Changed my mind about audiobooks after last week's club debate

I used to argue audiobooks don't count as reading, but our book club spent 40 minutes debating The Guest by Emma Cline and someone pointed out the narrator's tone changes the meaning of scenes. That made me realize audiobooks force you to hear cadence and silence in ways print doesn't. Has anyone else had a club argument flip your view on format completely?

3 comments

3 Comments

miles2798d ago

The narrator's tone changes the meaning" - that's a good point but does that mean you think audiobooks are actually better than print for certain books, or just different?

juliashah8d agoTop Commenter

@miles279 I get what you're saying about better versus different, but for me it's really about how our brains process stuff. That point about the narrator changing meaning made me think about how audiobooks can actually mess with your interpretation in ways print can't. Like with The Guest, the narrator's delivery can make a character seem more guilty or innocent just by how they pause or breathe. In print you have to imagine all that yourself, which I used to think was the whole point, but now I see it as two totally separate experiences.

sean_torres717d ago

Three years ago I listened to The Guest on a road trip and then read it later for a book club, and I can tell you the narrator absolutely does change how you see the main character. The audiobook narrator gave him this weary, almost sympathetic tone during the confession scene, so I felt sorry for him. But when I read the print version, the same words came across as manipulative and cold once I had to supply my own mental voice. So I think you are onto something about them being two separate experiences, but I would gently push back on the idea that the narrator can make a character seem more guilty or innocent. The text still gives you the facts, the narrator just adds a layer of emotion that might push you one way or another. It is more like the narrator colors the story, not rewrites it.