Absolutely not. In addition to the disastrous narration, the printed versions have supplemental materials that greatly enhance the work.
Condensing an enormous problem into a personal story.
The narration could have drawn the reader into the story and scenes therein, rather than making the reader feel as if he/she were a member of an audience or congregation listening to a speech or sermon being delivered.
Start to finish, to tell you the truth.
Pick up the book, and enjoy it 10x as much.
The narration is hideous. Is it too much to ask that a sentence such as 'Kenneth poured himself a glass of water' doesn't get read to the audiobook listener as if it's 'Kenneth poured himself a beaker of blood'?
I think I'm done.
The whole Keith Morrison dolorous act is just so overdone, it makes the book unread (listen-) able.
The 100 year anniversaries of WW1 will no doubt give us plenty of better books.
It's a book. We read books because reading is time well spent.
As if the author had written these few hundreds of pages just as a lead in to the ending. If the most interesting part of a movie is when they roll the "where are they now" or similar information at the end . . well, then it wasn't that great a movie. Same here. Ending doesn't save the hopscotch story.
Nothing -- which is PERFECT. That's what I want, to have the narration sound the same as it would in my mind if I were reading. This is a PERFECT narration.
?? This kind of information is not helpful to me if I am looking for others' reactions to a book to see if I want to read it.
I just didn't get to know enough of the characters well enough to really mourn their deaths. The last 1/4 of the book comes off more like a body count than a story.
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry listening to the goofball narration.
The narrator's attempt to provide a chirpy, "user-friendly", expressive narration comes off as if he's reading a story to a class of 5 year olds. Dreadful.
I have read all the Harry Hole books pending the next one soon to be released Narrator was fine.
Just read the book. Sounded just like it would sound in my head reading the print edition. No overdone drama and exclamation.
No. The protagonist is not an action hero, liking for his next conquest (although he's portrayed that way at some points).
Too many narrow escapes and far too much toughness from a "regular guy" character--understand it is his desperation propelling him to all these feats of strength and skill, but not believable. It's also too much luck that he finds a razor in the car.
Watch the movie (after reading the book) ! (It's on Netflix.) Rarely seen a film so faithfully follow the plot details of the book (subject to certain things being chopped to keep it feature film length).
Chopping many many long drawn out conversations and contemplations that had no purpose but to lengthen the tome, and in many cases became tedious. Guessing that readers of the print edition likely skimmed through many of those. Readers should also understand that much of the gushing praise is because it is of course going to be very popular when the rednecks and crackers get their just desserts.
Story was actually pretty good, just not higher quality fiction as i might have expected from the length and gushing reviews. It was a little bit difficult to invest in a protagonist/narrator whose lack of internal substance (which is part of the plot) too often came off as a whining, wheedling drama queen.
My 1 star is mainly to alert readers that I think they would prefer the hard copy of this particular work. High praise for not trying to achieve too much phony southern accent, or overdoing different voices. But. It simply isn't my preferred form of narration for the reader to try to add drama to the narration by sounding as if he's telling a ghost story at a cub scout campout. To me, this is at best distracting; others may like a little audio stage play in their audio books. Also, the dragging pace of the narration way way exacerbated the tediously long conversations and contemplations. I just wanted to be able to enter a command 'Get on with it!' The narrator's overdone narration also caused him to carry dialog tone over into the story narration. For example, if a character burst into a room saying "What in blazes is going on here!", the narrator keeps that same exclamatory tone going for "Billy said, gazing around the room until his eyes fell on the gun." and on for the next 2-3 sentences. Narrators need to be able to transition out of the dialog tone, back into narration of text.
I would add that the author's climax near the end is carried off in a believable, not too predictable fashion. Really well done with that. The sort of epiloge-ish denouement returns to the tedium however.
How can this be one question? As for the author, not if I'm going to have to endure the not so subtle political commentary. I mean come on, "Richard Outhouse Nixon"? Whether I am a Nixon fan or not, I don't need that silliness. Why does every author suddenly think he's Oscar Wilde? A fabulous contemporary author named Richard Ford has ruined his books with all that, so the less skilled should just leave it alone.
When I finally gave up on it.
He did great. What he butchered was the way overcooked phrases of emphasis. Har har har on the page becomes an opportunity for the narrator to embark upon a spluttering barking session that, although spaced about the book, spoils the audio version.
The book is, in the parlance, too sprawling to be made into a movie worthy of the story.
I picked up this recommendation from Buzzfeed, of all places. (And yet, what is one to do to wade through the muck of serial novels and similar fodder for Audible these days .. hey, at least those people are reading.) The baseball sections were first rate, for the most part. But the ponderousness of so many segments just wore me down.
No. Just not a book that will interest the typical reader. Think the professional reviewers got a bit carried away with their asessments.
Maybe. Not a horriible book, just way under achieved expectations based on gushing reviews.
Be more selective in book selection. Exercise Audible's return guarantee.
Possible, with the caveat not to expect a book that merits all the high brow gushing over the thing. Good fiction, good writing, but top 10 book of the year? Not for us regular folks.
A story that makes the reader want to reach into the pages and make a character "act right" is so effective, and some of that in this book.
1st one that I recall, but this one was very good. The voice and accents of 2 of the major characters should have been scaled back significantly, just got too grating to listen to--distracted from the story.
This Book Free from Audible in appreciation for customer loyalty and support.
This is another book where the narrator did not let his voices overwhelm the narrative of the author's work, which seems to be fast becoming a lost art. Solid listen.
The quality of both narrative prose and dialog, the fully developed characters, the dark story told with lightness and energy.
Jesse and Ham conversation.
James' minor, very subtle vocal changes among characters was the best thing about the audiobook--letting the story tell itself, without the need for a "performance". Bravo
I would never "rate" or "review" a book based on this factor. If a reader says 'yes', then another says "no', I say "so what" to either and both.
More books need to be simply read rather than "performed". If people want a performance, go to a stage play. Wish narrators would leave the story alone--do they actually expect to improve on an author's work? Gosh I hope not; all they can do is detract from a book I want to enjoy.
Any narrator but Patton, who sounds like an aged version of the man who tries to sell Dodge trucks in tv ads while chewing on a cow patty. I can't imagine the appeal of an interpretation of Colorado and New England folk all sounding like grizzled, chin whiskered cowhands sitting around a kettle of baked beans over a campfire.
Nothing really. King wrote it for his old horror genre audience, who read, or at least enjoy their novels, at a jr. high reading level, not the sophistication that King employed in 11-22-63, or Joyland that were written for a different audience. Part of the mastery of King's writing has always been that he writes to his target demographic, depending on the book. I mean, can one really imagine that the real Stephen King would employ such trite-isms as "general consensus"?
ABP. Anyone but Patton. I still wonder if the authors have input into narrator choice and style of interpreting the audio version.
waste of money
Report Inappropriate Content