There's quite an uproar brewing over the question of whether listening to audiobooks is, in some ways, cheating -- at least as far as a book group in Virginia is concerned. An article in the August 2 edition of The New York Times recounts the experience one member had when she confessed that she had used the audiobook version of that month's selection rather than read the actual novel.

Now maybe the controversy had to do more with the book in question -- Rohinton Mistry's A Fine Balance, which tops out at more than 600 pages -- rather than the format of the novel. I mean, if I had lugged a 3-inch tome around with me for a few weeks, as opposed to just merely booting up my iPod or turning on my CD player, then maybe I'd fuss at my fellow club member, too.

But for those of us who are devotees of audiobooks, the idea that fellow book lovers would be outraged over the choice to use one's ears rather than eyes to "read" a book seems a bit much. Personally speaking, listening to audiobooks has given me some of the most enjoyable hours I've ever spent with a book. The History of Love and Middlesex are just two examples of excellent audiobook productions. And the book in question -- A Fine Balance -- was also a wonderful experience. In fact, there are many cases in which I have found that I retained the names of characters and sequence of events better than I did when I read a book in the traditional way.

If a reader/listener chooses the abridged versus unabridged version, then maybe the accusation of "cheating" is valid. But otherwise, I think audiobooks offer busy readers a more satisfying alternative to the car radio, or a delightful diversion when slaving away over a hot iron on Sunday afternoons.

Any thoughts?
CH