What does /lit/ think of audiobooks? I just started a free trial

>>8415324
Unless it's genreshit (in which case you're wasting your money) or something only slightly more involved, you should only listen to audiobooks of things you've actually read at least once.

I haven't listened to a lot, but the Gravity's Rainbow and J R ones are pretty good.

I find it really hard to concentrate... Honestly don't like 'em at all

I enjoy them. I tend to listen to them during household chores and other rote tasks where I can reserve mental focus. I don't care to listen to difficult material in this format. I tried some Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville but I kept wanting to go back over and "re-read" denser passages which doesn't suit the format or what I was otherwise occupied with.

The narrator certainly does make or break the work.

I find that I can listen to something I've already read and pick up detail that I would have skimmed over visually. In this sense, it can be complementary to the written word.

>>8415324
If you're "reading" for plot (which you shouldn't be), it's fine.

Conceptual exploration is harder. Doable, but much harder. Definitely requires multiple listens. Kant, Hegel, or Schopenhauer, for instance, are completely impenetrable unless you're constantly taking notes.

If you want prosaic appreciation, you're fucked 99% of the time.

If you intend to write at all and want to incorporate stylistic elements through auditory osmosis—it won't work. You should be reading.

I like to have at least one audiobook in my car so I can 'read' while I'm driving, especially during long car trips. As far as just listening to them when I don't have my hands occupied, not so much. (Protip: Your local library probably has a pretty good collection, and isn't stupid expensive like Audible). That said, they shouldn't be your main source of reading.

>>8415369
>If you're "reading" for plot (which you shouldn't be)
Fuck off.