>>25622288
As much as I'd like to condemn the audiobook experience outright, I'd hate to discount the experiences of the visually impaired and all spectrum of inability, and does that spectrum encompass people too lazy or stupid to just read?
Maybe we just need a better parallel-ish term, like "consume" but less stupid.

>>25622288
My gf is severely dyslexic and it’s the only way she can follow and actually enjoy a book. Sometimes I’ll read to her before bed, it might sound infantilising but it’s actually quite a nice way of spending time together.

>>25622288
who cares. why would anyone be concerned with who is and is not authorised to say they've read a book. midwit nonsense. if someone has an insight on a text, it's an insight regardless of how they arrived at it. if they don't have a concrete insight, if they're just spouting abstract "Opinions" like this book is cringe, this book is goated, etc, then why are you talking to them? i cannot conceive of a non-midwit practical context in which the right to claim you've read a book is at all of consequence. why are midwit frogs so obsessed with this non-issue? is it because reading is purely a sad kind of status game in their eyes?

>>25622288
So just two things I’d never say

>>25622303
Not OP and I mostly agree, but I do think there is something lost in the experience of a book when you don’t have to grapple with the cadence or emphasis yourself. Like, can you really say you’ve read finnegans wake, really wrestled with the challenge of its pronunciation, triple-entendres and sentence construction if someone else is doing the work for you?

On the other hand, it opens the door for people to say that watching a play doesn’t give you the full experience of reading the script, which sounds like nonsense to me.

>>25622310
>watching a play doesn’t give you the full experience of reading the script
but reading a script often does produce a totally different experience. it engages your imagination in a totally different way. you create connections no staging could've done for you.

i think what's at issue is the idea there's even such a thing as the full experience, the true experience. read the same paragraph on different days and you'll uncover different things, none truer or fuller than any other, the only meaningful way to distinguish them is intensity of experience, force of insight, density of the connections involved.

if someone feels they engage differently with print than audio, they're surely right. but what matters is entirely the experience the reading is producing for them, not the right to claim you've read something. many people on this board seem to be able to read books without having any interesting experiences at all.

>>25622320
>you create connections no staging could've done for you.
Just to play devils advocate, have you tried reading any of Beckett’s late plays? Utterly pointless. Here’s an example:
https://youtu.be/LPJBIvv13Bc?is=fAfUIxN6rAi-TYvC
The script itself is less a script at all than diagrammatic instructions. That’s not to say you couldn’t glean some insights from it, but it’s one of those instances where the medium IS the message, you don’t get a sense of the fractalised/kaleidoscopic nature of the piece without witnessing it. It’s like looking at a blank paint-by-numbers picture of the Mona Lisa and thinking you’ve seen the actual painting.

>i think what's at issue is the idea there's even such a thing as the full experience
Very true. We only experience a thin sliver of the full possibilities enabled by a work of art, and no matter how we approach it in various mediums, the work is always in excess of what we can reasonably take away from it. I’m sure that audiobook listeners can learn something interesting from a reader and vice versa

>>25622288
False equivalency
Your argument is invalid.

>>25622347
Coming from the perspective of someone who actually makes things, no you are assuming hidden depths that aren't actually there most of the time.
The amount of times people think my work says something it totally doesn't is staggering. Every person I know who also creates things has had similar experiences, both for better and worse.

Nothing is more annoying that someone who has predetermined that they are offended and will just make shit up to justify attacking you and everyone around you over their offense. All because they saw what isn't there.

>>25622288
Same experience but slower

>>25622394
>All because they saw what isn't there
Like you’re doing right now? I’m not assuming depth on the side of the author but on the side of the reader. Authorial intent has no bearing on the many meanings that can proliferate from a text, and if you think as creator you have ownership over what your work means, you’re just as deluded as the readers who think they’ve found the singular definitive interpretation of a work.

>>25622288
Yes

>>25622288
weak bait, in a game you are supposed to interact, while the experience of reading a book or somebody reading it to you is the same (n.b. oral transmission was the standard until the medieval manuscript tradition replaced it)

the only exceptions are books with diagrams or photographs, although a good diagram can be reproduced by description alone -- that's why kids used to learn geometry in school, ironically

>>25622293
true, "audiobook" as people "consume" it today is a product of the iPod & mp3 culture... there were vast libraries of books on tape beforehand, but they were almost exclusively "consumed" by the visually impaired
>but stories for children!
lol, they usually came on vinyl :)

File: pe_pe.jpg (31 KB, 640x360)

31 KB JPG

>>25622302
>nurseposting straight from reddit
Now I understand where all the jeets, hags, and retards are coming from. Thank you.

>>25622649
>if you think as creator you have ownership over what your work means
I do. Your interpretation means less than nothing.

I browse 4chan using a phone I stole from a blind man. All the threads get read to me at 1.5x speed and I can double tap the screen when it says "Image" in it's computerized British lady voice to open up ChatGPT which will describe the Pepes to me.

>>25622302
Have you asked her to suck your dick while you read to her, just one time, let's give it a try?

>>25622649
I'm not the guy who wrote what you're replying to but I have had his experience and I'm a little stunned you don't seem to get what he's saying.

Readers having their interpretation outside of authorial intent is a complete non issue. But a lot of readers care about authorial intent a lot, and many of those types are exactly the ones that want to come up and talk to the author. Or, if they are the sort that sometimes cares about authorial intent and sometimes doesn't, when they talk to the author it's their authorial intent questions that they want to bring up first.

So they find something in the text. That's fine. It's something they find disgusting. That's fine. It's not something you consciously inserted into the text. That's also fine.

Then they want to know why you are a disgusting person who has placed disgusting material in this text on purpose to attack, demean, insult and hopefully damage them long term. They want to dominate the discussion and are taking time away from other people who want to interact with you. You see other people hearing what they're saying and rolling their eyes about it, people who took the time to come to your reading and maybe are waiting patiently with your book in their hands, which they have purchased which money helps you pay for the date you have later that night where maybe you'll get laid afterwards for the first time in a few months. You wish you could make a certain gesture, maybe rubbing your nose a certain way, and that you had a security man who would come in and gently remove the person currently talking to you so that you could get on with your life.

>>25622677
>All the threads get read to me at 1.5x speed
fake, i've seen some interview with blind people using screen readers and they usually use 3x-7x (like a sighted human wouldn't even understand, just hear a blerp for a sentence)

>>25622704
You sound fragile as fuck ngl

>>25622649
I now see you are just a troll and will disregard you.

>>25622675
You’re just bitter and emotional because you dragged your personal grievances into this discussion. I think people are wrong to make assumptions about you based on the content of your work, because that goes beyond the limits of the work itself. But that’s besides the point. Have you tried growing a pair?

>>25622704
Another “woe is me” post, boo fucking hoo. Why are you faggots so incapable to have a theoretical discussion about meaning-making without dragging your personal issues into it? Again, people who make assumptions about artists from the content of the work are no longer putting forward an interpretation of the work, but a judgement of the creator who they (erroneously) believe they see in the work. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying it’s not even an interpretation once they start speculating about le big bad evil author who wrote it.

File: de50f5b1f7446327399b5428f(...).jpg (172 KB, 1600x800)

172 KB JPG

>>25622762

>>25622762
Your headcanon means nothing.

File: 1774482025009048.png (18 KB, 180x185)

18 KB PNG

>>25622809 >>25622821 >>25624539

you did NOT beat the book if
>you read it on a screen
>you listened to it
>you stopped reading for more than 3 days
>you didn't read it in the original language
>you read it only once

>>25622796
To beat a book you must strike it in some way.

>>25622796
>he doesn’t play his books on instadeath mode
Every time I lose track of the plot or my attention drifts, I have to start the book over. Do u even read senpai

>>25622288
Yes.

>>25622796
>he didn't beat New Book+
Scrub.

>>25622288
>like saying you played the game because you watched a YouTube walkthrough
What if it's a visual novel or a walking simulator with barely any gameplay