Audio books

[dodge]

Drago-Kazov wrote:

---

Does audible track how much audiobooks they sell for diferent franchises?

I've never heard of a store that doesn't track how much of what they sell...

[Therin of Andor]

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Of course it didn't help that ST audiobooks were mostly horrible. Abridged cliff notes that did a disservice to an author's intent to tell a story.

Totally disagree with you there, but I guess it's what you're looking for. I never expected a ST audiobook to give me the same experience as what I had just read. And I never felt the need to rehear the entire contents of the book I'd already read.

I guess that people who like/demand unabridged novels listen to them instead of actually reading them? I bought them for new voice performances by the Star Trek actors I loved. My disillusionment probably started when George Truett started doing all the adaptations (most earlier ones were supposedly abridged by the original authors; they started mentioning in interviews that they were no longer being asked), and it deepened when ST actors were no longer getting the gig, in favour of stock S&S Audioworks performers.

As I said earlier, it's actually the unabridged audiobooks in my collection I've never gotten around to hearing. If I've already read the book, I'd probably rather be reading the next new book on my pile than hearing someone read an old one to me all again.

I admit, I was rather bewildered when unabridged books even started turning up. I saw a "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" in a store (I already had an abridgment, but then the original book expands on the old radio show scripts) and already had the abridged version. Did I really need Douglas Adams in my ear reading his entire book?

You may disagree with that but most people hate/hated abridged audiobooks which is why that particular form of audiobook is all but extinct now outside of a handful you still see in stores.

"Most people"? I always assumed the move to longer and longer abridgments was due the commercial success of each new release, and then the advent of CD technology (and now downloads) improved the economic viability that eliminated the need/expense to make and store giant packages for the bulky plastic-and-tape audio cassettes.

That people now prefer, or can have, unabridged stories doesn't necessarily mean they "hated" the old, abridged stories.

[JWolf]

But who has the right to give me a story that's incomplete and expect me to like it? Abridged was awful and I never bothered with the Star Trek audiobooks because S&S didn't care enough to do it right.

[Christopher]

JWolf wrote:

---

But who has the right to give me a story that's incomplete and expect me to like it?

Ummm, anyone who's ever made a movie based on a novel? Those invariably trim out huge amounts of content, because adapting a full book would take a whole miniseries' worth of time. (Even Peter Jackson's extended cuts of Lord of the Rings leave out a bunch of stuff from the books.)

There's also Reader's Digest and other publications over the generations that have presented condensed versions of novels and stories. Those have been very popular for a long time. A lot of people want shorter versions of stories because they only have so much time to devote to reading. A condensed version lets them get the essence of the story more efficiently, and for some people, that's desirable. So don't go spouting self-righteous rubbish about your "rights" being violated. You just have different tastes from the target audience, that's all.

Abridged was awful and I never bothered with the Star Trek audiobooks because S&S didn't care enough to do it right.

You're forgetting, this was before digital audio, and you could only fit a finite amount of content on a cassette tape. It's the same reason movie soundtrack album releases back then were incomplete -- there just wasn't room to be comprehensive. They weren't cheating anyone out of anything, because it wasn't practical to do an unabridged version in the first place; it would've filled up too many cassettes and been too expensive. It didn't really become a practical idea until the age of digital media and downloads. S&S did the best they could given the technology and the market of the era.

[NKemp3]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Totally disagree with you there, but I guess it's what you're looking for. I never expected a ST audiobook to give me the same experience as what I had just read. And I never felt the need to rehear the entire contents of the book I'd already read.

Most people don't listen to an audiobook after they read the book. They listen to an audiobook as an alternative (sometimes a preferred one) to reading the book itself. That's how it works for me.

[QUOTE}I guess that people who like/demand unabridged novels listen to them instead of actually reading them?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

I bought them for new voice performances by the Star Trek actors I loved.

Having actors who play a character read a book to me is merely a gimmick. And I'm sure that it was a popular one when the audiobook industry first got up and running. But most people who are getting into audiobooks now do so because of convenience. It doesn't matter to us who the narrators are. Actually the professional narrators that Audible has in its stable are so good that you don't want anyone else doing the job.

"Most people"? I always assumed the move to longer and longer abridgments was due the commercial success of each new release, and then the advent of CD technology (and now downloads) improved the economic viability that eliminated the need/expense to make and store giant packages for the bulky plastic-and-tape audio cassettes.

That people now prefer, or can have, unabridged stories doesn't necessarily mean they "hated" the old, abridged stories.

Well, I'll throw it back at you the way you did with your reasons for why ST audiobooks are rare to find these days: if abridged audiobooks were so popular then why are they far more rare now? From all I have seen no one wants to get 1/4 a story or 1/10 a story or 1/20 a story. If you are going to commit to an audiobook you want the real deal. That's why when you go to Audible you'll see that hardly anyone is producing abridged versions of the books. I'm guessing this is strange to you because from your personal perspective you may have preferred a cliffnotes-like version of the audiobooks you were interested in. Maybe this is because you have been part of the demographic that was turned off by the idea of an entire book being "read" to you. I get that. The audiobook industry knows that it still has to face a perception that audiobooks are for grandmothers whose eyesight have failed them. What I'm trying to convey is that the attitude is changing and more folks who love books are going the audio route not because of poor eyes, but because of convenience and even enjoyment.

Last month I finsihed the audiobook of 1Q84. The total time of the audio presentation was over 43 hours! I hesitated purchasing it at first because I thought it would take me an eternity to finish that. In fact I put off of listening it for months after I brought it because of that same concern. But I finally committed to listening to it during my commutes to and from work, during my early morning inventory updates at the firm I work for and during a couple of my weekend jogs. I completed it in just under 3 weeks.

[NKemp3]

Christopher wrote:

---

Ummm, anyone who's ever made a movie based on a novel? Those invariably trim out huge amounts of content, because adapting a full book would take a whole miniseries' worth of time. (Even Peter Jackson's extended cuts of Lord of the Rings leave out a bunch of stuff from the books.)

Bad example because movies and books are entirely different genres. The average book will take far more time to finish than watching a movie based upon the book. But books and audiobooks are in the same genre, just different subcategories. All the audiobook is supposed to be is the spoken version of the written word. And if one wanted to enjoy the entirety of a particular written word, the abridged version was a poor route to go. As a result people tended to avoid them entirely.

There's also Reader's Digest and other publications over the generations that have presented condensed versions of novels and stories. Those have been very popular for a long time.

A lot of people want shorter versions of stories becaus


Since when? That excerpted format is not much of a draw. Yes, people want short stories which is why there is still a short story market out there for all sorts of genre. I have a monthly subscription to one of those mags that provide short stories from mystery writers. But there isn't much clamoring these days for shortened versions of actual novels. You only see some of that in a select magazine as a way of enticing readers to go out and get the complete version.

Abridged was awful and I never bothered with the Star Trek audiobooks because S&S didn't care enough to do it right.

You're forgetting, this was before digital audio, and you could only fit a finite amount of content on a cassette tape. It's the same reason movie soundtrack album releases back then were incomplete -- there just wasn't room to be comprehensive. They weren't cheating anyone out of anything, because it wasn't practical to do an unabridged version in the first place; it would've filled up too many cassettes and been too expensive. It didn't really become a practical idea until the age of digital media and downloads. S&S did the best they could given the technology and the market of the era.

Respectfully disagree. Working at a book store in the late 90s I couldn't understand when I saw untested work such as the first Harry Potter novel get released with both abridged and unabridged audiobooks. This is before anyone could be sure that HP would sell well in the States. Meanwhile Star Trek, at its height in popularity thanks to TNG, was putting books on the NY Times Bestsellers list and yet for the most part its audio versions were unabridged. Sure it is possible that unabridged versions of ST books could have been huge disasters financially, but S&S never really tried to go for it and find out.

Twice I can recall customers asking me if there was an unabridged version of these books; one lady asked because she was going to be travelling by car throughout the weekend and wanted something to listen to. These folks had no interest in the abridged versions because those only lasted two to three hours which meant most of the story would have been lost. Let me also say that I'm comparing S&S to what was being done with the Star Wars audiobooks. There was a big difference. SW had its share of abridged of course but it also provided full cast audio versions with a dozen or so actors on each reading dialogue of the various main characters. The SW books tended to put more money in background sound effects and music too. And of course it had its share of unabridged audio too. Trek audio books never seemed to get that type of carefully crafted handling.

[Christopher]

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Bad example because movies and books are entirely different genres.

No, because my point was that those early abridged audiobooks weren't meant to be exact equivalents or replacements, but adaptations to a different medium, not unlike movies. Today's unabridged audiobooks may be more like books per se, but I don't think it works to apply that same standard to the early Trek audiobooks.

Since when? That excerpted format is not much of a draw.

Reader's Digest Condensed Books (now called Select Editions) have been in continuous publication for over 60 years. I mean, come on, it's such a perennially popular series that its name became synonymous with the idea of condensed storytelling, even a metaphor for brevity. You often hear people say "Give me the Reader's Digest version" when they mean "keep it short and concise." So yes, obviously there is a market for shortened versions of novels. Just as there are plenty of people out there who don't like to read at all, there are also plenty of people who don't like to read too much, who wouldn't have the patience to read a full-length novel and just want a briefer version.

Respectfully disagree. Working at a book store in the late 90s I couldn't understand when I saw untested work such as the first Harry Potter novel get released with both abridged and unabridged audiobooks. This is before anyone could be sure that HP would sell well in the States. Meanwhile Star Trek, at its height in popularity thanks to TNG, was putting books on the NY Times Bestsellers list and yet for the most part its audio versions were unabridged. Sure it is possible that unabridged versions of ST books could have been huge disasters financially, but S&S never really tried to go for it and find out.

You're comparing a media tie-in franchise to an original novel series? I'd call that an invalid comparison on the face of it. There's probably less financial incentive for an audiobook publisher to do tie-in adaptations in the first place, because they have to split the royalties with more people and get a smaller piece of the pie, and because the market for an adaptation of a tie-in to a mass-media franchise is probably pretty tiny to begin with. So they probably didn't see enough profit potential to invest in an unabridged version. But those factors wouldn't apply to an original novel, especially one that was already a huge hit overseas.

Twice I can recall customers asking me if there was an unabridged version of these books; one lady asked because she was going to be travelling by car throughout the weekend and wanted something to listen to. These folks had no interest in the abridged versions because those only lasted two to three hours which meant most of the story would have been lost.

Twice?! You heard objections only twice out of the whole time you worked there, and that convinces you it's a universal attitude?

Let me also say that I'm comparing S&S to what was being done with the Star Wars audiobooks. There was a big difference. SW had its share of abridged of course but it also provided full cast audio versions with a dozen or so actors on each reading dialogue of the various main characters. The SW books tended to put more money in background sound effects and music too. And of course it had its share of unabridged audio too. Trek audio books never seemed to get that type of carefully crafted handling.

When has Star Wars not been a bigger seller than Star Trek in head-to-head competition? They could afford to do those things because they had reason to expect enough profit to justify that overhead. You can't just assume that a large enough audience will magically appear if you pour money into something. Yes, doing a better job will probably get you more patrons up to a point, but there are limits.

[NKemp3]

Christopher wrote:

---

No, because my point was that those early abridged audiobooks weren't meant to be exact equivalents or replacements, but adaptations to a different medium, not unlike movies. Today's unabridged audiobooks may be more like books per se, but I don't think it works to apply that same standard to the early Trek audiobooks.

Yes, because you are still comparing two totally different things. Whether you want to own up to it or not a movie is never meant to tell the same story of the book. In fact movies can take liberties by changing outcomes, combining characters, moving plot points from the middle to the beginning, etc. An audiobook, on the other hand, is meant to convey the same story of the book. It is only an audio version of the written word. As a result it has always been considered a subcategory of the book business (the same can't be said of film obviously). When you gut more than half the story you basically defeat the purpose of the audiobook which is to allow the story in its entirety to be read to the listener

Reader's Digest Condensed Books

(now called Select Editions) have been in continuous publication for over 60 years. I mean, come on, it's such a perennially popular series that its name became synonymous with the idea of condensed storytelling, even a metaphor for brevity. You often hear people say "Give me the Reader's Digest version" when they mean "keep it short and concise." So yes, obviously there is a market for shortened versions of novels. Just as there are plenty of people out there who don't like to read at all, there are also plenty of people who don't like to read too much, who wouldn't have the patience to read a full-length novel and just want a briefer version.

It being synonymous with the idea does not make it currently popular. Readers prefer short stories to condensed stories of novels. Condensed stories major purpose these days is to catch the attention of readers who would then seek out the complete text for purchase.

You're comparing a media tie-in franchise to an original novel series? I'd call that an invalid comparison on the face of it. There's probably less financial incentive for an audiobook publisher to do tie-in adaptations in the first place, because they have to split the royalties with more people and get a smaller piece of the pie, and because the market for an adaptation of a tie-in to a mass-media franchise is probably pretty tiny to begin with. So they probably didn't see enough profit potential to invest in an unabridged version. But those factors wouldn't apply to an original novel, especially one that was already a huge hit overseas.

Wait. The same argument coming from your point of view, could apply to publishing books in the first place for franchises like Star Trek. After all...the books are tie-ins too, right? So wouldn't the same issue apply? Of course it would. But they go ahead and publish those books anyway. Why not the audio portion then? There will always be a certain percentage of people interested purchasing an audio edition. Not just for Harry Potter or Prize winning books. For all books. Yes, some are going to sell far more than others and make a profit. But again the same can be said for books in general.

Twice I can recall customers asking me if there was an unabridged version of these books; one lady asked because she was going to be travelling by car throughout the weekend and wanted something to listen to. These folks had no interest in the abridged versions because those only lasted two to three hours which meant most of the story would have been lost.

Twice?! You heard objections only twice out of the whole time you worked there, and that convinces you it's a universal attitude?

Ha. I knew that would be a response. A manager used to tell me that a comment a customer had regarding a frustration they had was the same as a complaint sent in by letter to, say, a TV station. Every one you hear represents dozens more that are never verbalized or spoken of (or written about). That's how I view it. But let's say that's wrongheaded and let's say I concede your sarcastic point that the two remarks are a ridiculously unimportant and low number. You know what's worse? The actual ZERO requests from people clamoring for abridged editions and the ZERO complaints from people that they could only find unabridged versions of a book and not any abridged versions.

Let me also say that I'm comparing S&S to what was being done with the Star Wars audiobooks. There was a big difference. SW had its share of abridged of course but it also provided full cast audio versions with a dozen or so actors on each reading dialogue of the various main characters. The SW books tended to put more money in background sound effects and music too. And of course it had its share of unabridged audio too. Trek audio books never seemed to get that type of carefully crafted handling.

When has Star Wars not been a bigger seller than Star Trek in head-to-head competition? They could afford to do those things because they had reason to expect enough profit to justify that overhead. You can't just assume that a large enough audience will magically appear if you pour money into something. Yes, doing a better job will probably get you more patrons up to a point, but there are limits.

You can't also assume that putting out a more shoddy and cheaply produced edition will lead to sales when consumers have examples of other audiobooks of finer quality to compare it too. Who wants to purchase an inferior product? Isn't it part of being a smart business person to realize that?

Of course I realize SW was more popular....even though the prequels were still a couple of years away. Again though if SW is so much more popular that ST could not hope to compete in the audiobook market, doesn't the same argument apply to the larger book market as well? So why publish the books then? All those trees, all those covers, all that ink, all of those shipping costs. That's expensive too especially considering the bulk of books that were coming off the presses back then. Point is S&S kept putting out books like SW but didn't try to put much effort into audio. S&S was dipping a couple of toes into the waters of the book industry while the folks behind SW were all but dumping the entire foot. How was S&S to know how much merchandise they could really move without going all out?

[Therin of Andor]

Christopher wrote:

---

because my point was that those early abridged audiobooks weren't meant to be exact equivalents or replacements, but adaptations to a different medium, not unlike movies. Today's unabridged audiobooks may be more like books per se, but I don't think it works to apply that same standard to the early Trek audiobooks.

Exactly!

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Yes, because you are still comparing two totally different things. Whether you want to own up to it or not a movie is never meant to tell the same story of the book. In fact movies can take liberties by changing outcomes, combining characters, moving plot points from the middle to the beginning, etc. An audiobook, on the other hand, is meant to convey the same story of the book.

The early S&S ST audios, "with Leonard Nimoy as the voice of Spock", are quite different animals. They are not simply truncated versions to the print book. The Spock scenes are rewritten in the first person, as science officers' logs, making those audios new pieces of ST entertainment, not just a trained actor reading a book you could have read yourself.

ST's abridged audios were, at first, nothing like the concept of an unabridged book-on-tape that started to grow in popularity.

It is only an audio version of the written word.

Not those early ones!

NKemp3 wrote:

---

SW had its share of abridged of course but it also provided full cast audio versions with a dozen or so actors on each reading dialogue of the various main characters.

John Ordover once told me that S&S Audioworks did not hold the rights for full-cast audios. I wasn't sure if that meant some other company held them, and chose not to use them, or S&S simply chose not to purchase such a license - perhaps because Paramount wanted too much for those rights, or didn't care to make them available?

The closest they got were audios that used tracks made for "Star Trek: Klingon" and "Star Trek: Borg" computer games. And three original-to-audio "Captain Sulu" productions, which utilized a then-new "3-D Sound" technology (which worked extremely well with the CDs and headphones, not so well with audio cassettes).

So why publish the books then? All those trees, all those covers, all that ink, all of those shipping costs. That's expensive too especially considering the bulk of books that were coming off the presses back then. Point is S&S kept putting out books like SW but didn't try to put much effort into audio.

With MMPBs, the more you print, the cheaper each unit becomes, and the higher the potential profit.

JWolf wrote:

---

But who has the right to give me a story that's incomplete and expect me to like it? Abridged was awful and I never bothered with the Star Trek audiobooks because S&S didn't care enough to do it right.

If you "never bothered with them", how do you know what they were like?

Which ones have you heard?

[Emh]

Christopher wrote:

---

It would be cool if Trek could get an audiobook franchise like Doctor Who has, with fully dramatized plays bringing back original cast members. If only Big Finish would get the license -- and hire us Pocket authors!

Terrible idea. They're already getting far too much money from me every year as it is!

[Smitty]

well, I have not read all the posts here, but any arguments aside I can state that I for one would be a big customer of unabridged Star Trek books. I love audible.com, I listen to books constantly since I spend about 2 hours a day, 10 hours a week in commute (driving or I would read). I have tried the abridged ones but it did not work for me. Case in point, the book Prime Directive is rated very high as star trek books go. I tried the abridged version and it never really grabbed me and I found it difficult to follow sometimes.

[tomswift2002]

Movies do trim out a lot of stuff from adapted books, either because in the book there was information that was stated twice, but in the movie, the way it's edited together or scripted you only need the info once; or how about the ever famous "it was a minor scene and we just couldn't fit it infor time". Of course the other is that the scene just didn't work for the movie. Look at how many times "A Christmas Carol" has been adapted, and while they tell the exact same story as Dicken's original novel, and even in most cases use the same language, there is some stuff that is invariable cut. I've seen early film adaptations of "Christmas Carol" from 1910 and 1913 where, for time, the producers had Marley show Scrooge everything, instead of having the individual Ghosts appear too do the same job,

[Therin of Andor]

Here's a stray thought about why Simon & Schuster may not have pushed unabridged audios when the technology was making them more efficient to produce.

If unabridged novels are bought by people as an alternative to reading the hardcopy book, but the book sales are still respectable, is there a pressing need to put a finger in the dyke?

Yes, the abridged novels reacted to changing trends over the decades. They got longer and longer, and fewer in number, eventually only adapting hardcovers, moving to CD-format and cheaper narrators, and eventually drying up all together. But, in my own experience, I was a completist and only twice played the abridged audio before reading the book ("Sarek" and "Stone and Anvil"), and then I had to read the book.

Unabridged audios might attract new consumers who prefer not to read, but established fans are supposed to choose audio or book, but not both?

[JWolf]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

If you "never bothered with them", how do you know what they were like?

Which ones have you heard?

I have heard some by borrowing from the library. For example, Imzadi was not all that good (IMHO) due to being abridged. I read the book first and then listened. If it's a story I am enjoying, I want more, not less.

[Therin of Andor]

JWolf wrote:

---

I have heard some by borrowing from the library. For example, Imzadi was not all that good (IMHO) due to being abridged.

Made in 1992, when most unabridged audio novels - of any genre - were made mainly for hearing impaired people. And were extremely expensive for most people, even if you could find them.

Six months ago, I bought an ex-public library unabridged version of "Sarek", narrated by Nick Sullivan. A huge, now fragile, plastic box from Chivers Sound Library containing ten cassettes. 879 min. Such products were simply not very commercial in 2001 - when I open it, at least five of the ten cassettes fall off their pegs and tumble out - and Simon & Schuster Audioworks didn't attempt to do such unabridged ST novels until CD technology came along. (So far, I've not managed to find 879 spare minutes to listen to it.)

By comparison, the audio book of "Sarek" that S&S put out was 180 mins, in a neat, slim package, narrated by Sarek himself, with an original soundtrack. And I loved it! Several times. Mind you, it was released way back in 1994, before unabridged novels were even popular.