Did anyone else not get on with A Stitch In Time?

[AntonyF]

Two disclaimers before I say this.

1) I Have huge respect for Andrew Robinson and how he brought Garak to us in DS9.
2) I think I struggle with audiobooks to keep focus. I listen as I walk about and do other stuff and my brain isn't 100% on it. Then I lose details, and some of the story... so it could be I'm not well suited to fictional audio.

But... I'm a bit surprised how well it's reviewed considering I just couldn't get on with this.

I found the story quite dull to be honest. Lots of wandering around deserts and training and none of it that compelling. Stuff I'd like to have seen more of (i.e. station life and post-war Cardassia) felt an afterthought.

And Andrew's performance... well he had gruff voice, neutral voice and Quark voice - that was it. And I was really snapped out of it every time he did Quark and I imagined him sitting there holding his nose to do Quark's voice which he clearly was doing.

Even as Garak, he lost that sparkle of mystique and intrigue that Garak is all about. Perhaps made worse as he had no one to play off.

So my post isn't to criticise Andrew as I don't want to, but more to feel if others just didn't get into it either. Or if people have opinions on written vs audio.

 

[TheSeeker]

This seems like a better fit for Trek Lit. Sending it over.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I haven’t heard the audiobook (I’m not generally into audiobooks, although admittedly I do want to try this one sometime), but I loved the book when I read the paperback. It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but I do remember feeling that it was in the top-tier of Star Trek books.

 

[BillJ]

But... I'm a bit surprised how well it's reviewed considering I just couldn't get on with this.

I think it is a solid book, but much like DS9 TV show, not the end all be all great novel some folks think it is.

When it comes right down to it, I'd rather read something by Peter David, @Greg Cox, @Dayton Ward and a few others.

 

[Daddy Todd]

I quite enjoyed the audiobook. I thought Robinson's performance was spot on. I read the book once, a quarter century ago, and really liked it, so I was somewhat primed to like the audiobook.

I listen to audiobooks during my commutes to/from the office 3 days a week, roughly half an hour each way, so I'm accustomed to listening in small chunks. My brain has learned how to track a storyline experienced in small bits. Also, I don't really stress over details. I'm more into the big picture, and I can get that from a listen.

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

I think listening to it as an audiobook might be a factor, so I hope you'll give reading it a shot. Just my opinion: Books are meant to be read, not listened to!

As for the book itself, I thought it was great. As someone who loved the DS9 relaunch (or at least the first phases of it), it's a great set-up for many of the post-series elements, as well as giving great insights into Garak's character in general.

 

[Christopher]

I think listening to it as an audiobook might be a factor, so I hope you'll give reading it a shot. Just my opinion: Books are meant to be read, not listened to!

I can't agree with that, since parents reading books to their children is a vital part of early childhood development, both learning and emotional bonding, and letting a child read along while a parent reads to them is hands down the most effective way to teach children to read. Not to mention that for thousands of years before printing presses came along, books and literacy were rare, so the only way for most people to experience a book was to listen to someone reading it to them. There is nothing in the world more natural than listening to someone reading a book to you.

Not to mention that many people have visual impairments, dyslexia, or other conditions that make audiobooks necessary for them. So to say books aren't "meant" to be listened to is ableist as hell.

 

[BillJ]

Not to mention that many people have visual impairments, dyslexia, or other conditions that make audiobooks necessary for them. So to say books aren't "meant" to be listened to is ableist as hell.

I think they are talking about their personal experiences. With the tools they have.

 

[Christopher]

I think they are talking about their personal experiences. With the tools they have.

Then it should be phrased as a personal preference. "Not meant to be" implies a universal law. Words can be hurtful if chosen poorly.

 

[BillJ]

Then it should be phrased as a personal preference. "Not meant to be" implies a universal law. Words can be hurtful if chosen poorly.

And sometimes people look for things to complain about. I began to understand long ago, that not everything has to have a personal preference tag to know that folks are talking about their personal preferences.

 

[I am not Herbert]

Not to mention that many people have visual impairments, dyslexia, or other conditions that make audiobooks necessary for them. So to say books aren't "meant" to be listened to is ableist as hell.

C'mon, Christopher. The context of poster's statement (to say nothing of their prefatory "Just my opinion...") indicates this is not at all what they were trying to say. This sort of response chases people out of the forum.

 

[Christopher]

C'mon, Christopher. The context of poster's statement (to say nothing of their prefatory "Just my opinion...") indicates this is not at all what they were trying to say. This sort of response chases people out of the forum.

It's not about intent, because harm is often unintended. If you step on someone's foot without realizing it, that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt them.

Many of us use language that's inadvertently insensitive to others. I've done it myself, because we all do. And I've been glad when people have pointed out the problems with those usages so that I could avoid them going forward. Because we can't recognize our blind spots unless others point them out to us.

 

[BillJ]

It's not about intent, because harm is often unintended. If you step on someone's foot without realizing it, that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt them.

Many of us use language that's inadvertently insensitive to others. I've done it myself, because we all do. And I've been glad when people have pointed out the problems with those usages so that I could avoid them going forward. Because we can't recognize our blind spots unless others point them out to us.

This has been another episode of The Language Police!

 

[Tosk]

Then it should be phrased as a personal preference.

They literally said "Just my opinion" before the statement you're railing on.

Words can be hurtful if chosen poorly.

True.

Like calling someone ableist for saying that they personally think books should be read.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Well, this took a turn.

I really don't see how that statement could be taken as anything other than TheUsualSuspect's personal preferences. So let's please drop this tangent and get back to the topic of A Stitch in Time.

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

I hope it's okay to make one more post on this subject, given that I'm the one who unintentionally set the whole thing off.

My remark really was intended as a tongue-in-cheek statement of my own preference. Perhaps we need a tongue-in-cheek emoji! My first statement was directed at AntonyF since his post suggested that he was not particularly attentive in the way that he listened to the audiobook. If anything, since I really liked A Stitch in Time, I was trying to encourage him to give the book another shot. No general condemnation of listening to audiobooks was intended.