I love audiobooks and consume them frequently but I personally don’t call it reading. It doesn’t feel like the same activity to me. What do you think?
A lot of people have already weighed in, but allow me to give my opinion as a blind person very familiar with debates about what media a work is consumed in.
Most blind people today do not know braille and rely on text to speech to consume written material if they can’t use magnification. Braille is bulky. A braille bible takes up a shelf, and an encyclopedia (I was shocked to learn they exist) takes up an entire wall or more.
Braille is also expensive. A Perkins brailler, a typewriter used for writing braille, is north of $600 last I checked, and a refreshable braille display, a text terminal for reading computer output, costs at least $1500, and usually double that.
Last, braille is slow. I’ve heard conflicting claims about top reading speeds, but it seems the absolute peak just about hits the lower bound of a literate print reader.
Taking all these points together, it can be easy to see why many argue braille is dead. Audio in the form of text to speech is easier to produce, faster to consume, and only requires software.
Where this intersects with the question at hand, whether listening is the same as reading, is that reading braille activates the same regions of the brain as reading print, while audio does not.
Having said all that, I primarily use audio via text to speech for long texts, and magnification for shorter stuff. Braille was my first literacy medium, but my school pivoted to print when I was in third grade because I was struggling. Braille can be a tactile sensory nightmare if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing, and I absolutely am. It also involves more physical movement, of the hands and arms, compared to reading with the eyes. I do still try to read braille now and then, but I’m painfully slow. Currently working my way through The Hobbit, and can only manage a page or two per session.
Humans were telling stories to each other orally, way before they’d ever started writing those stories down. If you ask me, audiobooks are just an extension of that history. That doesn’t mean I think audiobooks are a superior format for reading, but it’s not an inferior one either.
As far as audiobooks go, this isn’t really much of a thing anymore, but the only important caveat I’d make is abridged books versus the whole thing. If you want to read a story, read the whole damn story. But that’s just equivalent to skimming through or looking up cliff notes for a hard copy.
If two people are standing in front of me, one read the book, the other listened to it, if both of those people know what happened in the book and can discuss it with comprehension, I’d be unable to tell which one read and which one listened. So, does it really matter? Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
Ingesting information is ingesting information. For most of human history stories were oral tradition rather than written. Accessibility is also a factor. Not everyone can physically read, nor can everyone listen to an audiobook or podcast. Both are valid options.
I’m impressed by anyone who can get through heavy, old literature without falling asleep no matter which format they choose though lol
heavy old literature isn’t information. it’s imagination.
probably why you find it so boring. because it’s not reductive transmission, it’s experiential and in order to understand if you have to put effort into it rather than simple ingest it.
it’s like saying cooking is the same as eating because it’s just nutrients, and what’s the point, just drink soylent.
I understand where you’re coming from and that’s a valid take.
For me it’s the time period and to a degree a resulting language barrier for certain pieces. Dostoyevsky for me, (I know W&P is Tolstoy, bear with me) was understandable but hard to bear with because he wrote like loved ones I have who have serious mental struggles. A lot of Russian culture and literature is similarly toned. Ralph Waldo Emerson came across to me as self-righteous. And Tolkien, though he’s a fantastic author, writes with heavy visual description which I can’t process well due to aphantasia.
Although, I loved Frankenstein and begrudgingly, also Jane Eyre. I also got a kick out of Chaucer. Every few years I’ll re-read Little Women. I also adore learning factual information.
I think most of it comes down to a variation in personal perspective/preference AND whether you’re critically engaging with the material you’re taking in. Hell, the Barbie movie can be thoughtfully critiqued. I’ve known folks who wrote doctorates on specific video games.
I’d argue the “cooking vs. eating” would be more comparable to “reading vs. writing,” though, no? Cooking ends with material output. Maybe “eating and savoring a meal vs. mindlessly downing a bag of chips.”
I agree with all you say.
For most of human history we also used the word read to describe one form of decoding and use other words for others. I’m trying to understand the seems to be changing or in dispute lately.
Good thing is that this doesn’t really get to be an opinion. Well, I guess anything can be an opinion, but this one is objectively wrong if you differentiate them.
There have been several studies done on this, and brain scans show that physically reading with your eyes and listening to an audiobook trigger the exact same responses in the brain. They have the exact same effect, and your brain comprehends them the exact same.
Studies back in the 80s showed a direct correlation in listening comprehension and reading comprehension. They’re directly linked. In the 70s, studies showed that college students that listened to a short story could summarize it with equal accuracy to those that read it.
The science is pretty clear, physically reading a story and listening to it are the exact same and require the same amount of effort and attention to walk away with a good comprehension of the material.
This is accurate as far as it goes. There are differences in natural performance that disappear with with constraints.
There is no difference with simple material under any conditions. As the material becomes more complex, reading has superior comprehension for natural conditions. This is because readers will speed up or slow down as the material dictates, but listeners don’t usually have or use that control. Readers will also hop back and read difficult passages a second or third time, again something that listeners can’t/don’t.
If you constrain readers by forcing them to read at a fixed pace without review then the differences become minimal again.
So there are definitely differences, but they are tied to the performance characteristics of the medium rather than a cognitive difference.
One of my kid’s schools had a wild debate about this for their yearly charity “Readathon.” The kids get sponsors to sign up to pledge the amount of money they will donate for each book the kid reads during the readathon. Parents are expected to sign off that their kid really did the reading for all the books they put on their sheet. Other than that its on the honor system. They’ve been doing it for 60+ years.
The kids don’t get any prizes but they do get certificates of recognition for various levels of achievement. It came up this year, that some parents count audiobooks and others don’t. They have been doing it like this for ome years now but it was never discussed before. The rules don’t say anything about audiobooks but they were written back when audiobooks weren’t common.
We had some seriously intense discussions in the Parents Charter (the name for our PTA) and lots of people have strong feelings about this! In the end the agreement was that transparency is best so the form has been updated with one side for audiobooks and one side for books. For purpose of donation they are counted the same.
This is one area where I think the distinction is actually important!
For kids, they’re learning to read. Heavy, repeated practice decoding and interpreting printed characters is the point.
Ultimately the activity of reading changes as you get older, into receiving new information and perspectives. At that point an audiobook is pretty much at parity. But earlier on in elementary and even middle grades, kids really need the actual reading IMO.
I have a relative who vastly prefers audiobooks. But his wife has to keep reminding him, don’t let their daughter take that shortcut. She has to actually learn to read (and read well) first.
I agree and for my kids that is the rule.
This is a tricky one. I’ve already posted a comment that may seem VERY contradictory to this one, but in this case, I think the kids should actually be reading.
The point of the readathon (aside from fundraising) is to get kids to practice reading, not to consume as much media as possible. Kids are already really good at that.
It would be like the band teacher allowing kids to listen to someone playing the trumpet instead of practicing themselves.
I think reading is inherently “better” as it forces you to sit down and focus on a single task to the exclusion of everything else. This is not the case with audiobooks as you can be doing other stuff at the same time. If you actually just sit down and listen then I no longer see hardly any difference there. However listening to a audiobook while doing other stuff means your attention by definition is not 100% in the book so it’s not the same thing. It’s like watching a TV serie while browsing social media on your phone.
For me, personally, it isn’t at all, as I will have absorbed about 5% of the information I would have with a book.
But then again, I have some sort of ADHD related audio processing issue, so my opinion on audio books doesn’t count.
I see it like jogging and cycling. Both good ways to get exercise, both good for you, and both can get you to the same place, but in the end they are two different ways to do it and each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
That’s how I always think about it too. Imagine telling someone “I jogged all the way to the store”. Assuming it’s more than a mile away, that might be a little surprising. If the person then says, “well I biked, but same point, I got there”, it’s a slightly different reaction. “I jogged” and “I biked” are two different things with different meanings.
Not that it should be looked down on or it’s bad at all.
I guess there’s a gap in the language a bit. There’s not a great sounding word (afaik) to indicate ‘consuming a book in whatever format’, so it’s understandable that ‘read’ evolves into that. Still, in most cases to me it makes more sense to choose between ‘read’ and ‘listened’.
I feel like there’s an analytical factor that comes with reading that doesn’t quite translate as effectively with audiobooks. Yes you can listen to a story on audiobook and understand the subtext and that’s great. But when you really want to pause and sit with a passage and ponder it further, or you’re trying to really dig into the way it’s constructed, I find that easier with a written page. It’s not impossible with an audiobook, just strikes me as maybe a little clunkier.
On the other hand, a good audio book reading can put emphasis on parts that don’t always leap out while reading, improving comprehension. Reading to my kiddo was a completely different experience than reading or listening because I paid more attention to contextual clues than I would have normally.
It does have different benefits for each method, and they even vary from peraon to person and some people benefit more from audio and other visual!
It is not reading. It’s listening. But whatever profound insights or wonderful stories are in the text will be in your head after either activity.
Not sure why reading or listening to a book would be an accomplishment, but let’s assume it is. Then my opinion is reading it would be the greater accomplishent because It takes more effort to read than listen.
because it takes effort.
not everyone reads purely for pleasure/entertainment. most folks do, sure, but that’s why War and Peace isn’t a breach read. It’s a book that often has an entire semester dedicated to it in a college curriculum.
just like there is a massive difference between a stroll in the park for 30m and trying to get a 5K runtime under 30m.
ITT: Gatekeeping readers.
Everyone claiming reading is superior because of some vague sense of it communicating the information “better” or because of your own subjective experiences sound just like all those people who thought the printing press would be a disaster because people would waste all their time reading instead of listening to people. Same energy, different time period.
If both people come away with the same understanding, what difference does it make? You can’t tell whether they read or listened unless you ask them. There’s nothing you can ask about the book that will give any indication one way or the other.
If both people come away with the same understanding, what difference does it make?
You’re not wrong, but this statement is doing a LOT of heavy lifting. By the time I am paying close enough attention to something on audio for there to be no difference, reading would have been more efficient.
That’s more of an issue personal to you. I can focus a lot better while listening than I can while reading. For similarly personal reasons.
The “if” is buckling under the strain.
That hasn’t been my experience. I listen to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich while jogging and bookmark moments with notes. Seems equally efficient (and arguably more so, if considering combining a menial task that creates boredom with something that centers your focus)
The only step above this I can think of is if you’re actually sitting down and reading it like a textbook, taking notes and making flashcards.
How do you bookmark and make notes while jogging? Do you stop? Genuinely curious as a headphone free runner.
I should’ve clarified I’m on a treadmill with audible open in front of me
I think my oldass san disk mp3 player has a bookmark function as well if I’m out on a run somewhere, but I tend to listen to music on those faster runs. The slower zone 2/3 runs tend to be longer and invoke more boredom, so audiobooks or podcasts suit the pace. Harder runs begin to increasingly divert your focus.
I love books and audiobooks both. I also consider them entirely different activities. Each has its own advantages depending on your circumstances, needs, and preferences. Why is it gatekeeping to say that the two activities are distinct ways to consume material?
If you just have if in the background and effectively remember nothing, no. If you pay attention, then it’s the same.
Same thing if by reading you’re just moving your eyes over the lines.
I guess reading and listening to audiobooks/podcasts is never something I have fully equated. The latter I do when I’m trying to kill time on road trips or whatever. This means my attention level is not 100% on the narrative, and I may miss parts of it. I am a little prone to attention wandering when I’m reading also, but when that happens and I return to the novel, I’m still right there in the same place, so I don’t miss anything.
I’m not knocking it but I don’t consider audiobooks reading. You are using two different input systems, going through different parts of the brain. They both require different skills to process and retain the information.
They’ve done studies on this that have actually found the opposite. There is little to no functional difference between reading a physical book and listening to an audiobook in the brain. Once the decoding stage of reading concludes and the stage where you assign meaning to and between words begins, the process is the same between methods. There’s no change in understanding or retention.
