No Kiya, I have never ever tried "acoustic books". I concede, it never tempted me to try, maybe because I am old (from the good 1956 vintage <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) and love reading too much (or is it just a habit?).
I will seriously consider your recommendations.
However, though in absence of personal experience, one thought strikes me:
Are these books originally developped to be acoustic books, or not? Because it seems to me, that this would make a big difference. Though I so far did not enjoy people reading loud to me (since my grandfather, before I could read <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> - but then my impatience of wanting to know how the story goes on motivated me to learn to read early) - I did, and do, enjoy radio plays, where various "actors" speak the respective characters. You see the difference? (And not only because not everybody is a good "loud reader" = speaker)
Naming form and norm a God would certainly be contrary to my beliefs. But I do believe that they are sensible and valuable tools. And to create an own and original, though deviating form would IMO still require the knowledge of the norm. To ME (!), there is a difference between purposefully and in full knowledge ignoring the normal form in order to make a point, to create a certain feeling or even simply to try versus plain ignorance. And I also think, that a reader feels the difference.
