I think audiobooks read by the authors of those books are the superior way to consume literature. They allow stress to be put on words in exactly the intended way and do not require you to carry around a large book with you in order to read it, and do not require any trees to be cut down for paper. Unlike books or e-books, they do not present any possible eye strain. You can listen to an audiobook while driving, while going for a morning jog, while fishing, while lifting weights, while doing work, or while having a text-based conversation, among many other things. Hell, you can even listen to your favorite book while having sex. Overall I see no detriment to using audiobooks exclusively.
The only argument I've seen is that it makes you seem like a child who can't read for himself, but that's only an association fallacy. It's not a good argument.
Gavin Phillips
bait
Joshua Green
it sounds like a pretty legitimate opinion desu
Sebastian Mitchell
Reading fiction has no worth, doesn't make you smarter or more empathetic and is simply entertainment on the level of film or video games.
Lucas Howard
Reading exclusively in English is perfectly fine. For the vast majority of classics, skilled translators have worked to accurately write the book in English, and any words that do not accurately translate are more often than not explained in a footnote. Learning multiple languages, for the English speaker, is absolutely unnecessary for understanding any great piece of literature, or publication of science or philosophy in our modern age.
Hudson Jenkins
Reading anything doesn't make you smarter, it just (potentially) increases your knowledge.
Cooper Edwards
> DFW will never do the audiobook of Broma Infinita
Parker Murphy
>Exercising the language processing centers of your brain while initiating potentially new thoughts about potentially new subject matters and potentially broader worldviews doesn't make you smarter.
I can't pay attention to audiobooks. No matter the voice of the reader, listening to one guy talk gets monotonous. Also, audiobooks leave the reader less actively engaged in the story. You have to put in conscious effort to read. And I can read faster than anyone can read to me.
Chase Morales
OP doesn't know how art works. It's all about interpreting the text using your own lens of life experience. This includes the internal voice with which you read the work
Liam Collins
I haven't read a philosophy text in my life and I can't understand why I should. If philosophers have been debating the nature of being and reality for thousands of years without agreeing on anything, then surely I have better things to do with my time.
Lincoln Robinson
Right there with you user. Philosophers were largely dumb delusional aimless pontificators as far as I can tell. What point is there in having an encyclopedic knowledge of dead guys' ways of drawing false dichotomies about almost everything? What use is it citing some asshole's works when we've advanced this far beyond their ability to observe and define life around us and still can't agree on anything? How can we even begin discussion about morality ethics and the like when we still don't even know if we're a hologram, or we're all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, or we're the spaghetti monster's wet dream?
Nathan Johnson
I interpret speech as easily as text. You can just as easily agree or disagree in a verbal debate as in a written dialogue, and you can just as easily relate your own experiences to the spoken word as to the written. If anything, the intention of the author is less readily expressed through text. Unless you think the intent of an artist has nothing at all to do with art, in which case I would ask you to define art and provide reasoning for that definition.
Jackson Perry
Ray Bradbury's reading of Fahrenheit 451 is an abomination
Bentley Cooper
I agree. In fact, reading is merely passive. Vidya is the superior form of entertainment in being so interactive, actually requiring some applied thinking and intuition.
Alexander Bell
I understand where you're coming from but for me, audio books are tiresome. Not everybody has the same preferences/skills. Besides, have you ever listened to Neruda? His readings are the worst.
In my case, I'd rather read it and get my own mental picture of the story/text. That's what also bothers me about movie adaptations: it takes away a big chunk of the things you see in your head while reading. For me, that's the best part.
Ryan Collins
Interesting. You have a sort of "originalist" point of view of literature, as you think a book must be understood through the original intentions of the author.
Though, i am not sure authors are the best readers. I remember some authors like Albert Camus poorly reading their own books.
Jayden Torres
If an author wanted his readers to hear him tell the story rather than experience it in text, why wouldn't he immediately publish his works as audiobooks and radioplays? Books are intended to be read, not listened to.
Brody Watson
Opinions need to be strengthen with evidences or minimal demonstrations. There you're just giving a proposition that can be as easily inverted. I am curious if you have any content to convince me.
Nolan Cruz
>muh intentions
Noah Murphy
A good audiobook is a pretty awesome thing, regardless of whether the original author reads it or not
