What medium do you primarily use to consume books?

[Swank]

 

[BAYLOR]

Ah , so, you're currently reading Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 .

 

[paranoid marvin]

Ah , so, you're currently reading Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 .

Tbh I think that dystopian novels such as Farenheit 451 and1984, and movies like Rollerball, where the written word has been all but eradicated, are part of the reason why I hope that books aren't replaced by ebooks. One day a school child will ask 'what was a book?' and that will be a sad day for humanity.

 

[BAYLOR]

Tbh I think that dystopian novels such as Farenheit 451 and1984, and movies like Rollerball, where the written word has been all but eradicated, are part of the reason why I hope that books aren't replaced by ebooks. One day a school child will ask 'what was a book?' and that will be a sad day for humanity.

My biggest fear about a dependance on electronic media stage and availability is what happens if the technology goes down and permanently stops working ?

 

[Yozh]

My biggest fear about a dependance on electronic media stage and availability is what happens if the technology goes down and permanently stops working ?

Or the inevitability that as technology obselesces a good chunk of literature and art becomes inaccessible. The most popular and most “important” works will get transferred to new formats, but others will be orphaned.

And there is the issue of “streaming” media being held solely by a few large corporations who can decide to take a work offline, or change it and then it’s like it never was, except in memory. In that way, maybe the future will be more like the past, the time before print and recording.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I don't really 'do' audiobooks (Ian Richardson's excellent reading of The Prince aside) but do like podcasts.

 

[smellincoffee]

In recent years ebooks have had a slight edge, like 55-60%. This year will be different because I am focusing on my physical TBR pile, and I've been doing more audiobooks this year than usual -- one a month instead of two a year or so.

 

[ColGray]

I meant newly released books. A quick look shows Patrick Stewart's new book is 50p more in hardback than ebook, Arnie's new book is 1p more in Kindle than paper.

This isn't just to do with books though. One of the reasons why it was claimed computer/video games were so expensive was because of the cost to create the media (disc/cassette/cartridge), transportation and then the percentage taken by the retailer. When they became downloadable... the price didn't come down.

I may be old fashioned, but it makes no sense to me that a large hardback book should cost the same - or more - than a digital download, that has no tangible value or re-saleability. Add to that price of the medium used to play the download, and the disparity becomes wider.

It's a trade off, though: ebook's accessibility and openness has allowed the self-publishing community to not only thrive, but to exist. Self-publishing would be limited to people with serious disposable income if the only option were self-funding paper printing.

 

[ColGray]

I don't really 'do' audiobooks (Ian Richardson's excellent reading of The Prince aside) but do like podcasts.

As someone who almost exclusively now reads via audiobook, can i ask why?

 

[HareBrain]

As someone who almost exclusively now reads via audiobook, can i ask why?

I don't much like them either, so I'll answer for myself, and it's mostly that you're held to someone else's pace. I like being able to pause to think about something I've read, or reread the last line if it wasn't clear, or read faster if it's a bit dull (or even if it's very exciting). Granted, all those are possible with audiobooks (by pausing, skipping back or adjusting the speed), but they're not as easy or natural.

I also -- and this might sound a bit snobby, sorry -- think reading to yourself is more of an active and participatory experience than being read to, and so feels different. A bit like the difference in immersion between playing a game and watching a film: you feel more involved. Sometimes "just" watching is great (though in that case I go for video over audio), but sometimes I want the more active and involving experience.

 

[ColGray]

Yep, i hear you on pacing -- i typically listen at 1.1-1.25x speed. I'd say that 5-10 yrs ago, rewinding or going back 15-30 seconds was harder, but all the major players (audible, Libby, Hoopla, Spotify, etc) have +/- 15/30 second buttons on a locked home screen. It's easy to re-listen to something if it's unclear (IMO)

For those of us with ADHD, audiobooks are magic because I can do something else while reading, which (at least for me) let's me actually focus on the things I'm doing. Reading in a silent room is an exercise in futility for me. I need noise, music or another activity around me in order to focus.

and this might sound a bit snobby, sorry

SO snobby

Totally get the perspective of active participant, but IME that's reflective of older audiobooks and the Reader vs Narrator divide.

Audiobooks pre-2010 are almost universally poorly read. They are, as you say, someone reading to you. Robert Crais, for example, writes books set in LA with readers sporting accents like Joey Tribiani. The audio has throat clears and page turns and they read in one voice, with one accent, and at one cadence. Reading is a side gig for them and it shows.

Today, many narrators are voice actors who do this. Audiobooks aren't read: they're performed, and it feels more akin to a one-man/woman theater, than a movie (as far as active engagement is concerned). The narrator adds to the work and amplifies the author's intent. In, The Book Eaters, the narrator is from the specific section of England the MC is from, with a regional accent, pronunciation and dialect. It's such a cool way of understanding the character and book -- she pronounces the 'p' in coup, for instance. In, Project Hail Mary, Ray Porter (narrator) has materially different voices for different people and then (no spoilers) they added a minor audio effect for Rocky that reflects his speaking style.

There are, of course, still Readers, but more and more, there are Narrators. They're much more engaging.

 

[HareBrain]

For those of us with ADHD, audiobooks are magic because I can do something else while reading, which (at least for me) let's me actually focus on the things I'm doing. Reading in a silent room is an exercise in futility for me. I need noise, music or another activity around me in order to focus.

Good point, and I'm not suggesting there aren't very good reasons for many people to prefer them.

Audiobooks aren't read: they're performed, and it feels more akin to a one-man/woman theater, than a movie (as far as active engagement is concerned).

I get this. Most of the "audiobooks" I have listened to have been broadcast in instalments on BBC radio, and they tend to be done to a pretty high standard, and I have quite enjoyed them if I've been driving etc. I still prefer (non-audio?)/(visual?) reading, though. I'm willing to accept that might be largely because I've always done it.

 

[ColGray]

Good point, and I'm not suggesting there aren't very good reasons for many people to prefer them.


I get this. Most of the "audiobooks" I have listened to have been broadcast in instalments on BBC radio, and they tend to be done to a pretty high standard, and I have quite enjoyed them if I've been driving etc. I still prefer (non-audio?)/(visual?) reading, though. I'm willing to accept that might be largely because I've always done it.

You're totally fine (and I never thought you were being 'snobby' in the prior post)!

Why people choose or prefer a different medium is a super interesting topic.

 

[thaddeus6th]

As someone who almost exclusively now reads via audiobook, can i ask why?

It's hard to say... I just prefer hearing it in my own head rather than someone else's delivery of it. The Prince may be an exception because of the style (single voice) and Ian Richardson having a splendid voice doesn't hurt. That tallies with the podcasts, because I only listen to history, all delivered by a single individual.

 

[Swank]

People talk way too slowly. Conversations are sometimes trying enough - I wouldn't purposely replace reading with listening and put myself through even more of that.

 

[ColGray]

It's hard to say... I just prefer hearing it in my own head rather than someone else's delivery of it. The Prince may be an exception because of the style (single voice) and Ian Richardson having a splendid voice doesn't hurt. That tallies with the podcasts, because I only listen to history, all delivered by a single individual.

Interesting--thanks for sharing!

FWIW, I think I've only run across one or two audiobooks with more than one narrator. Audio/Radio plays, OTOH, often have multiple speakers and, in my mind, feel very different than audiobooks.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Of older audiobooks, I was always very impressed with Tony Robinson's readings of Terry Pratchetts books, and Sean Bean was the perfect role for Cornwell's 'Sharpe' stories. Christopher Lee and Michael Hordern also lent M R James' ghost stories the appropriate gravitas.

For me there are three types of audiobooks,: abridged, unabridged and dramatised. I have little interest in abridged readings; what the author wrote is what should be spoken. Dramatised are abridged, although out of necessity than through editing, and some of those done by the BBC such as HHGTTG, LOTR, The Hobbit, and several Discworld novels are truly special.

 

[Orcadian]

Totally get the perspective of active participant, but IME that's reflective of older audiobooks and the Reader vs Narrator divide. Audiobooks pre-2010 are almost universally poorly read. ... The audio has throat clears and page turns and they read in one voice, with one accent, and at one cadence. Reading is a side gig for them and it shows.

Today, many narrators are voice actors who do this. Audiobooks aren't read: they're performed, and it feels more akin to a one-man/woman theater ... In, Project Hail Mary, Ray Porter (narrator) has materially different voices for different people and then (no spoilers) they added a minor audio effect for Rocky that reflects his speaking style.

There are, of course, still Readers, but more and more, there are Narrators. They're much more engaging.

Agree with you on this. These days (poor eyesight) I consume almost entirely audiobooks. I maintain a list of 'good' readers - and ones to avoid. IMO Daniel Thomas May, who read about 18 of the Cherryh Foreigner series, is one of the very best. Another excellent one is Mark Nelson. It's my understanding that both men do this professionally.

 

[Orcadian]

... I have little interest in abridged readings; what the author wrote is what should be spoken. Dramatised are abridged, although out of necessity than through editing, and some of those done by the BBC such as HHGTTG, LOTR, The Hobbit, and several Discworld novels are truly special.

Re abridging: I find I really cannot listen to 'Book of the Week' or 'Book at bedtime' on BBC radio because they are so fiercely (and often clunkily) abridged. I agree with Paranoid Marvin that the reader should speak what the author wrote! Also, there is the problem of segment length - 15min! You're just remembering where the previous episode left off, and settling in for a good listen, when suddenly the reading is over! For me, 30min would be an absolute minimum. And if the BBC did this, they wouldn't have to abdridge the story so harshly. (AYCI, I have suggested this to them. )

 

[chongjasmine]

I prefer physical, though I do read ebooks as well. No audiobooks for me, though.