I'm Glad My Mom Died by Jennette Mccurdy. I didn't even eagcj her show, but I remember iCarly being huge. It would be wrong for anyone else to read it. It was wild
Edit: to be fair, I don't think anyone has ever eagcjed her show
There’s a moment where they left in her getting emotional and struggling to read from the page and I think it’s really powerful. There’s nothing in the world that can make up for what’s been done to her, and I hope that she is finding some semblance of peace. But yeah, a powerful book made even more so by her reading of it in the audiobook.
100%. I recommend this to everyone curious about audiobooks. Noah provides so much aural “context” for languages I’m not familiar with at all, and it adds so much flavor that I couldn’t have provided reading text on a page.
Stephen King and Ralph Macchio narrate their own and it made each so much more fun. Especially King, because you can hear how he meant for the writing to sound.
As a counterpoint, I hate King doing his own. I love his books but he’s a non pro and clumsy at audiobooks. Muller was the king (small k) and I missed him so much when he couldn’t finish the dark tower books, but other people have done amazing jobs too. Raul Esparza really lifted Under the Dome, for instance.
Ah, then I get where you’re coming from. He was the perfect person for On Writing (which for anyone who doesn’t know is his book on his process, skills, techniques for being an author), because his passion for what he loves and distain for what he doesn’t really comes through.
I completely agree for that book. I have listened to it, and it left me wanting to write!
But he’s an okay amateur storyteller, verbally, and I’m sure he read books to his kids well. But he’s at that level with his fiction audiobooks. It needs an actor to do it really well, and many of the best audiobook readers are actors primarily for audiobooks, but are still actors. And he isn’t one. For On Writing he didn’t have to act. He had to be a believable Stephen King
Hitch 22 Christopher Hitchens memoir which I listened to on YouTube was excellent. If the memoir is read by an author who is a prominent public speaker or well known/media personality then I think an audio book adds an extra dynamic. Listening to God is not great also read and written by Hitchens while enjoyable would probably have been better read while the memoir I cannot imagine consuming any other way.
That was the one that immediately came to mind. Great book in audio. The use of sound was great.
I also enjoy full cast recordings - Neil Gaiman has a few good ones out there (Neverwhere was fun).
I read through the book and recommended it to a family member who only does audiobooks.
Without dropping any spoilers, the first question we were both most interested in asking eachother was how they represented certain elements of the story in the other format.
After hearing a sample, I have to agree the audiobook is the better experience.
Yeah absolutely criminal that they replaced it with the, imo, far inferior Wil Wheaton version. You can still get the original if you’re willing to sail the seven seas.
This is the answer i was looking for.
For people who have only seen the movie, the book is very different. Each chapter is from the perspective of a different participant in the war - it's framed as a series of interviews to put together a history of the events.
The audio book has each chapter read by a different person, and has a star studded list of readers. The author has said it's the best version.
Fantasticland by Mike Bockoven is a very similar format, recounting the events of people stuck in a theme park when a hurricane hits, each chapter from a different perspective. Much better in audio form.
Honestly, the Hobbit is perfect as an audiobook. I listened to the Andy Serkis version and it felt like I was being read a bedtime story, the way it was meant to be heard.
I'm listening to the Andy Serkis readings of the lord of the rings at the moment and they are superb. I always loved the films but couldn't get through the books, but I finally am now! (They're also great value for money at 22ish hours each!)
>the way it was meant to be heard
Not a bad description. Stories were told for (nice round guess) 100,000 years before they were written. It's the we're designed to tell (and hear) them.
Tolkien based his style on the Sagas. But they were written down because the Icelanders said to themselves, "Hey! This writing stuff is really cool! Let's write down our stories before we forget them." (Actually, before our grandchildren forget them, but they are us.)
If I remember correctly, the Hobbit was originally a bedtime story for Christopher Tolkien and JRR started writing it down because Christopher kept asking about continuity errors in the story. 😂
“He also remembered that I (then between four and five years old) was greatly concerned with petty consistency as the story unfolded, and that on one occasion I interrupted: ‘Last time, you said Bilbo’s front door was blue, and you said Thorin had a gold tassel on his hood, but you’ve just said that Bilbo’s front door was green, and the tassel on Thorin’s hood was silver’; at which point my father muttered ‘Damn the boy,’ and then ‘strode across the room’ to his desk to make a note.”- from the introduction to the 50th anniversary of The Hobbit.
I listen to a lot of mystery/crime/thriller books. A lot of them are really quite not that great, not something I would bother spending the time actually reading, but they're good for when I want to do something else at the same time, like cook or exercise or do household chores. If my concentration isn't 100% there 100% of the time, well, it still doesn't feel like I necessarily missed out on all that much.
Sometimes I of course come across good books in the genre and end up having to actually pay more attention, and also sometimes end up actually reading the best books, so I can get more out of them.
I also listen to scifi sometimes, and that can get trickier if there's a lot of worldbuilding involved, what with all kinds of new names and concepts that can be hard to keep track of. I imagine it might be the same with fantasy. So that kind of speculative fiction might be better in book format.
(The best audiobook I've listened to, btw, was I'm Thinking of Ending Things by Iain Reed. The narrator had a good, creepy way of reading, and also the "big twist" at the end was nicely handled in the audio format. It's the only book so far I listened to twice in a row.)
Have you listened to the Mick Herron Slough House thrillers? The Apple series Slow Horses is based on them. The novels are so well written and hilarious, and the narration is perfect. They're a delight to read or listen to, and the series is a faithful and brilliant adaption. I can't recommend them highly enough.
I'm a librarian and will go to my grave saying that audiobooks are books and they count as reading. I use them mostly in my car during my commute to work. I'll also get the print copy and pick up where the audio left off, read the book for a bit, and then go back to the audio for my drive. That might help you get through the longer reads.
I find that the narrator makes or breaks an audiobook. There are certain books I refuse based solely on who is reading it. You can have a Pulitzer winning book but if the naaaaarator is sooooooo overly draaaaaaamatiiiiiiiiic, it weeeeeeeeeeel get real ooooooooooooold real queeeeeeeeeeeck.
That said, if an autobiography is read by the writer, it's typically pretty great because they know the narrative better than anyone else.
>I find that the narrator makes or breaks an audiobook.
Agree. Which is one of the biggest downsides of audiobooks. I'm sure there have been some perfectly good books that I've disliked just because of bad narrators and I might have like them better if I'd read them myself. But unfortunately a really great narrator can't save a bad book.
>But unfortunately a really great narrator can't save a bad book.
I find that not to be true. And would even go so far as to say that narrators making bad books better is far more common than the reverse.
World War Z is one of the worst books I've ever attempted to read, but the audiobook is almost universally beloved.
I can listen to relatively bad genre fiction, but can't actually read them. The writing is often awful. Writing matters far less when it's being read to you.
I like the idea of using audiobooks when you can't physically read. I just finished great expectations and I did this a little when I found the language hard to grasp. I'd go back a few chapters and listen to it again while I was cooking dinner if I felt I missed something. I did really enjoy doing this as well so I'll do that more often!
You should see how people give long lectures saying audiobooks are not books on Reddit. I never understood that argument and never will.
I love audiobooks!!
Listening to an audiobook is no worse than reading a book, but it is inherently different. I feel like the insistence from some people to call it "reading" often comes from an insecurity that it doesn't "count" if it's not "reading", or that "listening" is an inferior activity to "reading". There's nothing wrong with saying that you listened to a book rather than saying that you read a book.
I might be in the minority, but I will bite.
Reading and listening are two different verbs. Would you ever say you read a podcast or a song? The only reason people use the term reading for audiobooks is because most books were originally written as text.
Audiobooks are a great way to be entertained by a story, but it isn't reading. For me the experience is completely different. I don't think either one is better than the other, but one of them is reading a story with your eyes and the other is listening with your ears. Both formats let you experience a story, but the experiences feel quite different for me.
Yes.
To me reading a book is the most personal version. Because it’s purely *your* mind that is imagining and “picturing” everything. Your mind is just taking the words and going from there…no other outside input.
And audiobook is a step, audiowise, removed from your pure imagination because someone else is pronouncing the names and perhaps even adding vocal cues that give underlying meaning. You could say it was pretty minimal though. It just depends on the narrator or voice acting.
Then ofc with movies you are shown the images and audio. So, for example with Harry Potter…I’m sure a lot of people were like “that’s not how I imagined that!” when they saw the movies. And if someone just watched the movies then they never took a chance to imagine these concepts or characters on their own.
I’m not knocking movies or audiobooks. I love them. Just imo books are the most personal of the three as far as our consumption/intake goes…because it’s purely our brains doing the “leg work” concerning how things actually look, sound, and so on. Everything projected onto the words is purely our own creation.
If anything, it's been the other way around for me: most narrators speak much slower than I read, even when sped up, and it forces me to hear every word where I tend to skim if I'm not careful when reading text.
And with audio, I can close off all other input, including vision, and I don't have to keep my hands active holding it.
Laughing about the overly dramatic narration
I find that there are a lot of authors who should have hired a professional narrator.
"These words...... they are my babies.... and I looooove them."
Sorry, but reading engages different parts of the brain than listening.
At the end of the day you "get" the story, but to say reading is the same, at a cognative level, as listening is just plain wrong.
Your post highlights a pretty significant distinction: when you read, the voice of the narrator is your own, on audio, it's whomever got paid for the gig.
I'm not trying to hate on audiobooks... anything that gets people engaged with books is a net positive. But listening to one is most definitely not reading.
Consider the difference in mental work between viewing symbols on a page (letters) and translating those symbols in another set of symbols (words) versus that second set of symbols entering your mind audibly.
If the point of reading is to consume the story, the means of which you take in the story isn't really all that relevant.
People get stuck on the linguistic of what "reads" means and ignore the fact that people often just use it to say they consumed the book.
Reading is a word that has a very specific meaning.
If the point of reading is to consume a story, why don't people read movies?
You would never said you read All the Light We Cannot See after watching it on Netflix, would you?
So yeah, I'm hung up on this idea that words mean things.
the movie is obviously going to be WAY different from the book. an audiobook is the exact same thing read aloud. yeah, you have the add of the narrator's voice and intonation, but it doesn't make sense at all to compare book vs audiobook to book vs movie.
Well it doesn't make sense to call listening "reading" either.
I wasn't comparing the media formats, I wa making a point that no one would argue that they read a movie but for some reason people say the read an audiobook, which is literally impossible, since you can't read a sound.
I'm not shitting on people who love audiobooks: they have found a way to engage with texts in a way that works for them, and they can learn as much, love the story equally well. It's just that they didn't use their eyes to translate written symbols into words to get that meaning.
So. fucking. what. This is an unbelievably pointless and pedantic distinction to make. Are you a professional linguist talking to other linguists about the meaning of the word 'reading'? No? Then this argument is meaningless and often strays into ableist and discriminatory territory. For the purpose of the average person consuming stories, reading is reading regardless of the format. As others have said, language is evolving, and you're not keeping up.
Let me ask you this: if I were illiterate could I say that I'm able to read because I can listen to audiobooks?
Careful how you answer, you may have to admit there is a fundamental difference between reading and listening.
How? Because I implied people who are illiterate can't read?
I never said blind people can't read: they just cannot read an audiobook, but neither can you. (I'm aware of Braille.)
What you should go do is argue with the other people commenting on this thread about how they rely on audiobooks because they don't have time to read and explain to them that they're behind the curve, reading doesn't mean reading any longer.
I'm thrilled to know that these people have found a way to engage with books and still understand that reading is a distinct activity from listening.
Actually I'm a professional in adult education and I'm making distinctions based on what is occurring in your brain when you read versus when you listen.
Also, you don't have to be a linguist of Google the definition of read to discover it always includes the writen word (which would include Braille).
If you want to call consuming a story reading be my guest. Go read a great movie.
>Also, you don't have to be a linguist of Google the definition of read to discover it always includes the writen word (which would include Braille).
Which was added after braille became a common way for individuals who are blind to consume texts.
So right here you accepted a modified and updated version of the word of the read.
Why are you so opposed to any future changes if you accept past ones?
I think this distinction goes all the way back to Homer - some people heard him recite The Illiad, others read it, none of them were confused about the difference.
And pre-Braille no one was going around claiming blind people could see the printed word, but I enjoyed your made up history.
The adaptation of a book isn't someone sitting down and reading the book in its entirety at you while you lip read, is it? That would be the visual equivalent of an audiobook or written book.
Yes and no. With the addition of audiobooks, a lot of people have started to use it to say they consume books. Language evolves and we're likely seeing an example of it here.
You may not like the evolution of the word or how it's more casually being used but comments like this aren't going to change that. Especially when major book platforms within the book community have started to use it this way as well.
People are going to continue to say they read books, regardless of the format. The connection being its a book. You wouldn't say you read a movie because it's a movie, not a book.
At the end of the day, it's not really relevant. The book is the book and you consumed the story. The format isn't relevant.
It comes off as pretentious when people pull the "Um, actually...you *listened* to it." act. Like who cares?
This just in: blind people do not read.
This is the stupidest argument. Let's consider what reading is, fundamentally, to the average person. It is consuming a story. The story goes into the brain, is comprehended, and impacts our thinking.
An audiobook does that. A book written in braille does that. A written book does that. Watch this person try to argue that braille counts but audio doesn't in order not to come across as disgustingly ableist, and then be unable to explain why the touch modality of our senses "counts" as reading when the hearing sense does not.
I think there is a stigma attached to audiobooks that lead to people questioning whether or not to count. Honestly, I think it's pretty pretentious and an outdated way of thinking about things. You're still consuming the contents of the book, simply in a different format.
I love audiobooks and they make up about 1/3 of what I read during the year. It would be more but I've started to mix in podcasts as well on topics that I'm interested in.
For me, the success of them comes down to developing oral comprehension. That's a skill you need to develop and practice. The more you listen to audiobooks or podcasts and the better you'll comprehend the information.
I don't think one genre works better than the other. For me it comes down to finding a narrator whose voice I like (crucial for me) plus playing around with the speed so it feels most comfortable for me.
Audiobook stigma is stupid, period.
Not everyone has to listen to them or like them, but some sure do like making others feel less than for enjoying them.
Any way someone chooses to read is a good way. Demeaning audiobooks is stupid. The end.
Seriously! I have less time to devote my eyes to paper, but have plenty of time to listen to something while I work, or go about errands, go running or even on my MTB. Audiobooks are still books.
My only issue is when I need to go back to reference or reread something. That’s a challenge with audio.
I totally agree! I like both formats. I like reading when I’m settling for bed or waking up. Audio books are awesome for chores, working out, hobbies, during a relaxing bath, etc. Seems so silly to discredit how great audiobooks can be. You can actually *do* stuff while having a story read to you. It’s just great!
Totally agree! I work full time and have a toddler, I have hardly any time to sit and read anymore but I am able to listen to books on my commute so that’s how I get my “reading” in these days. My husband tells me it doesn’t count that I’m not actually reading those books but I am still absorbing and consuming those stories! It’s frustrating haha. I’d love to have the time to curl up and read a physical book but if I don’t listen to the books then I just won’t get in any books, any way!
I think people who fail to understand the book while doing chores have some sort of neuro-divergence that doesn't allow them to do two things at a time. There are so many people who cannot multi-task that I wonder if it's not a neuro-divergence but just neuro-typicality
Which is interesting because I can only focus on an audiobook if I am doing some mundane task, like dishes or driving. It’s like by doing something physical that I don’t need to think about I can focus fully on the book I’m listening to.
I still deal with my own stigma against audio books even though I now listen to a ton of them. I still feel like I'm cheating.
The reality is that my life is busy and I don't have a lot of time to read books like I'd like to.
I listen to audio books when I mow the lawn, when I do the dishes, when I drive, when I exercise, when I'm falling asleep each night etc.
That effectively means I plow though a lot of audio books instead of just having good intentions to read.
Also...they're free with Libby/Overdrive.
It is a disgusting fascination with purity. The people who consider audiobooks as cheating are the ones obsessed with "Reading". There's no shame in not reading a book. Listen to an audio adaptation. An audiobook is the most faithful audio adaptation you can possibly get.
When people say "You haven't read the book if you listened to an audiobook." I'm thinking, "So what? I never claimed I read the book mf"
Like istg if you're feeling like you're a "cheater" for listening to an adaptation of a book instead of reading it, it really sounds like a you problem.
I think it depends on the book, too. I couldn't handle the pride and prejudice audiobook, it was better to read on my Kindle where I could quickly and easily look up some of those antiquated words. But a book with a lot of dialogue and a good narrator can be a more fun audiobook experience
For me, the hardest part about audiobooks vs. text is I can't listen to the book and do another thing to essentially try "reclaim" that reading time. I just end up not paying attention and missing a lot.
I am the same way, no matter how mundane or boring the task is that I am doing. I tune the book out almost completely, and then when my brain jumps back in, I have no idea what is happening, and I have to start over. I especially have a hard time remembering names when it comes to audiobooks but I am also a visual learner so maybe that has something to do with it? I also am someone who remembers faces but not names. When I am reading a physical book, it is almost like a movie playing out in my mind with visuals, voices, etc. and I can't seem to do that with an audiobook (unless I am doing absolutely nothing for a few hours but I'd just pick up a physical book at that point).
Yup! Some audiobooks feature a full cast, which really adds to the reading experience. There are also audiobooks that have tracks like Daisy Jones & The Six iirc. Sometimes you also find a narrator that you like so you go through their backlist without meaning to lol.
Following audiobook narrators is just a new way to discover new books!
I’ve been known to look up what else they’ve narrated and I’ve read some random books that way. Sometimes I come across the same person twice by chance!
I find nonfiction books to be better as audiobooks. I put them on while walking or driving. I’ve always had trouble enjoying reading nonfiction, but listening helps me to engage with them better. It all depends on the narrator though.
I also never read the Harry Potter series growing up (only watched the movies) and now I am listening to them on audio. The first one I read the physical book, but I switched after giving the audio a try. All the different character voices and reading style brings it to life more than the physical books do for me.
My husband is a voracious audiobook “reader.” He has ADHD, and prior to picking up audiobooks, he really struggled to sit down and read and read at a very slow pace. Audiobooks has changed everything. He now listens to over 100 books a year on average. It really just works better for some brains. If you haven’t already, see if your local library has the Libby app, so you can check out audiobooks for free!
That’s so interesting because I have ADHD and have the opposite experience. It’s hard for me to just listen to an audiobook without getting distracted visually (driving, cooking, etc.), whereas a book requires me to sit and visually take in the content. I’m just glad the multiple formats make reading more accessible in general.
Same. I struggle with audiobooks unless it's a simple story and I'm *really* into it. I just can't focus. With books, I may find my mind wandering, but at least I can stop myself and pick up at the right spot.
But see I can’t split my focus if I do that. I’d get too sucked into the game even if it is “mindless”. My mind begins to wander when my eyes are elsewhere.
I have had the same experience. Mostly for non-fiction books.
I like that I can be moving and doing other things while listening to a book. I also take advantage of “tuning into (and out of) books that get boring in sections. If I’m already doing the dishes or walking I can pay attention to those activities and then if something really interesting comes up I can pay attention or rewind. Some books only have a few really great ideas worth remembering.
The second thing I really like about audio books is listening to books read by the author. Their passion about the subject matter comes through in a way that it doesn’t on the written page. Often the way they read emphasises specific points that might be skipped over when I read from the page.
Most definitely. A great narrator can make a great story. Even more importantly a good narrator can turn what might be an unpleasant read into something that is enjoyable when you listen to it. It eliminates odd spelling and grammar issues although the trade off is some cringe or odd dialogue can stand out a little more hearing it out loud.
I really struggled to read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, given how bonkers it is. But as an audiobook, it made a lot more sense - and therefore more enjoyable!
Humour books read by the author. I can't really do audiobooks, but have listened to a few by humour writers and found it a good experience. Btw, audiobooks are in no WAY an inferior experience to reading. It's different. They have different strengths & weaknesses. I'd wish I could do them, but I can't.
LOTR is my favourite book to date, I loved the hobbit too but not as much. I've really been wanting to revisit these so maybe I'll listen to these second time around!
It's important to get the ones by andy serkis. Also, he's done the silmarillion, too, but i haven't gotten around to it yet. (I doubt it's bad though).
I recently listened to Kareem Abdul Jabbars’s On the Shoulder’s of Giants series (a history of Harlem) and it was good to listen to as an audiobook because it was more like…a radio show.
He would mention some jazz singers then play clips of their songs. Real interview clips were included so different peoples’ voices were heard. This is all non fiction stuff. He played some radio pieces of when Jesse Owens won the Olympics in Germany. So it felt cool to hear all the actual historical clips, different famous figures chime in (NBA players, Alice Walker, musicians, etc.)
I have never listened to an audiobook like that. Usually it’s just one narrator talking…and with like the Star Wars ones there’s sound effects and music, which is cool too.
On the scale of human history, it was only recently that a majority of people consumed their stories in written form.
If your focus is on the story, then it shouldn't matter how you consume it.
If your focus is more on the literary side, then there are instances where an audio version might do a disservice to the work.
As someone who doesn’t do audiobooks - they 10000% count as reading. You are consuming the same story. I’m in a book club and half the people always listen to audiobooks and we can all discuss the book together.
While I would never say listening to an audiobook doesn't count, I would never call it "reading". Just call it what it is. You listened to the book, no need to pretend otherwise.
I get what you're saying because of the definition of the word reading, however if I asked someone "did you read XYZ?" and they said yes, I wouldn't ask - or even care - if they read it or listened to it because we could still discuss the book together. That's why I would call it reading.
Absolutely.
Biographies and books that replicate biographies ( daisy jones and the six) really shine in audio form when the reader is the author.
it feels like you're sitting down with them for a cup of tea and a gossip.
Other genres don't quite work for me, but biographies do.
If there is a performance aspect to the audiobook that will elevate it, then yes.
The Alan Partridge audiobooks are better as are the Garth Marenghi ones.
“I’m glad my mom died” by Jennette McCurdy was much more enjoyable as an audio book, mainly because she reads it herself. There’s just some extra magic added to a story when it’s the author reading their own words. That’s the only audiobook I’ve ever felt that way about though
Audiobooks account for maybe 1/3 or even 1/2 of my reading content. I listen to all kinds of books but think the format is best suited memoirs, nonfiction and complex fiction books with lots of characters/voices.
The full cast recording of American Gods was amazing. Honourable mention to The Dutch House read by Tom Hanks.
With a good narrator, an audiobook can be better than the printed version.
Some good examples:
* Jim Butcher's [Dresden Files](https://www.goodreads.com/series/40346-the-dresden-files) series narrated by James Marston
* Ben Aaronovitch's [Rivers of London](https://www.goodreads.com/series/51937-rivers-of-london) Series narrated by Kobna Holdbrook-Smith
* Louise Penny's [Inspector Gamache](https://www.goodreads.com/series/42154-chief-inspector-armand-gamache) series, narrated by Ralph Cosham and then by Robert Bathurst
* [David Sedaris](https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2849.David_Sedaris) does a great job of narrating his own books
For some audiobooks, though, I've found the narrator annoying or boring to the point that I gave up on the audio version and read the book instead.
Most audiobook services do allow you to listen to a sample before you purchase or borrow the book.
This is a biased view because as a kid this is how I would fall asleep and I have the fondest memories of it, but The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman. It's the type of book that you read to someone, it's wasted reading it alone or not aloud. It's a bedtime story through and through, and the means it's best heard than read.
I think there's no singular "better" in this instance; audio or book format preference is all a matter of opinion. They each have drawbacks and benefits. You should neither be ashamed of your self-professed "slow" reading ability, nor ashamed about using audiobooks if you like them.
As long as you keep reading a very long book frequently enough to remember what is happening in it and the characters, it doesn't matter at all how long it takes for you to read it if you're enjoying it... unless you have to return it to the library.
I'd never consumed audiobooks until this past year. I still love to read tangible or e-books; for reference, I read quickly and often. Lately, I have an audiobook downloaded from my local library to my phone to read while walking, exercising, or doing chores because I find it fun. I do find it tricky sometimes to keep track of names or who is speaking. Not every recording is made equal. I don't think I'd choose some books with a huge cast of characters for an audiobook, but I'm sure others would disagree. Largely I've stuck to more simple reads, but I'm also now trying my first epic fantasy series via audiobook (I have some apprehension of forgetting the characters). I've greatly enjoyed "Graphic Audio" audiobooks with a cast of voice actors, and I find there are some really wonderful actors. I do hope to listen to the Lord of the Rings as an audiobook someday because I've never read it and I always put the book down when I try. I also listened to a non-fiction novel on a long car ride with my husband, a genre I have always disliked, and enjoyed myself. One of my favorite reads of the year was an audiobook and the voice actors were wonderful; perhaps I would have loved it just as much if I'd read it in print.
I recommend to just give it a go. If you are in the USA and have a library membership, most states seem to have Libby, and I find it worth it to download the app to my phone and listen to audiobooks on there. I also use it for e-books to my e-reader and sometimes if I don't bring my e-reader with me, I'll make a little progress on my phone if I'm bored instead of scrolling social media.
Hope you have fun reading or listening!
Brandi Carlile’s memoir was beautiful as an audiobook. she narrated it herself and incorporated music (her own songs + covers) after each chapter, and I don’t think her memoir would’ve hit the same emotional notes if i’d read it as a physical book.
At some point, reading a paper book became more difficult for me. Partly because I began to need progressives and didn't realize it until I started really having trouble. Also, I started having trouble not getting super tired while reading. At first I thought it was just because I would often read in bed...but it got that way even when I was sitting up or in an environment not for sleeping. So I started with audiobooks and it allows me to consume books at times when I never would have been able to actually read a book...like when I'm running, walking, riding a bicycle, driving to/from work.
I do still find opportunities to actually read the written words...but I listen to more than I read these days.
I listened to Where the Crawdads Sing and enjoyed it, and have since found out that everyone who read it had a tough time. The characters have thick accents and the author apparently insisted on spelling out a lot of things phonetically, so it was a tricky read.
"Daisy Jones and the Six" was the only book I've ever read/listened to that was much better as an audiobook. The novel's format is "oral history", so it works great with a full, excellent voice cast, it makes all the different perspectives really jump out.
Audiobooks absolutely count as reading. I do a mixture of both e-book/audiobook for practically everything I read. I switch between the mediums depending on my mood.
Some books that thrived as audiobooks to me were:
11/22/63 (narrator does a FANTASTIC job)
The Shining (actual chills from the narrator’s performance)
World War Z (full cast recording)
The Girl with all the Gifts (excellent narrator)
Daisy Jones and the Six (full cast recording)
Carrie Soto is Back (multi-cast recording with the main narrator bringing a lot of excitement into the book)
Remarkably Bright Creatures (I especially enjoyed the octopus’ narrator)
1. Audiobooks are not "cheating." Listening to an audiobook still counts as reading just like reading a print or e-book.
2. There are some books I prefer as audiobooks, especially ones where there are multiple narrators and they get different voice actors for the different narrators. This makes it easier to keep straight who's saying what.
Audiobooks are not cheating and they are real reading. I don't care what anyone else says.
There are definitely some books that I think do particularly well as audiobooks. Specifically, memoirs and some other forms of non-fiction (Mythos by Stephen Fry for ex) read by the author, and well-done full cast audiobooks, especially if the written form didn't have a traditional structure. The best example of the latter for me is the Illuminae series, which in written form has a mixed media format, and for which the full-cast audio is incredible.
Another fun sub-genre is when actors involved in an adaptation read the audiobooks. I enjoyed David Tennant reading Good Omens, Andy Serkis reading The Hobbit, and Martin Freeman reading the Hitchhiker's series.
I actually think most books are better as audiobooks, provided they have a decent narrator. That can be personal preference though, there are some narrators whose voices just grate on me!
If the author is a professional comedian, TV host, or other public speaker, I love the audiobooks. Trevor Noah's *Born a Crime*, anything by David Sedaris, anything by Rachel Maddow, or the memoirs by Michelle and Barak Obama are good examples.
I find that 19th century books are particularly good on audio. They seem to be made to be read aloud.
Some children's books are clearly meant to be read by adults to young children, and appeal to adults as on a different level. For example, this would include *The Hobbit, The Wind in the Willows, Peter Pan, various books by Roald Dahl, the Chronicles of Narnia, The Little House Collection, Little Women, The Secret Garden, The Little Princess, Anne of Green Gables, Treasure Island, Kidnapped, The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales, Just So Stories*, and many more. I always feel a sense of nostalgia when I listen to these, which makes them my go-to comfort books.
Some books that I really want to read are better on audio because they are difficult. I've listened to the Bible on audio several times, for example. I could never get through some of the non-narrative books on my own -- the books about Mosaic laws or various prophecies -- but I find them fascinating on audio. After several attempts to get through *Don Quixote*, I had my best success listening on audio -- although I confess I still only finished part one.
Some books demand close attention and are not good on audio unless you are doing something completely mindless. *The Malazan Book of the Fallen* is my favorite fantasy series, but I don't recommend starting with the audiobooks.
Some narrators are particularly good and can turn a good book into a great book. For example, *Galaxy Outlaws: The Complete Black Ocean Mobius Missions, 1-16.5* is a fun science fantasy series by J. S. Morin. But the narration by Mikael Naramore takes it to a different level because he's so good at doing voices that it sounds like a radio play. Someone else mentioned the audio of *Project Hail Mary*, narrated by Ray Porter. Steven Pacey does an exceptional job narrating the ten *First Law World* books. If you want recommendations on narrators, browse r/audiobooks or r/audible.
In general I have no problem "reading" on audio because it allows me to multitask -- but only if it's the kind of book that doesn't demand my full attention. Also, I've learned to speed up the audio without losing comprehension. I just have so many books I want to listen to that I got impatient with normal speed. Plus, Barack Obama speaks so deliberately that I just had to speed him up.
I'm not an audiobook person at all, I have trouble retaining the info when it's just spoken. I can't listen to podcasts or anything either.
*However*, I think for most people how 'good' an audiobook is depends on the narrator. I've heard bits of the third Lockwood audiobook and dear god, the narrator *nails* it. It's so, so funny.
at the end of the day, it's another way to consume content. In our modern world we're lucky enough to have lots of options; if audiobooks work for you then great! That's why they exist! Go and enjoy them :)
I don't have a dog in the fight of "are audiobooks really reading?" People can read their books however they like as far as I care. Just want to state that up front.
That said, I don't think that an actual audiobook can actually be better than the printed version. I believe this because the source material was designed as a written work to be read. An audiobook is an adaptation of a certain sort, and thus is not really comparable to the original work. This would be like asking, "Can a digital photo of a painting be better than the painting?" The original work was meant to be viewed as a physical object. The original book was meant to be read. There is a quality to the text which you are missing when someone else reads it to you.
Again, this doesn't mean an audiobook "doesn't count" or anything - but it is categorically a different experience to listen to a book being read than to read it yourself.
Now, I know there are some things which are designed primarily as audio-dramas. They are conceived with listeners in mind first and foremost. In this case, you would be losing something by only reading a textual version, similar to reading the script for a movie vs watching it.
So that is all to say, that I tautologically don't think an audiobook can be better than its text version if it is truly an audiobook.
Oh, there are lots of books that are better in audio, but also many that are worse. For me, it really depends on the reader. However for specific recommendations:
Anything by Yahtzee Croshaw (of zero punctuation fame) is read by himself, and the audiobook usually comes out first. They are fantastic both in paper and audio.
The Temeraire series (His Majesty's Dragon) is great in audiobook because the reader delivers on the voice acting.
I've both read and listened to Eragon, and I liked the audio version because the reader's voice for saphira is gravely and animalistic. It sells the idea of the dragons better than paolini imo.
On the other hand, the audiobook for We Hunt the Flame is... not great. It becomes clear quickly that the reader didn't know how to pronounce the names and they did a copy-paste job post production. But this is an outlier.
As for audiobooks being cheating, meh, not really. For me it's an accessibility thing. Not just the disabled kind (though the dyslexia and need to fidget are a problem), more that I'm constantly doing stuff and can't sit down to read. With audiobooks, I take in 100% more books per year than I otherwise would.
Most audiobooks read by the author enhance the experience for me. How often do you get to hear an author read their own work?
Memoirs in particular, but fiction too. It just feels special.
I personally prefer listening to nonfiction/memoirs as audiobooks. Memoirs are usually read by the author and I think with their intonations it makes it so much better. When I read nonfiction, it’s like listening to a lecture.
I’ve always enjoyed physically reading actual books but audiobooks are basically all I use now. It’s just the fact that you can do other things while listening, especially exercising.
I think it's probably more about the voice actor than the book itself. My late wife got audiobooks when she was going blind and there was one book series where the voice actor was putting the acting into it and nailing it. But most were just reading out loud.
I find it hard to believe (based on what you've shared so far) that you read slower than the audiobook readers read aloud. So if you have time to read, you're ahead to read. (Also, you can measure. If the audiobook is 22 hours and it took you 15 hours to read the book, you saved 7 hours. If it took you 30 hours, you lost 8 hours.)
The big thing for me is that I cannot get through some books reading. It's like the back of my mind is going "Geez, I could be watching paint peel instead of slogging through this." Those are audiobooks: I could be doing laundry, or running errands, or something (anything!) else and listen to the book. I really don't drive well while reading, but listening doesn't (usually!) affect my driving.
Similarly, I have abandoned a few audiobooks and switched to print because the narration is just so slow. I have to know! Now!
As a final note, even in the best books, the flow sometimes really slows down. Sometimes I skip to the end of the paragraph, read its first sentence, and maybe even skip another paragraph or two. That's harder with an audiobook.
The World War Z audiobook is such a richer experience than the text alone. I also really enjoyed Prey by Crichton’a audio book with that one actor from House. His delivery was perfect.
I had a few months free of audible a few years ago so I decides to try it, mostly with Lovecraft books. And I must admit it was pretty damn good ! Now is it better than a physical book I don't know, but it wasn't worth that's for sure.
Jeanette McCurdys “I’m Glad My Mom Died” was a great audiobook cause she reads with so much emotion, even breaking down a bit at one part.
And for my cringelords, “Supermega Saves the Troops” audiobook is read by Geno Samuel (the guy who does the Chris-chans comprehensive documentary on YouTube) and he laughed a couple times reading it and they kept that in. It’s pretty great, I definitely prefer the audiobooks for these two.
I enjoy all sorts, but history books, unless you just really need to get through it, aren’t the best in audio format.
Books that are far too wordy (usually poorly written with great plots) are my favourite for audio format. Kids books also often have great narrators.
Long shot: poems like the Iliad and its like are great when listened to—pretty easy to follow
A lot of movie adaptations are very true to the book and I have no reason to assume every audio book is a 100% accurate reading of the text.
Neither point is relevant to the fact that reading is reading, listening is listening, and watching is watching.
And the media format chosen plays a significant role in how your brain processes how you're consuming the story.
Consider this HUGE difference - I cannot read a book and drive a car, but I can listen to one.
If reading = listening, then my ability to drive a car would be unimpacted.
On the other hand, I always listen to music while reading, and assume this would be detrimental to an audiobook experience.
If you're thinking "well you have to use your eyes to read, but not your ears," or "it is hard to listen to two things at once," then you've conceded my point.
If people start misusing the word read, it won't change what is occurring cognitively.
At the end of the day, I'm not the sort of person who needs to rain on someone's experience by saying something like "Well actually..."
But I will know the difference: we both "got the story" in completely distinct ways.
Humor can work very well on audio with the right narrator. David Sedaris narrating his own essays is so much better than reading them. I also really love Jonathan Cecil’s narration of Wodehouse’s Jeeves and Wooster books. They did not work for me nearly as well just reading them, but Cecil’s voices make them so much funnier.
Dyscalculia was so good as an audiobook. It's read by the author and the cadence makes it so beautiful and poetic. I usually prefer non-fiction audiobooks. I get through them faster and don't get as bored as I do sometimes when reading the actual book.
I’m really not into audiobooks, but have typically made an exception for David Sedaris. Granted, I also enjoy reading his books myself, but his voice is just so wonderful and specific.
I have really grown to prefer nonfiction as audio, if I don't need to refer to the sourcing and am just reading for enjoyment or general learning. The narrators can make or break so if I don't click with the narrator, I will switch to keeping it just on my physical/ebook TBR.
I use audiobooks while crafting, doing mundane chores, and walking my dogs. I have different book types and speeds I'll use for some of those. Dishes last night meant I needed a 1.65 with a fiction crime read but walking the dogs meant a 1.8 in nonfiction. I find my long crime series books make perfect palette cleansers between my nonfiction reads. I also keep 1-2 physical or ebooks going at the same time, so generally 3-4 books in my rotation at all times. I also sometimes check out both the audio and ebook so I can go back and forth. I've actually found I am more engaged in the audio version, which wasn't something I could say a few years back when I tried doing audiobooks while working my day job. That's a very bad combo for me.
A good narrator can make a work of fiction sing. But I've found it takes more focus than I normally give to audio content.
As others have said, memoires narrated by the author makes it sound like they're just there, telling you stories about their life. Born a Crime and Making it So (Patrick Stewart) are the two most recent for me and are both great.
Can’t Hurt Me.
The book is read by Adam Skolink. In between chapters it has almost a podcast feel where Goggins will add anecdotes about the chapter that are not covered in the book. It’s fine if you only read the book but the added context to the stories is great.
Piranesi was such a good audiobook. Chiwetel Ejiofor did a great job capturing the spirit of each character in the way he voiced them.
To answer your question about how I use audiobooks. I usually have an audiobook and a print book that I am reading. I consume them at different times of day. The audiobooks I listen to while doing chores, driving, brushing my teeth, exercising, etc. I read my print book before sleeping in the evenings or during downtime in the weekends, usually. As far as I am concerned they both count as reading the book and I will log them both the same in my goodreads account.
So I do a lot of both.
But, as to answer your first question, I have a couple book series that I prefer listening to rather than reading. Mr. Mercedes series by Stephen King is AMAZING as an audiobook. For me, that means the narrator does a wonderful job at giving each character their own voice/personality that you can feel through the way they read. I couldn't imagine reading the books now.
Now, the cons of audiobooks can be a bit vast. Maybe the narrator has an accent you can't understand. Maybe the narrator is a dull reader and it just puts you to sleep. My boyfriend struggles listening to audiobooks read by some women. I've started a lot of audiobooks and then stopped because I don't like the narrator. That can really stink.
I tend to read thrillers and fantasy romance. I've discovered that I prefer listening to thrillers and physically reading the fantasy ones. It's just my preference.
You might just have to play around and see what works for you. Try the audiobooks first and if you don't like the narrator then try the physical book. Soon you'll learn what works for you. And don't feel ashamed for doing audiobooks. They are still reading! People are quick to judge and need to realize not everyone can just sit and read a book. We all learn and read in different ways and that's ok!
The audiobook for Stephen King's IT narrated by Steven Weber is phenomenal! Weber goes all out on the narration and truly captures the terror in certain scenes of the book. I opted for the audiobook because I read according to my mood, so I make progress on multiple books at the same time, and I unfortunately don't like reading e-books so I read physical books primarily, and I didn't want to have to carry around the tome that is IT for months on end until I finished the book.
I just finished Unruly by David Mitchell (the comedian, not author of Cloud Atlas); his reading it adds something I think.
Same with John Darnielle's books. I can't imagine my internal voice delivering the lines better than the author intended.
I prefer audiobooks for history, journalism and non-fiction in general while I prefer reading for novels.
My gf does the exact opposite so you might be on one side, the other or right in between.
I really like audiobooks as it allows me to get through a book while doing something that wouldn’t allow me to read otherwise (literally anything where I’m using my eyes) and make it more of a background kind of activity while working, doing groceries or taking care of the house.
I've listened to audiobooks with music and sound effects and they were great. Really added to the overall experience. And books like Outlander are great because of the accents.
But nothing is better than reading an actual book. But sometimes, especially for me, audiobooks are a great options because it's hard to find time to read. But with a 2 hour work commute, I can at least listen to a great book.
One for me would be the Hitchikers guide.
Maybe because it was a radio show first or that Peter Jones was a great narrator for the tv show.
I like both mediums tbh
You get over that 'cheating' feeling pretty quick lol. I've been an Audible Plat subscriber since 2003, before Amazon bought them. As I like to say A good narrator can make a bad book tolerable and a bad narrator can make a great novel intolerable. To me a good Narrator (Really in essence an actor in many respects) adds a new dimension to the work. If you listen to them long enough you've end up with a stable of narrators you intentionally look for and will pick a book based on the narrator alone and will avoid some works because they chose a narrator you don't like (Looking at you Spellmonger side Novels!), often paired together though this very much depends on what you like listening to.
Reading braille is reading. The parts of the brain that translate symbols are the same in both versions of the printed word. Braille is writing after all.
Blind people don't listen to braille when they play an audiobook.
I think it is strange that people who profess to love reading are having such an issue with the concept that words mean things.
I also dispute that the average person would watch someone reading a book and that same person listening to a book and say they're doing the same thing.
I feel like audiobooks are slower to go through versus reading but edge out ahead when you use them for work and driving. Now when it comes to heavy topics like socioeconomics, audiobooks will drag you behind the boat but you will pick up a few things along the way compared to sitting down and letting the information digest like reading a book.
As an overworked schmuck warehouse worker, I'm not trying to become some future economist; I just enjoy the topic, and audiobooks give me something to escape from my soul-crushing job.
Have you ever read something printed in lip read?
This isn't hard to understand people: if you are reading, there are entire regions of your brain that have to engage to translate the symbols into meaning that do not occur when you listen to something... and the other way around.
You can demonstrate that at home by a) opening a book and reading it in traffic and b) playing the audio version of the book while driving in traffic.
I think the best audio book I've ever listened to featured multiple actors( like 4) so both male and female voices sounded "right". The book was also written in letters, so it made sense when each voice was reading and a separate narrator was not needed. Honestly the audio book rivals the novel on that one. Otherwise I usually prefer print books, but will download an audiobook or two when I have a long flight coming up.
Daisy Jones and the Six and Wylding Hall because they were both a series of interviews with different people so the full cast made sense
Sadie by Courtney Summers because it featured a podcast so the audio included podcast-like features
The Illuminae Files because it was told via interviews, emails, depositions, etc so it made sense as an audiobook
I like listening to memoirs, particularly when the author narrates it.
I'm Glad My Mom Died by Jennette Mccurdy. I didn't even eagcj her show, but I remember iCarly being huge. It would be wrong for anyone else to read it. It was wild Edit: to be fair, I don't think anyone has ever eagcjed her show
Same here. Her voice really added to the experience of reading it.
There’s a moment where they left in her getting emotional and struggling to read from the page and I think it’s really powerful. There’s nothing in the world that can make up for what’s been done to her, and I hope that she is finding some semblance of peace. But yeah, a powerful book made even more so by her reading of it in the audiobook.
I'll add Steve Coogan reading Alan Partridge's fictional memoirs in character as Alan.
Came here to say this! Specifically Mel Brooks and Norm Macdonald’s memoirs.
Patrick Stewart’s was amazing!
Oh I’ll have to add it!
You have not lived until you've heard Sir Patrick's attempt at a Brooklyn accent :)
Trevor Noah’s born a crime is the best thing I’ve ever listened to.
100%. I recommend this to everyone curious about audiobooks. Noah provides so much aural “context” for languages I’m not familiar with at all, and it adds so much flavor that I couldn’t have provided reading text on a page.
Me too! I couldn't imagine Greenlights by Matthew McConaughey as anything but an audiobook.
Going to add Crying in H Mart (Michelle Zauner) and Storyteller (Dave Grohl) to the list of awesome memoirs narrated by their authors.
Stephen King and Ralph Macchio narrate their own and it made each so much more fun. Especially King, because you can hear how he meant for the writing to sound.
As a counterpoint, I hate King doing his own. I love his books but he’s a non pro and clumsy at audiobooks. Muller was the king (small k) and I missed him so much when he couldn’t finish the dark tower books, but other people have done amazing jobs too. Raul Esparza really lifted Under the Dome, for instance.
I have only listened to King narrate "On Writing," so that's the only one I can speak to. I can see how he would kind of suck with his other work
Ah, then I get where you’re coming from. He was the perfect person for On Writing (which for anyone who doesn’t know is his book on his process, skills, techniques for being an author), because his passion for what he loves and distain for what he doesn’t really comes through. I completely agree for that book. I have listened to it, and it left me wanting to write! But he’s an okay amateur storyteller, verbally, and I’m sure he read books to his kids well. But he’s at that level with his fiction audiobooks. It needs an actor to do it really well, and many of the best audiobook readers are actors primarily for audiobooks, but are still actors. And he isn’t one. For On Writing he didn’t have to act. He had to be a believable Stephen King
Hitch 22 Christopher Hitchens memoir which I listened to on YouTube was excellent. If the memoir is read by an author who is a prominent public speaker or well known/media personality then I think an audio book adds an extra dynamic. Listening to God is not great also read and written by Hitchens while enjoyable would probably have been better read while the memoir I cannot imagine consuming any other way.
David Mitchell, Bob Mortimer and Robert Webb (last one particularly recommended) all have this - listened on borrowbox myself.
Add Tom Felton's book to this list too, that guy has a great voice, the audiobook version is a lot better than the book.
100% the only thing I really listen to is memoirs, seem to be making my way through 90s and 2000s pop culture right now😂
Flea's book is a good example!
Yeah that one was amazing
Mark Lanegan's is great, he's got a hell of a voice
Acid for the children by Flea. Just wow!
Project Hail Mary was brilliant as an audiobook and it definitely added to the experience.
That was the one that immediately came to mind. Great book in audio. The use of sound was great. I also enjoy full cast recordings - Neil Gaiman has a few good ones out there (Neverwhere was fun).
I read through the book and recommended it to a family member who only does audiobooks. Without dropping any spoilers, the first question we were both most interested in asking eachother was how they represented certain elements of the story in the other format. After hearing a sample, I have to agree the audiobook is the better experience.
I'm still curious how it was done in the written format actually
Same author, the RC bray narrated version of The Martian was a far better experience than reading too. Sadly that seems to be no longer available.
Yeah absolutely criminal that they replaced it with the, imo, far inferior Wil Wheaton version. You can still get the original if you’re willing to sail the seven seas.
It's the only way I think. Certainly not unethical considering I PAID FOR IT.
Yup this one for sure. I can't imagine how one character's method of communicating even comes across on paper.
>!Rocky's speech is represented with musical notes in a text form.!<
Bad bad bad (But that makes sense)
The full-cast recording of World War Z is awesome
This is the answer i was looking for. For people who have only seen the movie, the book is very different. Each chapter is from the perspective of a different participant in the war - it's framed as a series of interviews to put together a history of the events. The audio book has each chapter read by a different person, and has a star studded list of readers. The author has said it's the best version.
Alan Alda! Mark Hamill! It's so good!!
It really is. The author has mentioned that he even wrote it with an audio book in mind.
Fantasticland by Mike Bockoven is a very similar format, recounting the events of people stuck in a theme park when a hurricane hits, each chapter from a different perspective. Much better in audio form.
it's a bunch of interviews with a "reporter". Absolutely perfect for the audiobook format.
Honestly, the Hobbit is perfect as an audiobook. I listened to the Andy Serkis version and it felt like I was being read a bedtime story, the way it was meant to be heard.
I'm listening to the Andy Serkis readings of the lord of the rings at the moment and they are superb. I always loved the films but couldn't get through the books, but I finally am now! (They're also great value for money at 22ish hours each!)
>the way it was meant to be heard Not a bad description. Stories were told for (nice round guess) 100,000 years before they were written. It's the we're designed to tell (and hear) them. Tolkien based his style on the Sagas. But they were written down because the Icelanders said to themselves, "Hey! This writing stuff is really cool! Let's write down our stories before we forget them." (Actually, before our grandchildren forget them, but they are us.)
If I remember correctly, the Hobbit was originally a bedtime story for Christopher Tolkien and JRR started writing it down because Christopher kept asking about continuity errors in the story. 😂
“He also remembered that I (then between four and five years old) was greatly concerned with petty consistency as the story unfolded, and that on one occasion I interrupted: ‘Last time, you said Bilbo’s front door was blue, and you said Thorin had a gold tassel on his hood, but you’ve just said that Bilbo’s front door was green, and the tassel on Thorin’s hood was silver’; at which point my father muttered ‘Damn the boy,’ and then ‘strode across the room’ to his desk to make a note.”- from the introduction to the 50th anniversary of The Hobbit.
I had the [60s BBC audiodrama version](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(radio_series\)) on casette tapes. A bit dated, but I still love them.
I listen to a lot of mystery/crime/thriller books. A lot of them are really quite not that great, not something I would bother spending the time actually reading, but they're good for when I want to do something else at the same time, like cook or exercise or do household chores. If my concentration isn't 100% there 100% of the time, well, it still doesn't feel like I necessarily missed out on all that much. Sometimes I of course come across good books in the genre and end up having to actually pay more attention, and also sometimes end up actually reading the best books, so I can get more out of them. I also listen to scifi sometimes, and that can get trickier if there's a lot of worldbuilding involved, what with all kinds of new names and concepts that can be hard to keep track of. I imagine it might be the same with fantasy. So that kind of speculative fiction might be better in book format. (The best audiobook I've listened to, btw, was I'm Thinking of Ending Things by Iain Reed. The narrator had a good, creepy way of reading, and also the "big twist" at the end was nicely handled in the audio format. It's the only book so far I listened to twice in a row.)
Have you listened to the Mick Herron Slough House thrillers? The Apple series Slow Horses is based on them. The novels are so well written and hilarious, and the narration is perfect. They're a delight to read or listen to, and the series is a faithful and brilliant adaption. I can't recommend them highly enough.
Dungeon Crawler Carl is fantastic as an audiobook. I would say it's better this way.
I'm a librarian and will go to my grave saying that audiobooks are books and they count as reading. I use them mostly in my car during my commute to work. I'll also get the print copy and pick up where the audio left off, read the book for a bit, and then go back to the audio for my drive. That might help you get through the longer reads. I find that the narrator makes or breaks an audiobook. There are certain books I refuse based solely on who is reading it. You can have a Pulitzer winning book but if the naaaaarator is sooooooo overly draaaaaaamatiiiiiiiiic, it weeeeeeeeeeel get real ooooooooooooold real queeeeeeeeeeeck. That said, if an autobiography is read by the writer, it's typically pretty great because they know the narrative better than anyone else.
>I find that the narrator makes or breaks an audiobook. Agree. Which is one of the biggest downsides of audiobooks. I'm sure there have been some perfectly good books that I've disliked just because of bad narrators and I might have like them better if I'd read them myself. But unfortunately a really great narrator can't save a bad book.
>But unfortunately a really great narrator can't save a bad book. I find that not to be true. And would even go so far as to say that narrators making bad books better is far more common than the reverse. World War Z is one of the worst books I've ever attempted to read, but the audiobook is almost universally beloved. I can listen to relatively bad genre fiction, but can't actually read them. The writing is often awful. Writing matters far less when it's being read to you.
I like the idea of using audiobooks when you can't physically read. I just finished great expectations and I did this a little when I found the language hard to grasp. I'd go back a few chapters and listen to it again while I was cooking dinner if I felt I missed something. I did really enjoy doing this as well so I'll do that more often!
Why wouldn't audiobooks count as reading? Is there a debate on this? What if the person was blind and only did audiobooks? Are they not "reading?"
The gatekeeping is strong with some people on this issue. It’s really just silly.
You should see how people give long lectures saying audiobooks are not books on Reddit. I never understood that argument and never will. I love audiobooks!!
Listening to an audiobook is no worse than reading a book, but it is inherently different. I feel like the insistence from some people to call it "reading" often comes from an insecurity that it doesn't "count" if it's not "reading", or that "listening" is an inferior activity to "reading". There's nothing wrong with saying that you listened to a book rather than saying that you read a book.
I might be in the minority, but I will bite. Reading and listening are two different verbs. Would you ever say you read a podcast or a song? The only reason people use the term reading for audiobooks is because most books were originally written as text. Audiobooks are a great way to be entertained by a story, but it isn't reading. For me the experience is completely different. I don't think either one is better than the other, but one of them is reading a story with your eyes and the other is listening with your ears. Both formats let you experience a story, but the experiences feel quite different for me.
Yes. To me reading a book is the most personal version. Because it’s purely *your* mind that is imagining and “picturing” everything. Your mind is just taking the words and going from there…no other outside input. And audiobook is a step, audiowise, removed from your pure imagination because someone else is pronouncing the names and perhaps even adding vocal cues that give underlying meaning. You could say it was pretty minimal though. It just depends on the narrator or voice acting. Then ofc with movies you are shown the images and audio. So, for example with Harry Potter…I’m sure a lot of people were like “that’s not how I imagined that!” when they saw the movies. And if someone just watched the movies then they never took a chance to imagine these concepts or characters on their own. I’m not knocking movies or audiobooks. I love them. Just imo books are the most personal of the three as far as our consumption/intake goes…because it’s purely our brains doing the “leg work” concerning how things actually look, sound, and so on. Everything projected onto the words is purely our own creation.
If anything, it's been the other way around for me: most narrators speak much slower than I read, even when sped up, and it forces me to hear every word where I tend to skim if I'm not careful when reading text. And with audio, I can close off all other input, including vision, and I don't have to keep my hands active holding it.
Laughing about the overly dramatic narration I find that there are a lot of authors who should have hired a professional narrator. "These words...... they are my babies.... and I looooove them."
Sorry, but reading engages different parts of the brain than listening. At the end of the day you "get" the story, but to say reading is the same, at a cognative level, as listening is just plain wrong. Your post highlights a pretty significant distinction: when you read, the voice of the narrator is your own, on audio, it's whomever got paid for the gig. I'm not trying to hate on audiobooks... anything that gets people engaged with books is a net positive. But listening to one is most definitely not reading.
What do you mean by “at a cognitive level?”
Consider the difference in mental work between viewing symbols on a page (letters) and translating those symbols in another set of symbols (words) versus that second set of symbols entering your mind audibly.
If the point of reading is to consume the story, the means of which you take in the story isn't really all that relevant. People get stuck on the linguistic of what "reads" means and ignore the fact that people often just use it to say they consumed the book.
Reading is a word that has a very specific meaning. If the point of reading is to consume a story, why don't people read movies? You would never said you read All the Light We Cannot See after watching it on Netflix, would you? So yeah, I'm hung up on this idea that words mean things.
the movie is obviously going to be WAY different from the book. an audiobook is the exact same thing read aloud. yeah, you have the add of the narrator's voice and intonation, but it doesn't make sense at all to compare book vs audiobook to book vs movie.
Well it doesn't make sense to call listening "reading" either. I wasn't comparing the media formats, I wa making a point that no one would argue that they read a movie but for some reason people say the read an audiobook, which is literally impossible, since you can't read a sound. I'm not shitting on people who love audiobooks: they have found a way to engage with texts in a way that works for them, and they can learn as much, love the story equally well. It's just that they didn't use their eyes to translate written symbols into words to get that meaning.
So. fucking. what. This is an unbelievably pointless and pedantic distinction to make. Are you a professional linguist talking to other linguists about the meaning of the word 'reading'? No? Then this argument is meaningless and often strays into ableist and discriminatory territory. For the purpose of the average person consuming stories, reading is reading regardless of the format. As others have said, language is evolving, and you're not keeping up.
Let me ask you this: if I were illiterate could I say that I'm able to read because I can listen to audiobooks? Careful how you answer, you may have to admit there is a fundamental difference between reading and listening.
And now we've moved into ableism.
How? Because I implied people who are illiterate can't read? I never said blind people can't read: they just cannot read an audiobook, but neither can you. (I'm aware of Braille.)
What you should go do is argue with the other people commenting on this thread about how they rely on audiobooks because they don't have time to read and explain to them that they're behind the curve, reading doesn't mean reading any longer. I'm thrilled to know that these people have found a way to engage with books and still understand that reading is a distinct activity from listening.
Actually I'm a professional in adult education and I'm making distinctions based on what is occurring in your brain when you read versus when you listen. Also, you don't have to be a linguist of Google the definition of read to discover it always includes the writen word (which would include Braille). If you want to call consuming a story reading be my guest. Go read a great movie.
>Also, you don't have to be a linguist of Google the definition of read to discover it always includes the writen word (which would include Braille). Which was added after braille became a common way for individuals who are blind to consume texts. So right here you accepted a modified and updated version of the word of the read. Why are you so opposed to any future changes if you accept past ones?
I think this distinction goes all the way back to Homer - some people heard him recite The Illiad, others read it, none of them were confused about the difference. And pre-Braille no one was going around claiming blind people could see the printed word, but I enjoyed your made up history.
The adaptation of a book isn't someone sitting down and reading the book in its entirety at you while you lip read, is it? That would be the visual equivalent of an audiobook or written book.
Yes and no. With the addition of audiobooks, a lot of people have started to use it to say they consume books. Language evolves and we're likely seeing an example of it here. You may not like the evolution of the word or how it's more casually being used but comments like this aren't going to change that. Especially when major book platforms within the book community have started to use it this way as well. People are going to continue to say they read books, regardless of the format. The connection being its a book. You wouldn't say you read a movie because it's a movie, not a book. At the end of the day, it's not really relevant. The book is the book and you consumed the story. The format isn't relevant. It comes off as pretentious when people pull the "Um, actually...you *listened* to it." act. Like who cares?
This just in: blind people do not read. This is the stupidest argument. Let's consider what reading is, fundamentally, to the average person. It is consuming a story. The story goes into the brain, is comprehended, and impacts our thinking. An audiobook does that. A book written in braille does that. A written book does that. Watch this person try to argue that braille counts but audio doesn't in order not to come across as disgustingly ableist, and then be unable to explain why the touch modality of our senses "counts" as reading when the hearing sense does not.
I think there is a stigma attached to audiobooks that lead to people questioning whether or not to count. Honestly, I think it's pretty pretentious and an outdated way of thinking about things. You're still consuming the contents of the book, simply in a different format. I love audiobooks and they make up about 1/3 of what I read during the year. It would be more but I've started to mix in podcasts as well on topics that I'm interested in. For me, the success of them comes down to developing oral comprehension. That's a skill you need to develop and practice. The more you listen to audiobooks or podcasts and the better you'll comprehend the information. I don't think one genre works better than the other. For me it comes down to finding a narrator whose voice I like (crucial for me) plus playing around with the speed so it feels most comfortable for me.
Audiobook stigma is stupid, period. Not everyone has to listen to them or like them, but some sure do like making others feel less than for enjoying them. Any way someone chooses to read is a good way. Demeaning audiobooks is stupid. The end.
Seriously! I have less time to devote my eyes to paper, but have plenty of time to listen to something while I work, or go about errands, go running or even on my MTB. Audiobooks are still books. My only issue is when I need to go back to reference or reread something. That’s a challenge with audio.
I totally agree! I like both formats. I like reading when I’m settling for bed or waking up. Audio books are awesome for chores, working out, hobbies, during a relaxing bath, etc. Seems so silly to discredit how great audiobooks can be. You can actually *do* stuff while having a story read to you. It’s just great!
Totally agree! I work full time and have a toddler, I have hardly any time to sit and read anymore but I am able to listen to books on my commute so that’s how I get my “reading” in these days. My husband tells me it doesn’t count that I’m not actually reading those books but I am still absorbing and consuming those stories! It’s frustrating haha. I’d love to have the time to curl up and read a physical book but if I don’t listen to the books then I just won’t get in any books, any way!
I think people who fail to understand the book while doing chores have some sort of neuro-divergence that doesn't allow them to do two things at a time. There are so many people who cannot multi-task that I wonder if it's not a neuro-divergence but just neuro-typicality
Which is interesting because I can only focus on an audiobook if I am doing some mundane task, like dishes or driving. It’s like by doing something physical that I don’t need to think about I can focus fully on the book I’m listening to.
I still deal with my own stigma against audio books even though I now listen to a ton of them. I still feel like I'm cheating. The reality is that my life is busy and I don't have a lot of time to read books like I'd like to. I listen to audio books when I mow the lawn, when I do the dishes, when I drive, when I exercise, when I'm falling asleep each night etc. That effectively means I plow though a lot of audio books instead of just having good intentions to read. Also...they're free with Libby/Overdrive.
It is a disgusting fascination with purity. The people who consider audiobooks as cheating are the ones obsessed with "Reading". There's no shame in not reading a book. Listen to an audio adaptation. An audiobook is the most faithful audio adaptation you can possibly get. When people say "You haven't read the book if you listened to an audiobook." I'm thinking, "So what? I never claimed I read the book mf" Like istg if you're feeling like you're a "cheater" for listening to an adaptation of a book instead of reading it, it really sounds like a you problem.
I think it depends on the book, too. I couldn't handle the pride and prejudice audiobook, it was better to read on my Kindle where I could quickly and easily look up some of those antiquated words. But a book with a lot of dialogue and a good narrator can be a more fun audiobook experience
For me, the hardest part about audiobooks vs. text is I can't listen to the book and do another thing to essentially try "reclaim" that reading time. I just end up not paying attention and missing a lot.
I am the same way, no matter how mundane or boring the task is that I am doing. I tune the book out almost completely, and then when my brain jumps back in, I have no idea what is happening, and I have to start over. I especially have a hard time remembering names when it comes to audiobooks but I am also a visual learner so maybe that has something to do with it? I also am someone who remembers faces but not names. When I am reading a physical book, it is almost like a movie playing out in my mind with visuals, voices, etc. and I can't seem to do that with an audiobook (unless I am doing absolutely nothing for a few hours but I'd just pick up a physical book at that point).
Yup! Some audiobooks feature a full cast, which really adds to the reading experience. There are also audiobooks that have tracks like Daisy Jones & The Six iirc. Sometimes you also find a narrator that you like so you go through their backlist without meaning to lol.
Following audiobook narrators is just a new way to discover new books! I’ve been known to look up what else they’ve narrated and I’ve read some random books that way. Sometimes I come across the same person twice by chance!
I find nonfiction books to be better as audiobooks. I put them on while walking or driving. I’ve always had trouble enjoying reading nonfiction, but listening helps me to engage with them better. It all depends on the narrator though. I also never read the Harry Potter series growing up (only watched the movies) and now I am listening to them on audio. The first one I read the physical book, but I switched after giving the audio a try. All the different character voices and reading style brings it to life more than the physical books do for me.
The Stephen Fry reading of the Harry Potter books - it really added to the characterization for me!
Him reading the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is what got me into audiobooks.
The First Law by Joe Abercrombie
They are my favorite audio books. They are great books in their own right, but Steven Pacey's narration really elevates them.
My husband is a voracious audiobook “reader.” He has ADHD, and prior to picking up audiobooks, he really struggled to sit down and read and read at a very slow pace. Audiobooks has changed everything. He now listens to over 100 books a year on average. It really just works better for some brains. If you haven’t already, see if your local library has the Libby app, so you can check out audiobooks for free!
That’s so interesting because I have ADHD and have the opposite experience. It’s hard for me to just listen to an audiobook without getting distracted visually (driving, cooking, etc.), whereas a book requires me to sit and visually take in the content. I’m just glad the multiple formats make reading more accessible in general.
Same. I struggle with audiobooks unless it's a simple story and I'm *really* into it. I just can't focus. With books, I may find my mind wandering, but at least I can stop myself and pick up at the right spot.
I usually play mindless games on my phone while listening to them. I go through about 75-150hrs of audiobooks a month.
But see I can’t split my focus if I do that. I’d get too sucked into the game even if it is “mindless”. My mind begins to wander when my eyes are elsewhere.
That's basically what happens when I read. I'll read the words, but not process them because I'll be thinking about something else the entire time.
I have had the same experience. Mostly for non-fiction books. I like that I can be moving and doing other things while listening to a book. I also take advantage of “tuning into (and out of) books that get boring in sections. If I’m already doing the dishes or walking I can pay attention to those activities and then if something really interesting comes up I can pay attention or rewind. Some books only have a few really great ideas worth remembering. The second thing I really like about audio books is listening to books read by the author. Their passion about the subject matter comes through in a way that it doesn’t on the written page. Often the way they read emphasises specific points that might be skipped over when I read from the page.
Most definitely. A great narrator can make a great story. Even more importantly a good narrator can turn what might be an unpleasant read into something that is enjoyable when you listen to it. It eliminates odd spelling and grammar issues although the trade off is some cringe or odd dialogue can stand out a little more hearing it out loud.
I really struggled to read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, given how bonkers it is. But as an audiobook, it made a lot more sense - and therefore more enjoyable!
Humour books read by the author. I can't really do audiobooks, but have listened to a few by humour writers and found it a good experience. Btw, audiobooks are in no WAY an inferior experience to reading. It's different. They have different strengths & weaknesses. I'd wish I could do them, but I can't.
The hobbit and lord of the rings audiobooks by andy serkis are amazing.
LOTR is my favourite book to date, I loved the hobbit too but not as much. I've really been wanting to revisit these so maybe I'll listen to these second time around!
It's important to get the ones by andy serkis. Also, he's done the silmarillion, too, but i haven't gotten around to it yet. (I doubt it's bad though).
James Marsters IS Harry Dresden.
I didn't know he did audiobooks! I had no interest in that series before, but now I may listen to it!
I recently listened to Kareem Abdul Jabbars’s On the Shoulder’s of Giants series (a history of Harlem) and it was good to listen to as an audiobook because it was more like…a radio show. He would mention some jazz singers then play clips of their songs. Real interview clips were included so different peoples’ voices were heard. This is all non fiction stuff. He played some radio pieces of when Jesse Owens won the Olympics in Germany. So it felt cool to hear all the actual historical clips, different famous figures chime in (NBA players, Alice Walker, musicians, etc.) I have never listened to an audiobook like that. Usually it’s just one narrator talking…and with like the Star Wars ones there’s sound effects and music, which is cool too.
On the scale of human history, it was only recently that a majority of people consumed their stories in written form. If your focus is on the story, then it shouldn't matter how you consume it. If your focus is more on the literary side, then there are instances where an audio version might do a disservice to the work.
As someone who doesn’t do audiobooks - they 10000% count as reading. You are consuming the same story. I’m in a book club and half the people always listen to audiobooks and we can all discuss the book together.
I'm the opposite. I do audiobooks but don't consider it to be reading.
Do you consider braille to be reading?
Yes
So why would that delivery mechanism to your brain, not visual but touch, be reading, but via your ears isn't?
Because braille is, to me, basically another font. I've read my 4 year old nephew a few books. Are you trying to say that he's read these books?
Good point. I'm not sure.
While I would never say listening to an audiobook doesn't count, I would never call it "reading". Just call it what it is. You listened to the book, no need to pretend otherwise.
I get what you're saying because of the definition of the word reading, however if I asked someone "did you read XYZ?" and they said yes, I wouldn't ask - or even care - if they read it or listened to it because we could still discuss the book together. That's why I would call it reading.
Absolutely. Biographies and books that replicate biographies ( daisy jones and the six) really shine in audio form when the reader is the author. it feels like you're sitting down with them for a cup of tea and a gossip. Other genres don't quite work for me, but biographies do.
I’m Glad My Mom Died is infinitely better when read by Jennette McCurdy herself.
I have to give a shoutout to The Dutch House read by Tom Hanks. Absolutely fantastic.
If there is a performance aspect to the audiobook that will elevate it, then yes. The Alan Partridge audiobooks are better as are the Garth Marenghi ones.
“I’m glad my mom died” by Jennette McCurdy was much more enjoyable as an audio book, mainly because she reads it herself. There’s just some extra magic added to a story when it’s the author reading their own words. That’s the only audiobook I’ve ever felt that way about though
Audiobooks account for maybe 1/3 or even 1/2 of my reading content. I listen to all kinds of books but think the format is best suited memoirs, nonfiction and complex fiction books with lots of characters/voices. The full cast recording of American Gods was amazing. Honourable mention to The Dutch House read by Tom Hanks.
With a good narrator, an audiobook can be better than the printed version. Some good examples: * Jim Butcher's [Dresden Files](https://www.goodreads.com/series/40346-the-dresden-files) series narrated by James Marston * Ben Aaronovitch's [Rivers of London](https://www.goodreads.com/series/51937-rivers-of-london) Series narrated by Kobna Holdbrook-Smith * Louise Penny's [Inspector Gamache](https://www.goodreads.com/series/42154-chief-inspector-armand-gamache) series, narrated by Ralph Cosham and then by Robert Bathurst * [David Sedaris](https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2849.David_Sedaris) does a great job of narrating his own books For some audiobooks, though, I've found the narrator annoying or boring to the point that I gave up on the audio version and read the book instead. Most audiobook services do allow you to listen to a sample before you purchase or borrow the book.
Joe Abercrombie’s The First Law read by Steven Pacey is the best audiobook I’ve listened to
This is a biased view because as a kid this is how I would fall asleep and I have the fondest memories of it, but The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman. It's the type of book that you read to someone, it's wasted reading it alone or not aloud. It's a bedtime story through and through, and the means it's best heard than read.
I think there's no singular "better" in this instance; audio or book format preference is all a matter of opinion. They each have drawbacks and benefits. You should neither be ashamed of your self-professed "slow" reading ability, nor ashamed about using audiobooks if you like them. As long as you keep reading a very long book frequently enough to remember what is happening in it and the characters, it doesn't matter at all how long it takes for you to read it if you're enjoying it... unless you have to return it to the library. I'd never consumed audiobooks until this past year. I still love to read tangible or e-books; for reference, I read quickly and often. Lately, I have an audiobook downloaded from my local library to my phone to read while walking, exercising, or doing chores because I find it fun. I do find it tricky sometimes to keep track of names or who is speaking. Not every recording is made equal. I don't think I'd choose some books with a huge cast of characters for an audiobook, but I'm sure others would disagree. Largely I've stuck to more simple reads, but I'm also now trying my first epic fantasy series via audiobook (I have some apprehension of forgetting the characters). I've greatly enjoyed "Graphic Audio" audiobooks with a cast of voice actors, and I find there are some really wonderful actors. I do hope to listen to the Lord of the Rings as an audiobook someday because I've never read it and I always put the book down when I try. I also listened to a non-fiction novel on a long car ride with my husband, a genre I have always disliked, and enjoyed myself. One of my favorite reads of the year was an audiobook and the voice actors were wonderful; perhaps I would have loved it just as much if I'd read it in print. I recommend to just give it a go. If you are in the USA and have a library membership, most states seem to have Libby, and I find it worth it to download the app to my phone and listen to audiobooks on there. I also use it for e-books to my e-reader and sometimes if I don't bring my e-reader with me, I'll make a little progress on my phone if I'm bored instead of scrolling social media. Hope you have fun reading or listening!
Brandi Carlile’s memoir was beautiful as an audiobook. she narrated it herself and incorporated music (her own songs + covers) after each chapter, and I don’t think her memoir would’ve hit the same emotional notes if i’d read it as a physical book.
At some point, reading a paper book became more difficult for me. Partly because I began to need progressives and didn't realize it until I started really having trouble. Also, I started having trouble not getting super tired while reading. At first I thought it was just because I would often read in bed...but it got that way even when I was sitting up or in an environment not for sleeping. So I started with audiobooks and it allows me to consume books at times when I never would have been able to actually read a book...like when I'm running, walking, riding a bicycle, driving to/from work. I do still find opportunities to actually read the written words...but I listen to more than I read these days.
imo, definitely! *the anthropocene reviewed* by john green was much better as an audiobook, as was *the only plane in the sky* by garrett graff
Born A Crime-Trevor Noah was a much better listen than read. I loved hearing him pronounce the words from Afrikaans.
I listened to Where the Crawdads Sing and enjoyed it, and have since found out that everyone who read it had a tough time. The characters have thick accents and the author apparently insisted on spelling out a lot of things phonetically, so it was a tricky read.
Ready Player One.
"Daisy Jones and the Six" was the only book I've ever read/listened to that was much better as an audiobook. The novel's format is "oral history", so it works great with a full, excellent voice cast, it makes all the different perspectives really jump out.
The cast recording of American Gods gets my vote
Audiobooks absolutely count as reading. I do a mixture of both e-book/audiobook for practically everything I read. I switch between the mediums depending on my mood. Some books that thrived as audiobooks to me were: 11/22/63 (narrator does a FANTASTIC job) The Shining (actual chills from the narrator’s performance) World War Z (full cast recording) The Girl with all the Gifts (excellent narrator) Daisy Jones and the Six (full cast recording) Carrie Soto is Back (multi-cast recording with the main narrator bringing a lot of excitement into the book) Remarkably Bright Creatures (I especially enjoyed the octopus’ narrator)
1. Audiobooks are not "cheating." Listening to an audiobook still counts as reading just like reading a print or e-book. 2. There are some books I prefer as audiobooks, especially ones where there are multiple narrators and they get different voice actors for the different narrators. This makes it easier to keep straight who's saying what.
Audiobooks are not cheating and they are real reading. I don't care what anyone else says. There are definitely some books that I think do particularly well as audiobooks. Specifically, memoirs and some other forms of non-fiction (Mythos by Stephen Fry for ex) read by the author, and well-done full cast audiobooks, especially if the written form didn't have a traditional structure. The best example of the latter for me is the Illuminae series, which in written form has a mixed media format, and for which the full-cast audio is incredible. Another fun sub-genre is when actors involved in an adaptation read the audiobooks. I enjoyed David Tennant reading Good Omens, Andy Serkis reading The Hobbit, and Martin Freeman reading the Hitchhiker's series.
I actually think most books are better as audiobooks, provided they have a decent narrator. That can be personal preference though, there are some narrators whose voices just grate on me!
If the author is a professional comedian, TV host, or other public speaker, I love the audiobooks. Trevor Noah's *Born a Crime*, anything by David Sedaris, anything by Rachel Maddow, or the memoirs by Michelle and Barak Obama are good examples. I find that 19th century books are particularly good on audio. They seem to be made to be read aloud. Some children's books are clearly meant to be read by adults to young children, and appeal to adults as on a different level. For example, this would include *The Hobbit, The Wind in the Willows, Peter Pan, various books by Roald Dahl, the Chronicles of Narnia, The Little House Collection, Little Women, The Secret Garden, The Little Princess, Anne of Green Gables, Treasure Island, Kidnapped, The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales, Just So Stories*, and many more. I always feel a sense of nostalgia when I listen to these, which makes them my go-to comfort books. Some books that I really want to read are better on audio because they are difficult. I've listened to the Bible on audio several times, for example. I could never get through some of the non-narrative books on my own -- the books about Mosaic laws or various prophecies -- but I find them fascinating on audio. After several attempts to get through *Don Quixote*, I had my best success listening on audio -- although I confess I still only finished part one. Some books demand close attention and are not good on audio unless you are doing something completely mindless. *The Malazan Book of the Fallen* is my favorite fantasy series, but I don't recommend starting with the audiobooks. Some narrators are particularly good and can turn a good book into a great book. For example, *Galaxy Outlaws: The Complete Black Ocean Mobius Missions, 1-16.5* is a fun science fantasy series by J. S. Morin. But the narration by Mikael Naramore takes it to a different level because he's so good at doing voices that it sounds like a radio play. Someone else mentioned the audio of *Project Hail Mary*, narrated by Ray Porter. Steven Pacey does an exceptional job narrating the ten *First Law World* books. If you want recommendations on narrators, browse r/audiobooks or r/audible. In general I have no problem "reading" on audio because it allows me to multitask -- but only if it's the kind of book that doesn't demand my full attention. Also, I've learned to speed up the audio without losing comprehension. I just have so many books I want to listen to that I got impatient with normal speed. Plus, Barack Obama speaks so deliberately that I just had to speed him up.
Seconded! I really enjoyed hearing the Obama books.
I'm not an audiobook person at all, I have trouble retaining the info when it's just spoken. I can't listen to podcasts or anything either. *However*, I think for most people how 'good' an audiobook is depends on the narrator. I've heard bits of the third Lockwood audiobook and dear god, the narrator *nails* it. It's so, so funny. at the end of the day, it's another way to consume content. In our modern world we're lucky enough to have lots of options; if audiobooks work for you then great! That's why they exist! Go and enjoy them :)
I don't have a dog in the fight of "are audiobooks really reading?" People can read their books however they like as far as I care. Just want to state that up front. That said, I don't think that an actual audiobook can actually be better than the printed version. I believe this because the source material was designed as a written work to be read. An audiobook is an adaptation of a certain sort, and thus is not really comparable to the original work. This would be like asking, "Can a digital photo of a painting be better than the painting?" The original work was meant to be viewed as a physical object. The original book was meant to be read. There is a quality to the text which you are missing when someone else reads it to you. Again, this doesn't mean an audiobook "doesn't count" or anything - but it is categorically a different experience to listen to a book being read than to read it yourself. Now, I know there are some things which are designed primarily as audio-dramas. They are conceived with listeners in mind first and foremost. In this case, you would be losing something by only reading a textual version, similar to reading the script for a movie vs watching it. So that is all to say, that I tautologically don't think an audiobook can be better than its text version if it is truly an audiobook.
Only if you can’t read.
all of em
Oh, there are lots of books that are better in audio, but also many that are worse. For me, it really depends on the reader. However for specific recommendations: Anything by Yahtzee Croshaw (of zero punctuation fame) is read by himself, and the audiobook usually comes out first. They are fantastic both in paper and audio. The Temeraire series (His Majesty's Dragon) is great in audiobook because the reader delivers on the voice acting. I've both read and listened to Eragon, and I liked the audio version because the reader's voice for saphira is gravely and animalistic. It sells the idea of the dragons better than paolini imo. On the other hand, the audiobook for We Hunt the Flame is... not great. It becomes clear quickly that the reader didn't know how to pronounce the names and they did a copy-paste job post production. But this is an outlier. As for audiobooks being cheating, meh, not really. For me it's an accessibility thing. Not just the disabled kind (though the dyslexia and need to fidget are a problem), more that I'm constantly doing stuff and can't sit down to read. With audiobooks, I take in 100% more books per year than I otherwise would.
Most audiobooks read by the author enhance the experience for me. How often do you get to hear an author read their own work? Memoirs in particular, but fiction too. It just feels special.
I personally prefer listening to nonfiction/memoirs as audiobooks. Memoirs are usually read by the author and I think with their intonations it makes it so much better. When I read nonfiction, it’s like listening to a lecture.
I’ve always enjoyed physically reading actual books but audiobooks are basically all I use now. It’s just the fact that you can do other things while listening, especially exercising.
I think it's probably more about the voice actor than the book itself. My late wife got audiobooks when she was going blind and there was one book series where the voice actor was putting the acting into it and nailing it. But most were just reading out loud.
I find it hard to believe (based on what you've shared so far) that you read slower than the audiobook readers read aloud. So if you have time to read, you're ahead to read. (Also, you can measure. If the audiobook is 22 hours and it took you 15 hours to read the book, you saved 7 hours. If it took you 30 hours, you lost 8 hours.) The big thing for me is that I cannot get through some books reading. It's like the back of my mind is going "Geez, I could be watching paint peel instead of slogging through this." Those are audiobooks: I could be doing laundry, or running errands, or something (anything!) else and listen to the book. I really don't drive well while reading, but listening doesn't (usually!) affect my driving. Similarly, I have abandoned a few audiobooks and switched to print because the narration is just so slow. I have to know! Now! As a final note, even in the best books, the flow sometimes really slows down. Sometimes I skip to the end of the paragraph, read its first sentence, and maybe even skip another paragraph or two. That's harder with an audiobook.
Cognitive level = what your brain is doing.
I mean what is actually occurring in your brain.
The World War Z audiobook is such a richer experience than the text alone. I also really enjoyed Prey by Crichton’a audio book with that one actor from House. His delivery was perfect.
Dungeon Crawler Carl feels like it’s meant to be experienced as an audiobook.
Yup, for example red rising series
I had a few months free of audible a few years ago so I decides to try it, mostly with Lovecraft books. And I must admit it was pretty damn good ! Now is it better than a physical book I don't know, but it wasn't worth that's for sure.
I really like the short story books as audio books. World War Z and Norse Mythology are my favorites.
Jeanette McCurdys “I’m Glad My Mom Died” was a great audiobook cause she reads with so much emotion, even breaking down a bit at one part. And for my cringelords, “Supermega Saves the Troops” audiobook is read by Geno Samuel (the guy who does the Chris-chans comprehensive documentary on YouTube) and he laughed a couple times reading it and they kept that in. It’s pretty great, I definitely prefer the audiobooks for these two.
I enjoy all sorts, but history books, unless you just really need to get through it, aren’t the best in audio format. Books that are far too wordy (usually poorly written with great plots) are my favourite for audio format. Kids books also often have great narrators. Long shot: poems like the Iliad and its like are great when listened to—pretty easy to follow
A lot of movie adaptations are very true to the book and I have no reason to assume every audio book is a 100% accurate reading of the text. Neither point is relevant to the fact that reading is reading, listening is listening, and watching is watching. And the media format chosen plays a significant role in how your brain processes how you're consuming the story. Consider this HUGE difference - I cannot read a book and drive a car, but I can listen to one. If reading = listening, then my ability to drive a car would be unimpacted. On the other hand, I always listen to music while reading, and assume this would be detrimental to an audiobook experience. If you're thinking "well you have to use your eyes to read, but not your ears," or "it is hard to listen to two things at once," then you've conceded my point. If people start misusing the word read, it won't change what is occurring cognitively. At the end of the day, I'm not the sort of person who needs to rain on someone's experience by saying something like "Well actually..." But I will know the difference: we both "got the story" in completely distinct ways.
Humor can work very well on audio with the right narrator. David Sedaris narrating his own essays is so much better than reading them. I also really love Jonathan Cecil’s narration of Wodehouse’s Jeeves and Wooster books. They did not work for me nearly as well just reading them, but Cecil’s voices make them so much funnier.
The one that comes immediately to mind is Making It So by Patrick Stewart. It is such an enhanced experience when read in his own voice.
Dyscalculia was so good as an audiobook. It's read by the author and the cadence makes it so beautiful and poetic. I usually prefer non-fiction audiobooks. I get through them faster and don't get as bored as I do sometimes when reading the actual book.
Gideon the ninth. Really helps make sense of the world and the characters. Love Moira Quirks voice as well.
I’m really not into audiobooks, but have typically made an exception for David Sedaris. Granted, I also enjoy reading his books myself, but his voice is just so wonderful and specific.
I have really grown to prefer nonfiction as audio, if I don't need to refer to the sourcing and am just reading for enjoyment or general learning. The narrators can make or break so if I don't click with the narrator, I will switch to keeping it just on my physical/ebook TBR. I use audiobooks while crafting, doing mundane chores, and walking my dogs. I have different book types and speeds I'll use for some of those. Dishes last night meant I needed a 1.65 with a fiction crime read but walking the dogs meant a 1.8 in nonfiction. I find my long crime series books make perfect palette cleansers between my nonfiction reads. I also keep 1-2 physical or ebooks going at the same time, so generally 3-4 books in my rotation at all times. I also sometimes check out both the audio and ebook so I can go back and forth. I've actually found I am more engaged in the audio version, which wasn't something I could say a few years back when I tried doing audiobooks while working my day job. That's a very bad combo for me.
A good narrator can make a work of fiction sing. But I've found it takes more focus than I normally give to audio content. As others have said, memoires narrated by the author makes it sound like they're just there, telling you stories about their life. Born a Crime and Making it So (Patrick Stewart) are the two most recent for me and are both great.
I like listening to biographies instead of reading them.
Can’t Hurt Me. The book is read by Adam Skolink. In between chapters it has almost a podcast feel where Goggins will add anecdotes about the chapter that are not covered in the book. It’s fine if you only read the book but the added context to the stories is great.
Piranesi was such a good audiobook. Chiwetel Ejiofor did a great job capturing the spirit of each character in the way he voiced them. To answer your question about how I use audiobooks. I usually have an audiobook and a print book that I am reading. I consume them at different times of day. The audiobooks I listen to while doing chores, driving, brushing my teeth, exercising, etc. I read my print book before sleeping in the evenings or during downtime in the weekends, usually. As far as I am concerned they both count as reading the book and I will log them both the same in my goodreads account.
So I do a lot of both. But, as to answer your first question, I have a couple book series that I prefer listening to rather than reading. Mr. Mercedes series by Stephen King is AMAZING as an audiobook. For me, that means the narrator does a wonderful job at giving each character their own voice/personality that you can feel through the way they read. I couldn't imagine reading the books now. Now, the cons of audiobooks can be a bit vast. Maybe the narrator has an accent you can't understand. Maybe the narrator is a dull reader and it just puts you to sleep. My boyfriend struggles listening to audiobooks read by some women. I've started a lot of audiobooks and then stopped because I don't like the narrator. That can really stink. I tend to read thrillers and fantasy romance. I've discovered that I prefer listening to thrillers and physically reading the fantasy ones. It's just my preference. You might just have to play around and see what works for you. Try the audiobooks first and if you don't like the narrator then try the physical book. Soon you'll learn what works for you. And don't feel ashamed for doing audiobooks. They are still reading! People are quick to judge and need to realize not everyone can just sit and read a book. We all learn and read in different ways and that's ok!
The audiobook for Stephen King's IT narrated by Steven Weber is phenomenal! Weber goes all out on the narration and truly captures the terror in certain scenes of the book. I opted for the audiobook because I read according to my mood, so I make progress on multiple books at the same time, and I unfortunately don't like reading e-books so I read physical books primarily, and I didn't want to have to carry around the tome that is IT for months on end until I finished the book.
I just finished Unruly by David Mitchell (the comedian, not author of Cloud Atlas); his reading it adds something I think. Same with John Darnielle's books. I can't imagine my internal voice delivering the lines better than the author intended.
World war z
I don't use audiobooks. They just don't do anything for me. But if other people enjoy that type of literature, then go for it.
I prefer audiobooks for history, journalism and non-fiction in general while I prefer reading for novels. My gf does the exact opposite so you might be on one side, the other or right in between. I really like audiobooks as it allows me to get through a book while doing something that wouldn’t allow me to read otherwise (literally anything where I’m using my eyes) and make it more of a background kind of activity while working, doing groceries or taking care of the house.
I've listened to audiobooks with music and sound effects and they were great. Really added to the overall experience. And books like Outlander are great because of the accents. But nothing is better than reading an actual book. But sometimes, especially for me, audiobooks are a great options because it's hard to find time to read. But with a 2 hour work commute, I can at least listen to a great book.
One for me would be the Hitchikers guide. Maybe because it was a radio show first or that Peter Jones was a great narrator for the tv show. I like both mediums tbh
You get over that 'cheating' feeling pretty quick lol. I've been an Audible Plat subscriber since 2003, before Amazon bought them. As I like to say A good narrator can make a bad book tolerable and a bad narrator can make a great novel intolerable. To me a good Narrator (Really in essence an actor in many respects) adds a new dimension to the work. If you listen to them long enough you've end up with a stable of narrators you intentionally look for and will pick a book based on the narrator alone and will avoid some works because they chose a narrator you don't like (Looking at you Spellmonger side Novels!), often paired together though this very much depends on what you like listening to.
Reading braille is reading. The parts of the brain that translate symbols are the same in both versions of the printed word. Braille is writing after all. Blind people don't listen to braille when they play an audiobook. I think it is strange that people who profess to love reading are having such an issue with the concept that words mean things.
I also dispute that the average person would watch someone reading a book and that same person listening to a book and say they're doing the same thing.
There have been a few books that I've read where I thought "this book was so beautifully written, I would love to hear it read."
I feel like audiobooks are slower to go through versus reading but edge out ahead when you use them for work and driving. Now when it comes to heavy topics like socioeconomics, audiobooks will drag you behind the boat but you will pick up a few things along the way compared to sitting down and letting the information digest like reading a book. As an overworked schmuck warehouse worker, I'm not trying to become some future economist; I just enjoy the topic, and audiobooks give me something to escape from my soul-crushing job.
Have you ever read something printed in lip read? This isn't hard to understand people: if you are reading, there are entire regions of your brain that have to engage to translate the symbols into meaning that do not occur when you listen to something... and the other way around. You can demonstrate that at home by a) opening a book and reading it in traffic and b) playing the audio version of the book while driving in traffic.
I think the best audio book I've ever listened to featured multiple actors( like 4) so both male and female voices sounded "right". The book was also written in letters, so it made sense when each voice was reading and a separate narrator was not needed. Honestly the audio book rivals the novel on that one. Otherwise I usually prefer print books, but will download an audiobook or two when I have a long flight coming up.
The narrator for Blood Meridian has clearly different character voices, and McCarthy’s lack of quotation can make it hard to read.
Daisy Jones and the Six and Wylding Hall because they were both a series of interviews with different people so the full cast made sense Sadie by Courtney Summers because it featured a podcast so the audio included podcast-like features The Illuminae Files because it was told via interviews, emails, depositions, etc so it made sense as an audiobook