly with more difficult literature. You're also stuck with someone else's interpretation of where to place emphasis, how to "portray" different characters vocally and other such things. Maybe I'm just a control freak, but this is the sort of stuff that means I just can't get along with audiobooks.

Oh, and the less said about abridged versions the better. If you're claiming to have "read" something off the back of an abridged audiobook (and a surprising number of them are), then I'm afraid yes, I will judge you unapologetically. Just like if you skip chapters or never finish while reading traditionally (when it's not a re-read), it doesn't count.

Lastly I suspect there's a lurking (again, unfair) suspicion that having someone else read a book to you is somehow childish. My dad used to read books to me before I had the necessary skill to tackle them myself, which was great as it meant I was exposed to a lot of adult and classic literature far earlier than most of my peers, but transitioning to reading those books myself was always a kind of rite of passage for me, something I aspired to. It would never have occurred to me to claim I'd read those books until I'd actually done it myself. That mindset is almost certainly clinging on somewhere in my brain making me feel like audiobooks are "beneath me" somehow.

All that said, you may be surprised to learn that I'm a big fan of radio plays. Someone mentioned them earlier, and they're correct - radio plays are fantastic and I am incredibly grateful to the BBC for continuing to produce them. However, I feel that they're fundamentally different from audiobooks, simply because they are specifically designed to be consumed aurally, whereas I don't think most books are. To me, listening to a book is like reading the script for a radio play - you're getting the same basic story, but it's missing a crucial element and... well... just isn't as good.

So overall I'm going to vote "yes" in the poll, but with the understanding that "shameful" is too strong a word.

Hope that makes sense and I haven't offended too many people.

And of course, my opinion does not matter at all. No one's does. If you enjoy audiobooks, carry on. [small]You freak.[/small]

 

[Blow_Pop]

I think you're overlooking into this. If someone finds it shameful that you listen to books then their opinion shouldn't matter to you. People listen to audio books for different reasons. Hell, I just checked out a Stephen King audio book from the library. This is my last ditch effort to try and like King's works outside of Christine and From a Buick 8 and Pet Semetary and Salem's Lot. Apart from those 4, I've HATED everything else he's written that I've tried to read. But I initially got into audio books when I was driving an hour to work and an hour from work(minimum). One of the guys I use to work with loaned me a David Baldacci audio book because he was talking about it and it sounded REALLY interesting. I expressed interest and the next day he came in with the audio book and said I could borrow it. So I started listening to it on my way home. I adored it. And from then on he'd let me borrow another one whenever I finished the one I was currently with. And they were all stuff that he though I'd like from what he observed I brought in to read in my downtime/breaks or that I enjoyed from what he brought in. I've since bought some of the books that I listened to on audio.

The people who look down on audio books, I've found, are also the people who look down on ebooks. My stance? Who the fuck cares? Because hey, books are still getting read/listened to. What does it matter what format they are in? Yeah, some people who listen to audio books MIGHT be illiterate but so what? They're at least trying and enjoying a medium in which a lot of people still do enjoy. I look at audio books in the same vein as radio dramas. Both require the use of imagination. And imagination is a great thing. The immersion you can get from reading/listening to a book is amazing and a lot of people who knock audio books haven't tried them. So yeah, anyone looks down on you for listening to a book, that's their problem and not yours.

 

[Snotnarok]

I had gotten crap from a friend because what I read is technology/science news and not novels or whatever. Closest thing I read is comics, but that's all taboo, especially if all of the reading is electronically done/off a screen. You need REAL books or you're not interesting apparently.

Can't express how shallow the person has to be to think and act on these things.

 

[Vault101]

I had gotten crap from a friend because what I read is technology/science news and not novels or whatever. Closest thing I read is comics, but that's all taboo, especially if all of the reading is electronically done/off a screen. You need REAL books or you're not interesting apparently.

Can't express how shallow the person has to be to think and act on these things.

people have a real thing for physical books..and I do understand it even though I use an E reader

I love the cover art from the 80's/90's one of my favorite things is a copy of "the plains of passage" I remember reading that series at my grandmas house, I remember finding it in an old second hand store, it had a little note written in it...a birthday present from some guy to his mum...

aww gee now I'm getting emotional, sometimes I feel like going to my local second hand bookstore and buying a bunch of paperbacks for the hell of it

 

[FPLOON]

Ha Ha... Nope...

I mean, I personally could never get into audiobooks because I rarely find them interesting to listen to all that much... But, if that's just how you roll, in terms of how you get your book "reading" done, then no one should tell you otherwise...

(Besides, if hearing random people on YouTube reading "poorly done" fanfiction counts as "listening to an audiobook", then it's not like I'm fully against the idea of audiobooks in the first place...)

 

[jdavies655]

I prefer audiobooks because I'm a slow reader and it helps when you have the lovely tones of Yathzee or Jon Richardson in your ears.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

No, it's not shameful. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. It's another way to consume literature. In some cases, I would actually say that the work is improved by the narrator's performance, just as in some cases it's worsened. I've listened to audiobooks by themselves. I've listened to audiobooks in the car and then picked up where I left off on a paperback when I got home. I've read one book and listened to another, as I'm currently doing. It's all reading, and it's all great.

 

[AnnaIME]

By "read", I mean listened to.

Whenever I discuss these novels with someone whose opinion of me I care about, I make sure not to specify that I consumed them in audio form.

Trained librarian here. I used to work with teens who were weak readers.

Part of what makes practising reading difficult for someone who hasn't mastered it fully as a child is that age appropriate books are too hard to start with. They don't have the vocabulary or the knowledge of the world to understand what they are reading, and they don't have the ability to make "the pictures in the head". The books available on their reading level are much too childish to keep their interest, not to mention the stigma in reading the baby books when you are a six-foot basketball star. So they "forget" to bring their books, and they don't practise. Their skills don't grow, but their shame does. Vicious circle.

Enter the audio book. Suddenly they can practise the mental imaging and build their vocabulary. The books start making sense. Their self esteem rises. It's now worth their while to keep decoding those pesky letters. Their grades improve.

I have seen this so many times.

Don't let anyone shame you away from the audiobooks. They really are helping you improve your overall reading skills, no matter what your level is.

 

[RazielXT]

Of course its not. For some time ive been going out for long walks first time in the morning and audiobooks are best companions for such occasion.

 

[softclocks]

If ordinary books are still an option then shame on you!

That being said, some books are really, really great when they're on audio-book. I listened to Stephen King's "on Writing" and "The Green Mile" and they were both fantastic.

 

[Isra]

In my opinion some audiobooks are better than their paper counterparts.
When Random House Audio makes a big production from a book, complete with sound effects and actual voice acting, it's almost like a movie. They're really entertaining, but usually when I do an audiobook I stick to more action oriented, less thought provoking material. When I want to read a really good book I go with paper or kindle, just because I personally find it's a better experience when my own imagination does the work without the distraction of someone's voice. I also find it's possible to 'phase out' for a good 5 or 10 minutes during an audiobook and completely miss important details, which doesn't happen when reading.

But shameful? Hell no. How is it any different from watching a movie or listening to music? Do what makes you happy.

 

[DementedSheep]

...why would they be? I don't understand this one. Would they assume you are illiterate or something? I've never listen to an audio book but I don't see why it would shame someone. A lot of people listen to them to consume books while doing something else.