Loved Wuthering Heights.

Not a fan of Jane Eyre.

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.

"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.

It is helpful for discussion if you cite the books you are talking about. Which authors in particular. What years were the books first published. Those details matter.

I never read the full series but as a child I enjoyed the ones I did read as a child. To me, the books are meant to be darkly humorous and absurdist rather than realistic so criticizing them on the grounds of not being realistic seems to miss the point of the books. It is like thinking that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is meant to be realistic. Not everything is meant to be realistic.

It is common for children’s books to feature cartoonishly evil or incompetent adults (think of books like those by Roald Dahl for example) and series often feature repeated plots and recurring villains. That is part of the appeal for many readers.

For me, I tend to rate out of 5 stars since that is what Goodreads uses and that is where I am most likely to rate books.

My personal rating breakdown:

5 stars: excellent or top tier in its genre

4 stars: good or very good

3 stars: either consistently mediocre or else a mix of great highs and terrible lows balancing out to a middle of the pack eating.

2 stars: a disappointment and frustrating read

1 Star: so bad I have never used this rating. Probably more likely to DNF than finish since this would be a book I find nothing redeemable in.

You could always try reading non-fiction books that aren't "made up." There are all sorts of non-fiction books out there. Biographies, autobiographies, and memoirs. Books on every subject from history to psychology to science to art to sports. So, whatever topic interests you, you can find non-fiction books about it.

As to your preference, there are plenty of readers who prefer non-fiction to fiction, plenty of readers who prefer fiction to non-fiction, and plenty of readers who enjoy both. All are just a matter of taste. None is really weird.

Fantasy and science fiction increase creativity, open-mindedness, and imagination.

Fiction in general improves theory of the mind and empathy.

Sanderson's writing style is just so bland that I can never make it through the first chapter of Way of Kings.

In fantasy, I recommend Guy Gavriel Kay, Ken Liu, and Tad Williams all as superior authors. Especially Guy Gavriel Kay. That man's prose is gorgeous.

No problem. Welcome aboard!

Personally, I don't think that you are missing out unless you particularly feel interested in reading the books for a reason beyond their popularity on social media. I feel like life is so short and there are so many fascinating books to read that it only makes sense to read the books one is interested in reading unless you have to read others for work, school, or other similar reasons.

Read 100 books or more. Same as last year.

This sub has discussion threads every few days about how much people don't like Colleen Hoover. Often phrased as if it were some new revelation.

Personally, I never read her books. They don't sound like they would be to my taste, and my reading list is long enough already.

If you want to give her a try, you can always borrow her books from a local library and stop reading if you don't like.

Or if you don't want to give the books I try, don't. You don't have to try reading something just because it is popular.

Yes, along with everything else.

And you wonder this for years and years like the OP instead of just moving on? The OP also admitted that this book stopped them from leisure reading for years? So, yes, the hatred of this book did indeed stop them from enjoying a multitude of others based on the words of the OP.

He could have written book 6 and 7 any time while the HBO series was being released or not have agreed to the HBO series at all. He certainly had plenty of time to write all his Westeros fake histories which he chose to work on instead of book 6 and 7 of ASOIF. It is what it is. George got his big payday with the HBO series and is going to just write worldbuilding bloat fake histories until his heart’s content.