/r/bookscirclejerk and /r/truelit are the only places on reddit you should go for book talk. Maybe /r/pynchon too. The /r/books crowd thinks all books are of equal merit and audiobooks are "reading" because it's a main subreddit on reddit and Americans on the internet don't actually read anything except for trash tier fantasy and scifi interspersed with memories of Shakespeare from high school.
It's not so much the hate of audiobooks, it's more that /r/books acts as if "reading" encompasses listening to a book. There's nothing wrong with audiobooks, it's just not reading. You're listening to a book, so your experience is going to be a little different, and the places in your brain are very different for processing audio information and reading. Just a different experience, and to label them both as "reading" and treat them equally is the same as people who are like "look reading the back of the cereal box and reading Proust is the Same because it's both READING" imo.
So, suppose I listen to an audiobook of an existing book, and I want to talk about that book with people. Where am I supposed to go, if not a forum that's about books?
I think you're misunderstanding the point of a circlejerk sub. It's not /r/books2, it's a parody and mockery of /r/books. The jokes about audiobooks are there because there's a huge trend in /r/books of making these big dumb dramatic posts about how audiobooks are literally exactly the same as paper books and there's no difference in the experience whatsoever and all you ELITISTS need to shut up about how audiobooks are bad (made in response to exactly 0 people talking shit about audiobooks), so the circlejerk sub makes fun of that.
/r/bookscirclejerk and /r/truelit are the only places on reddit you should go for book talk. Maybe /r/pynchon too. The /r/books crowd thinks all books are of equal merit and audiobooks are "reading" because it's a main subreddit on reddit and Americans on the internet don't actually read anything except for trash tier fantasy and scifi interspersed with memories of Shakespeare from high school.
I remember visiting /r/bookscirclejerk and what jumped out at me was the hatred for audiobooks. What's wrong with audiobooks?
It's not so much the hate of audiobooks, it's more that /r/books acts as if "reading" encompasses listening to a book. There's nothing wrong with audiobooks, it's just not reading. You're listening to a book, so your experience is going to be a little different, and the places in your brain are very different for processing audio information and reading. Just a different experience, and to label them both as "reading" and treat them equally is the same as people who are like "look reading the back of the cereal box and reading Proust is the Same because it's both READING" imo.
:reddit-logo:-tier pointless pedantry
So, suppose I listen to an audiobook of an existing book, and I want to talk about that book with people. Where am I supposed to go, if not a forum that's about books?
I think you're misunderstanding the point of a circlejerk sub. It's not /r/books2, it's a parody and mockery of /r/books. The jokes about audiobooks are there because there's a huge trend in /r/books of making these big dumb dramatic posts about how audiobooks are literally exactly the same as paper books and there's no difference in the experience whatsoever and all you ELITISTS need to shut up about how audiobooks are bad (made in response to exactly 0 people talking shit about audiobooks), so the circlejerk sub makes fun of that.
Most of the circlejerk subs are surprisingly solid lol
:sweat:
But yeah. Meta-Reddit is at least self-aware.
I think you tend to be a better natured person if youre making fun of redditors