Nobody thinks the experience is identical.

Hi there. This subject has been very popular in the past. Please use reddit search and/or check the /r/books/wiki/faq.

I'm not saying they're not identical. I'm saying they're not even similar.

In my opinion, a book is a book, no matter the medium. Paper pages, Kindle or similar, app on phone, audiobook, they all have their place in telling a story, and the method of delivering that story is subject to the consumer’s needs at that moment.

Arthritic hands? Kindle or other electronic reader. Unexpected delay at the bank? Open the app on your phone. Cross-country road trip? Audiobook through the car’s speakers.

There are times an audiobook can enhance the story. I’m specifically referring to Wier’s “Project Hail Mary,” in which the secondary character’s speech patterns are interpreted audibly by the narrator and sound effects.

The best thing about free speech is that we can all have an opinion. Yours is that audiobooks have no place in a book subreddit. Mine is that the story is what’s important and therefore audiobooks have a place here.

I can't tell from this post if you have ever actually listened to one or not. More than one, preferably, before you make some sort of judgment on the entire format.

As someone who never felt the need to try audiobooks then got a job driving for hours every day...audiobooks are definitely comparable to reading, in that - once you adjust to them (and of course, there will be people who just can't get used to them) - the story goes into your brain, just as it would from a book. I often would listen in the car and then get home and continue reading on paper (or ebook). Once I finished the book, I could not tell you which parts I listened to and which I read with my eyeballs.

Is it a slightly different interpretation? Maybe, but my interpretation of any story, however I receive it, will be different from yours. It can even be different depending on what mood I'm in, how old I am, whether I've seen a movie adaptation first, or heard it talked about.

Was I influenced by the narrator when it comes to inflections or emotions? Maybe. But that doesn't mean the narrator's interpretation was wrong, or that it was different from what I would have come up with myself. And I've even disagreed with the reading of a line or scene - which means I'm still absorbing the story and coming to my own conclusions.

Reading a book is receiving a story (or non-fiction) from the author. Reading fiction is storytelling from one person to another, with a system that allows for many, many people to receive it rather than having to be told face-to-face - the original form of storytelling was verbal.

Listening to a story may be slightly different, but it's no less valid. A person who has listened to a book has every right to discuss the contents/message they found in it with people who read the book with their eyes. There is already a sub for audiobooks - mostly people use it to discuss narrators, versions, delivery methods, etc.

If people want to discuss a book, this sub should welcome them no matter how the contents were uploaded into their brains.

I actually did both of those things and didn't see any discussions about why or if they should be separated into separate communities.

And even if there were, as long as it wasn't last week, there is a benefit to further discussion.

Print books are rather newfangled. The printing press wasn’t even invented until 1450. The first stories, including scripture, were told, not printed. And even stories that were written out by hand had limited reach. But just about every village had someone to relate histories and folktales. Now, as then, the storyteller (narrator) can enhance or detract from the experience.

Most audiobook listeners will also read print and electronic media if they don’t have issues with vision. I’m flexible.

"Listening to an audiobook isn't even close to the same experience as reading a book. "

Studies suggest basically the same regions of the brain are activated during conventional reading and listening to an audiobook. Retention of information is also pretty comparable.

"I don't say this in judgment of those who listen to audiobooks. "

No, you just say it in ignorance and condescension which is so much better.

"I'm glad you've found something you enjoy."

I'm glad you feel the pompous need to try to squelch that joy in others.

"When people are talking about how great or terrible the audiobook is, I often find that it has no relation at all to the experience of reading the book. "

Maybe it has no relation to you, but for other people it might. I find I become more aware of the rhythm and sound and general lyricism of stories when listening to an audiobook compared to conventional reading. Alliteration, consonance, assonance, etc. all are more noticeable to me when I listen to an audiobook than when I read a conventional book. The first stories were meant to be listened to, not read. So audiobooks put us back in touch with the ancient roots of storytelling.

"Many times, they even admit that the narration is a large reason for their enjoyment."

It's part of the enjoyment but not the only enjoyment. Plot, characterization, setting, theme, prose, etc. are all also factors in people's enjoyment. A narrator might enhance a person's enjoyment of a story the same as seeing Othello performed might increase someone's enjoyment of reading the script. Narrators can sometimes add an extra flair or flavor to the book or help people hear the story told in an authentic accent. Sometimes too an audiobook allows readers to experience the story as read by the author. That is pretty cool for a lot of people.

"Listeners of audiobooks also probably get a little annoyed when people are talking about books that don't have an audiobook version. "

Many people who listen to audiobooks also read print and/or ebooks. Some people like myself even have Kindle or print versions of books as well as owning the audiobook. Even those who listen to audiobooks exclusively will just find something else to listen to.

"Or worse, a great book everyone who reads is fawning over, only to find that the audiobook has a terrible narrator."

That's why I listen to samples on Audible and only get audiobooks with good narrators. Books with narrators that don't appeal to me, I will just read in another format (print, ebook, etc).

It's easy to take advantage of all the different reading formats available to me in the twenty-first century.

I never even implied that listening to an audiobook is in any way inferior to reading a book. I have listened to a few audiobooks and enjoyed them. But reading those same books was a different experience.

And your entire paragraph about the narration enhancing the certain books (the same way watching a play might) only goes to prove the point I was making.

Any joy you had that was squelched has far more to do with your projections than anything I actually said.

You can wait until the FAQ topic is posted again. If my math is correct, it should be in about two months.

As far as separate communities, you are welcome to check out /r/audiobooks.

Let us know if you have any other questions.

Are movies books?
I'm not trying to sound glib. I can agree that the sentiment that "the story is what's important." I just haven't heard anybody argue that even the most faithful movie adaptation is similar to reading the book.

Reading a non-fiction book is also a different experience to reading a fiction book. Actual research has shown that reading a physical or print book and listening to an audiobook activates the same regions of the brain and has similar retention. So it is indeed reading. That is the opinion of actual experts. Including librarians such as myself. So maybe accept that you aren't the sole arbitrator of what reading is.

Narration enhancing certain books doesn't mean that it is no longer reading any more than a teacher reading books to children at story time means that the books are suddenly no longer the same. It is the same text being experienced. The mode of experience may be different but that is also true in print versus ebook format or in standard font versus large print or in books written in Braille rather than standard print.

Nothing you said could squelch my joy since I am an actual expert rather than speaking with obvious ignorance as you did.

Clearly you have nothing intelligent to say on this subject, so I will converse with you no longer.

That was exactly my point. There is an r/audiobooks. And there is not an r/booksyoureadwithyoureyes.
The discussion I was not interested in is "Are audiobooks better/worse than print or ebooks?" (Which is basically what the FAQ thread is).
I will admit that based on the responses I got, it was just going to turn into that argument, but I was actually interested in others' opinions. And I don't actually know of a subreddit that is better suited for such a discussion.

I'm dismayed you disagree.

No, movies are not books, not even those adapted from books. I said nothing of the sort. You’re being deliberately obtuse, and I choose to expend no further energy on you.

This was a relatively well thought out response. And the last two paragraphs make a compelling argument.

Two points:

1. I didn't make any judgments on audiobooks. I only stated my opinion that they are different and it's actually quite confusing to me that it was interpreted by multiple people that I was somehow implying they're inferior when I explicitly stated that I wasn't judging people who listen to audiobooks.
2. This isn't r/stories, and movies also tell the same stories, but nobody suggests that watching movies are the same as reading (although I can imagine there are discussions here about movie adaptations, and that I can see where there could be a place for that softens my opinion even more). The fact that there is an r/audiobooks for the discussion of specifically audiobooks is great. I wish there was a thing like that for....books...that are read with eyes. I would have assumed that should be r/books. (Which is also why I conceded that I would also accept a separate r/booksyoureadwithyoureyes.)

The reason you couldn't tell whether I've listened to audiobooks is because it didn't at all matter with regards to the point I was making. I have listened to a few audiobooks and enjoyed them. At least one of them I did go back and forth between reading and listening while on a road trip. A couple I have both listened to and read separately and it was just a completely different experience both times.

It's unfortunately become clear to me that when people say, "omg you have to read this book. It's awesome. I just finished listening to the audiobook." I have to immediately discard it because many books really are just a lot better in audiobook format. (Which makes how offended everyone got assuming I was somehow belittling audiobooks even more ridiculous.) I just wish it was clearer: "hey, I just listened to a great audiobook and I think everyone should give it a listen" would be a better way to put it. A great audiobook often does not mean a great book and vice versa.

I appreciate the discussion (though your response would have been better received without the first paragraph).