Apropos of nothing, anybody who says that audiobooks aren’t “real” reading or that people who use them aren’t “real” readers can kiss both my ass and my royalty statement.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
HOUSEKEEPING UPDATE: Lest anyone accuse me of not being sufficiently Bluesky, I promise I will only bat around the hostile people in the replies for a little bit before I block them.
"not sufficiently Bluesky" reminds me of sorority rush m.s. (membership selection) all-nighters where like clockwork a crying sister would seal someone's fate by saying "I just love her so much but...she's just not Theta"
For anyone wishing to come in and be an asshole, your block occurs at approximately midnight EST, so please try to get any zingers off now if it’ll pain you to have missed them later.
Why are there all these individuals so hell bent on dehumanizing the rest of us.
I don’t have any mitigating circumstances; but sometimes I’m just tired and want to listen instead of keep my eyes open.
“Tell me a story” is as old as humanity.
putting audiobooks in a second, lesser category based solely on personal opinion (and to be clear, there is no other support for this idea) is inherently disrespectful.
I wanna swim upstream watching them snap at the wiggling bait replies and strain at the hook. I know it's healthier to let them suffocate, it's just less fun that way.
Gods. Totally. Just finished listening to Middlemarch on audioble. I lack the concentration for reading hefty 19th c novels but listening to it, I just want to grab strangers and tell them what a staggering work of genius it is. Is it wrong that Middlemarch is my book of the year?
Ohhh! I read this... egads, almost 30 years ago, because a friend told me that it was his favorite novel, despite having the absolutely most boring plot synopsis he could imagine (we both grew up on sci-fi and fantasy). I read it and it blew me away. Gonna look for the audiobook for a re-read.
Honestly, I did a whole course on the 19thc novel at uni, aced it, never got anywhere with Middlemarch. But I’m a strong believer in the right book at the right age; eg Salinger - young people
I've always been an avid reader, and like some older stuff that can be very dense and wordy, and am also finding (from checking out audiobooks on Libby) that often the older a work is the more I'd rather have someone read it to me.
You are so right. It’s like the rhythm of speech has massively altered over the centuries and having a voice reading it out just makes it make sense. This is v true of poetry.
Agreed, totally. It's like trying to read Shakespeare. You can't imagine anyone actually speaking like that in casual conversation. Watching Kenneth Branagh in 'Henry V' was the first time I went, "Oooohhh, so THAT'S what it sounds like." The language made sense in my ears for the first time.
I have a number of Dickens novels on my audio wish list at the library for the same reason. As a lovely bonus, the narrators all tend to be top-notch and read the books as if performing them on stage (I suspect many narrators are, in fact, British stage actors!)
That really helps! Someone well trained whose voice is a proper instrument is the gold standard. My absolute fave Dickens is Bleak House. It’s just *shivers* extraordinary. But maybe not entry-level Dickens. If you want t to ease in I’d go with David Copperfield. BH is the best though.
See also: Ulysses. I tried multiple times to read it - print, ebook, and always gave up around page 50 or thereabouts. The audiobook was MUCH easier to deal with.
I'm a huge Tolkien nerd, but I always found The Silmarillion so dry and dense. Then I heard Martin Shaw reading it. OMG, it's amazing! Not surprising given Tolkien's background, but it *sounds* so much better as a spoken epic than a written one!
This is good to know, bc I have a friend who teaches Middlemarch and raved so strongly that I’m temped to read it. But I too have lost patience with dense 19th century novels. Ofc, I read so much faster than I listen that it’ll take me YEARS to get thru it….
I‘ve read it last year, it was my third try and before I always got bored with the first 15 pages or so. It really takes up speed and turned out to be one of my all time favorites.
I strongly feel that some books are actually all about reading them at the right time. Eg, you have to read Bonjour Tristesse at about 17 and it will be perfect. Salinger - one for the kids.
I never noticed until you pointed it out so it’s all good, right? Also, surely everyone reading it knew what you meant even if their brain did not autocorrect :)
That makes sense. This idea that the only way of ingesting a book is a single person reading a non to themselves is new. Books and newspapers all used to be read aloud to other people back then.
See lectors in factories. Workers may have been illiterate, but they were well informed.
That was Moby Dick for me. Tried reading it a couple times and it was a slog. Listened to an audiobook at 1.5 speed while following along with the text and suddenly it was a work of staggering genius and I was in heaven.
It's so weird that "reading is the wrong word" is a hill people are willing to die on, considering that they all make exactly the same arguments, and those arguments are all dogshit.
If they want to come up with another word for “absorbed and internalized the words in a book” they’re welcome to try. I’ll be interested to see if it catches on.
Read/rede/raeden originally meant "to advise, counsel" . Nothing to do at all with written letters. It's one of the weird atypical word uses in English. Even Celtic languages' words for reading text go back to Latin's word for writing, much like literate and literature go back to letters.
I actively use the phrase "read audiobooks" because it triggers the right folks. (And because I want to normalize it for those who need the accomodation, not just those of us who find it more convenient.)
I've struggled a bit with phrasing myself. "Listening to an audiobook" seems redundant, but my usual "I'm listening to the audio version" is not exactly an improvement, lol.
I think I'm going to stop the struggle and go with your approach (for both the reasons you listed!)
If have 6 shelving units,full of books ive read,some i could never read,due to loss of value.In later life with my health issues.
Audio books have been a life saver,when i am in too much pain at night,listening too a audio book can be a god sent.Can also send me to sleep.Yet i remember the last word
Agreed, as someone who finds them jarring, because they are not read in the voices my head would make; as well as some problems with people near microphones.
Hey, lovely. Just want to let you know that having replied to one of your posts I have been besieged by book people and it’s great. I’m not sure this ever happened on Twitter. Your followers are amazing! Nobody has randomly called me a woke cunt! Not sure what is even happening! Xx
I lost 40kg of weight in 8 months , in 2018, I walked every single day for hours, without audiobooks I couldn’t have done it, and I improved my knowledge no end
Personally i have found that for a REREAD (when you already know the plot) - Audiobooks shine. I have processing issues on a first listen because I am incapable of "just focusing on the audio".
A while back on a long road trip I was alternating between audiobook and kindle version for a series I was very into (whispersync was a BLESSING) and found that I missed different things from the narrative depending on whether I read it with my eyes or ears. Never dug into that tho.
absolutely! they put me right to sleep, so i can't do them-- but the legitimacy of them as a form of reading is one of the hills i have chosen to stand firm on! different accessibility does not make it less legitimate! our ancestors did not participate in storytelling for us to naysay it.
I'm not normally an audiobook person except for rereads, but I went on a 5500mi solo road trip last summer and listened to both What Moves the Dead & Thornhedge! They made Kansas and South Dakota more enjoyable 😊
I rarely use audio books because I lack the patience. I read faster than I listen. Even with podcasts I can’t do much more than 1.5x. And speeding up audio novels is particularly unpleasant.
But I am a staunch proponent of audio text access. “Reading by ear” is reading, full stop.
You might see if there's a library for the blind in the area. They'll often have audiobooks specially recorded at much faster speeds than commercial audiobooks for that very reason.
I totally get this—-but flipped! I intentionally use audio books to slow down my tornado brain. It may be immaterial to the conversation, but I dislike narrators and use the AI voice accessibility option. I can then color the characters to my imagination
Same. The 15-min sleep timer has been a blessing. I usually drift on within that time, especially with certain narrators who have a calming voice and prosody.
Am I allowed to comment on the phrase "apropos of" without being banned? If it helps, I believe audiobooks are absolutely essential in some parts of our crowded lives, including but not limited to commuting and exercising.
No, it's variant-independent but as the OP said, usage has a way of making the incorrect correct. Switching from French to English mid-sentence is pretty much rule-bending anyway.
We’re actually switching mid-idiom because the original French phrase is “a propos de”, meaning “to the purpose of”. Grammatically speaking it does need the “of” to replace the missing “de”.
In French it’s “à propos de” so I don’t see why it wouldn’t take the equivalent preposition (“of”) in English? I think it looks and sounds weird because it’s missing something :)
I’m not a diehard preference in either direction but i think the epistemological value of literature was in detecting the themes and messages of a story and not inherent to having your eyes over a page
Love both audio & print books. Time & place for both. Individuals who are blind audio is great! Deaf print is! Built-in inclusiveness! Reading stimulates parts of my brain that print misses audio another part. So it's good for cognitive function! You learn better the more senses you engage.
I do both. I love reading text, but have limited time for it. I found I need to speed up the audio or I forget to pay attention, but audiobooks are a whole other world and can add new dimensions to a text I've read on paper. And also just good in general.
I listen to audio books. I also read physical books and ebooks. Audio books are for the car or at work when reading a physical book won't work. (Also sometimes at night as a "bedtime story.")
They are so helpful. I drive 40 minutes back and forth and instead of listening to bad news I concentrate on the road and listen to them. Right now in Blake Pierce’s book. The missing persons detective is looking for a teenager 😬that was kidnapped.
Yes! I rarely listen to the car radio anymore. Even when my husband & I do errands together, we have a series we are re-listening to while driving around.
I picked this idea up from a podcast, but I listen to a book and if it seems to be one that I want to go deeper on or really capture then I also read it after.
Yo, it’s not reading. It’s listening and it activates a different part of the brain. It’s an ample substitute for the real deal and a great way to take in content.
It may be equally good or differently good, but it’s not the same.
Great article and thanks for sharing. I have thoughts on it, but no research to assert so I won’t defend against it. Being pedantic though it’s still not reading. It’s listening.
Which again, I think is a great substitute, stand in, or replacement for reading, it’s just technically not reading.
omg ME TOO. i’ve read that series with both my eyes and with my ears and Moira Quirk’s reading is so phenomenal that it’s canon to me. her interpretation helped me discover nuance i missed when i read with my eyes.
I don't know why people are constructing "anti-audiobook," "snobbery," or "exclusionary" feelings from saying listening is not the same as reading.
Also, I don't want to kiss your ass and good for you to get a royalty check.
I thought people were mean and arrogant about facts on twitter...
100% agree. It's a different experience, but valid and more accessible. Audiobooks also add the extra dimension of a good narrator. It can be the difference between reading Shakespeare and watching it performed. Both are wonderful in their own ways, and either way you come away knowing the play.
A stellar narrator can add so much. eg Chiwetel Ejiofor added an ethereal quality to Piranesi. Robin Miles captured the geography and vastness of the Broken Earth trilogy with her accents. And Jonathon Jones made Nine Goblins an absolute blast.
I am trying audiobooks--trying really hard. But for me they're not a commute-time activity and after five to ten minutes at home, they lull me to sleep.
Audiobooks aren't right for everyone&there's nothing wrong with that! Personally I only like them while doing things where I can't read-by-eye (driving, dishes, etc.) The issue is the people who say that audiobooks are somehow a lesser format of book, as if story isn't story regardless of delivery.
I wish I could join the audiobook and podcast bandwagon. Unless I have something visually related to focus on while listening, my mind wanders too much and I end up missing important stuff.
Yeah, I have to do something else during as well, but yet I still got the whole story... I rarely use audio books but I have occasionally bemoaned that I can't read and draw at the same time...
As someone who enjoys audiobooks, ebooks, physical books (any and all format really) let people enjoy the literary world however they want! Sheesh, when did reading become so exclusive?
Even if they're the type of pendant that gets itchy when a word is used in a way that's different from how you define it, it's a really lame hill to die on.
I love audiobooks! I can get boring things done and still be entertained. I use all 3 ways to read. Digital is another of my faves because my vision is getting worse and you can adjust font size and use the reading ruler to keep track of your spot read in bed while your partner sleeps. I ❤️Libby
I use “read” and “listen to” interchangeably when I’m talking about audiobooks, of which I got into because I realized I could read twice as many books if I started doing audiobooks while walking. I walk a LOT. Also, I can play an audiobook while I’m in the bath.
❤️❤️ Audiobooks make reading accessible for me. My job is labor intensive and I rarely have time after work to sit and read the way I did as a kid. Besides, is not writing a visual method of capturing speech??
It’s ALL I HAVE. I can’t sit down to read because the fear of annihilation makes me feel like I absolutely must do chores or make things, or my blip of an existence will have been completely devoid of meaning. It’s either that or literally laying on the floor in a mindless stupor. No in-between.
Thank you! think it’s an adhd thing. My mental energy is feast or famine. But when it’s feast, I also have a combination of ambition, too many ideas, deeply ingrained Protestant work ethic (derogatory), and living under capitalism to ensure that I never feel TOO good about accomplishing anything. 😂
You absolutely MAY say that! And I agree! I didn’t have Calvinism as an upbringing, but I sure had a moment. Luckily, it was only a few years. 😅
(I also hope I didn’t do too much damage in that time. That theology is FUCKING TOXIC, and I certainly espoused and said some things I’m not proud of.)
People need to find better hobbies if this is the hill they're choosing. A book is a book, whatever form it may take. Some folks need to stop acting as if they're better than others for reading one way instead of another. The pedantry and need to be right/best is tedious.
We have listened to several of your books this year while camping. It’s now our go to treat. Thank you for the hours of entertainment. ❤️ big fans here.
At this rate you'll have to take the entire weekend to get through every reply that's a paraphrase of "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines 'reading' as...".
As someone who has, on many many occasions, absolutely mangled the pronunciation of a word I’d only seen written, I don’t feel able to cast any stones there.
I recognize that by saying this, I will 100% commit one myself, but I counted six punctuation errors in your post there, so I don’t think any of us are showing the ol’ paper textbook to advantage.
Well no s***I'm using a social media app that limits the amount of characters while using speech to text,so I can use my hands for something else
Which, if you actually stop to think about it, another example of what I was talking about
That's more about how punctuation is taught. Punctuation, like word spacing, was created to make reading aloud easier. Puntuation marks are syntax guides.
except intake of grammar (by which i gather you mean punctuation etc, because grammar itself is just as present in audio form) is vastly different than output of grammar. knowing how to decode it *is not the same skill* as knowing how to produce it, and one does not predict the other.
I've met several people who clearly read for pleasure who struggle to complete an email with proper spelling and grammar. And not "kids these days", but Gen X and Xennials.
And this whole thing stems from people having to loudly proclaim out of the blue,that listening to an audio book is reading.When it is, in fact, listening to somebody tell a story
No. This was an intelligent man who was a leader and booster in a social group, who just produced terrible barely legible emails. I suspect arwyn's suggestion of dyslexia or similar might be right.
Also chatGPT is usually bland and factually wrong but grammatical, which is a different issue.
well, you seem to be playing gotcha. i was discussing the long established difference between decoding and encoding language, which you have conflated.
yup, exactly. and: it's usually people with dyslexia or other specific disabilities. i strongly value and enjoy the rules of writing, but they are not equally accessible to all of us. and are emphatically not the same as decoding written language.
I really wish people would understand that a) many people being able to read written text is a relatively modern thing b) storytelling has been oral/audio for much of human existence c) widespread access to printed books is also relatively modern
I keep seeing these "Audio Books ARE real books" posts, like who is this asshole running around saying they AREN'T? Are there really people who are gatekeeping "REAL" READING?
I used to go on my bikes and listen to music (I’m on a traffic free trail - I wouldn’t listen if I had to deal with vehicles) and then this year I was like …wait… I can audiobook out here! 90 min bike rides at my 1.35x listening speed and I get a few hours of book done each time.
It's wonderful! I remember the days when we had to buy CDs to listen to an audiobook. And now audiobooks are so portable we can listen to them anywhere! This has revolutionized my life. 😄
I love books but sometimes with ADHD as an adult it’s been hard for me to sit down and read one. I love listening to audiobooks on my way to and from work!
Well, leaping into a stranger's comments and offering without any apparent familiarity with their genre or history is, let's say, not the best look for convincing me you're a professional who will be good at the task either.
Well, first, be specific about what genres and styles you edit, what kinds of edits you offer, as there's no such thing as a universally applicable editor.
Second, do a modicum of research about who you're even talking to; pubbed, self-pubbed, or aspiring.
Advertise on writer’s forums? Build an internet presence where you talk entertainingly about editing so people are more inclined to follow you? But mostly the writer’s forums, I’d say.
Especially since the writer in question has had a decades-long alliance with particular editors and scads of books published that were not self-published.
My mother, who was a voracious reader and then she went blind. Could no longer see her home filled with books. Worked her way into audios. The narrator makes it or breaks it. She has many rules. She's reading.
I have blacklisted some narrators and would never ever pick up an audiobook narrated by them. They could truly ruin a great book. The worst are the ones that read in a monotone and have no respect for punctuation.
I think it's fascinating that this is even a cultural conversation at all. Like, if reading weren't elevated as some magical superior hobby, then it wouldn't matter one whit whether listening was or was not reading.
I don't have time in the evenings usually to sit and read a book but I do love the get-away reading provides. I drive a lot during the day for work and almost always have an audio book or a podcast on in the car.
I listen to non fiction books and read fiction on a Kindle. I regard both as reading. In reality I retain more from audio as I have a tendency to skim read but don't lose as much focus when listening even when driving or walking the dog.
When I was at Art School they
warned us-respect the ray of
light, it will strike you blind
I then proceeded to give myself
2 eye strains later in life
Eye strain is serious
It means your eyes have failed
Audiobooks help take a load off
The human eye is not made
of steel lol
It’s just thinly veiled ableism, and to be honest I’m shocked that I’m seeing people insist that it isn’t based on arbitrary definitions (as if language isn’t something that’s always changing)
And yet if you show up at a book club does someone say “Did everyone read or listen to the book?” If someone asks “Did anyone feel, when they were reading—“ do the people who imbibe it in audiobook leap up and say “I LISTENED ACTUALLY?”
It’s possible that happens. People contain multitudes.
I don't see why any author would object to their novels being heard rather than read. Perhaps it's a little quick. Perhaps you miss things with some novels.But I shifted to audiobooks and I now consume 3 times as many as before, despite the ability to read faster than listen on a page to page basis.
Well, technically, they’re listeners doing “real” listening to real books. But it’s okay. That’s what visually-impaired people do and they still get the experience.
My younger brother never liked to read, so far as I know, never read for pleasure. An anomaly in a family of readers.
He was also farsighted, wore reading glasses by 2nd grade. So far as anyone could tell, once he had the glasses he had no trouble reading. But...
When I became farsighted, and had trouble reading, I understood. He didn't tell anyone that, while he could read, it was difficult and unpleasant, because he didn't know that wasn't normal. I struggled through because I already loved to read. He never had a chance to. Audio might have given him one.
And this is why before we test any child for dyslexia, we send them for a vision test. Sometimes the reluctance to read comes from extreme discomfort due to visual issues.
I’m gradually buying all of my most beloved books as audiobooks, because I can listen to them pretty much anywhere while doing almost any boring task, including travelling or sitting in a waiting room. It makes life so much more enjoyable. I love both reading and listening to books.
2. This argument is entirely due to snobbery and people wanting to feel better than others because they are reading rather than listening to a book. I don’t need to prove I can read to anyone 🙄 It’s pathetic imo.
1. Absolutely! I discovered audiobooks this year and am enjoying them so much. I’ve been a prolific reader my whole life and love books but since my daughter was born 4 years ago, have struggled to find the time to read. Now I listen while driving, doing makeup, washing up etc.
Same. We always read to our kids when they were young and then, as they grew older, we’d all listen together to audiobooks on road trips and at the cottage. The mere threat of us turning off the book pretty much eliminated them fighting in the back seat.
Sorry, but I disagree. Reading and listening are NOT the same thing. Being able to read is such a gift and I would never eschew that for audiobooks. You listened to an audibook, you didn't read it.
You are putting way too much emphasis on visually processing a story vs. audibly processing a story. I love being able to read the written word, and I love listening to the same story I read because it brings the story to life. Just like Lima beans, you gotta try them before you hate them.
Reading is a gift and it's something a lot of neurodivergent people struggle with. Personally, I often have trouble sticking with a book for long periods because my brain wants to be distracted. So I switch to listening for a while.
And would you tell a blind person they'd never read a book?
I think that people get hung up with that idea because listening to something (reading it with your ears, if you wish) can be done much more passively than reading it (with your eyes).
People in this thread should focus more on countering the notion that audiobooks are only consumed passively (which I am fairly certain is not a view that most people on the "visual reading" hold (at least here)) than on the specific semantics of the word reading.
It feels very much like the typical left-wing purity tests that distract from the actual point and stop you from engaging with the people whom you should be trying to convince.
That's one of the markers of fluency for me. In English, I don't see an object with English text on it, and then read the text. I see an object that says something. It's almost entirely passive.
In Hebrew, for example, seeing and reading are entirely separate steps, because I'm much less fluent.
Could you put this out as an audible download? I can't read this. Jokes aside? Human love to play status games, and politicise the game of inclusion vs. exclusion. It's just more of this.
Audiobooks are great! Listening is a different skill than reading, though. Seeing how words are spelled and reading at your own pace is a different experience than hearing how those same words are pronounced and having to keep up with the narrator. Each format suits different needs.
The are times for both types of books. I love reading books, and when in the hospital, during the day and sleepless nights, audiobooks were a blessing! There is a Time and place for them both in my life. Cheers!
Why does anyone even care; to each their own and an individual choice;reminds me of people who ‘proudly’ declare they don’t watch TV or ‘soaps’, who cares? It all smacks of snobbishness.
Reading used to be fun, now we need to define what is reading, how is properly done, for how long, how many pages. Being a reader now is like being part of a secret society with a lot of rules. Couldn't we just read/listen and have fun in peace?
I deliver vehicles , sometimes I’m on mammoth drives. 12 hrs each way. Listening to whole books , the way the author wrote them is amazing . I’ve heard more Tim Gerrard Reynolds voice than any other on the planet. 100’s of hours. ❤️❤️
I had a long argument with some self-appointed reading gatekeeper dillwad about this. He was so precious about it, said he wouldn't even call them audiobooks but "recitations." I first pointed out that a recitation was defined as repeating something out loud from memory. 1/2
Then told him to go ask a librarian for where the "Recitations" are kept and followed up by telling him that "othering" those with visual impairments or different processing abilities made him a dick, and not their superior.
I wish I could listen to audiobooks. 2 minutes in and I zone out thinking about other stuff. I need to see the words in front of me. I don't care if other people listen to their books, they are having an experience as well and can share the same emotions as me.
I prefer audiobooks because they allow me to read longer. My eyes tire after three or four hours of eyeball reading but with an audiobook I’m good for eight.
With my epilepsy diagnosis, I got medications that cause brain fog so it won't seize. I haven't been able to read the printed page since. I went to every doctor I could get my hands on to fix it and every single one of them asked me if I'd tried audiobooks.
As has everyone I've talked to on the subject. While I am lacking in the cozy feeling of having a book on my lap, I can certainly experience the part where I am sitting with my cat.
But I want to scream about the availability sometimes.
I have been using speechify, but it runs out.
Also, if I am trying to relax with an audiobook (like I do to go to sleep at night), I need to be able to understand the narrator, and a lot of fantasy books go for someone with a thick-ish accent for ambience. Some are even worse than that.
This was a particularly nice thing to see this evening as re-listening to The Twisted Ones, The Hollow Places, the Sworn Soldier books, and A House With Good Bones has been one of my post-election coping strategies. My particular type of ADHD means I can only do audio most times.
I find the snobbery odd. After 3 eye ops, audio books are far and away the easiest way for me to consume books now. I probably wouldn’t read any more if it were not for the audio option. Though the choice of narrator massively impacts the enjoyment level!
I actually don't use audiobooks, I read ~100 books a year. Some of my friends read audiobooks, some read graphic novels. And people do say "I'm reading X" or "I read X" when referring to audiobooks.
Sshh. Let them be. There is nothing more entertaining than watching someone puff out their chest, beat on it, yelling, "I'M RIGHT. PROVE ME WRONG." And the rest of the world knows he's wrong and let him go about making a fool of himself.🤣 One day, hopefully many days, he'll figure it out.
In the pursuit of fairness, I do see that the purely semantical argument is kind of open and shut. After all, you're literally not reading, you're listening.
So, in that sense, I guess yeah it's not reading.
But also, it's like, who gives a shit about that if u still experience the book lol
I feel like the word has actually changed, though. Words are living and not locked in a box—if you read someone their Miranda rights when neither of you are reading from a sheet of paper, that’s a word whose meaning is already in flux.
I guess that's why semantics-based argumentation tends to fall flat in a lot of cases. It sort of crumbles apart into pedantry about what the Dictionary says, without taking into account the complex and often transient nature of language.
YES! Dictionaries have slowed the movement of language (see standardization of spelling in English which AFAIK started with dictionaries), but they still follow usage, not lead it (and a good thing, too!)
Thank you for being one of the few naysayers who was polite and sensible! You get a 🏆In a thread I mostly used to build my blocklist, it was a breath of fresh air.
I can't show you now, because the guy who posted it blocked me before I took a screenshot, but this guy posted "an unpopular take" and said authors should not read their own books for audiobooks.
I don't usually quote people to dunk on them, but I responded with my own take: authors should ...
... feel free to read their own work for audiobooks if they wanted to. Reasons: I am a linguist and l like hearing authors' own voices. Discouraging authors from reading = less data for me. Well! The OP came into my replies and argued with me. He doubled down. Only professional voice talent ...
... should do audiobooks. I said that no one was making him buy audiobooks read by the book's author, that he could ignore them if he didn't want them.
And that's when he said that he never bought audibooks, he only checked them out from the library. 🙄
Only the expense stops us from having multiple versions of books in audio. There is room to have J. R. R. Tolkien reading The Hobbit and Andy Serkis read The Hobbit. But no, this chump was all "if the authors want to read their own stuff they have to take classes first" despite not paying a penny.
This is tangential to the discussion, but it shows how rigid and hidebound some people can be online. The guy couldn't even pause his own POV for long enough to read a couple of posts.
Tolkien reading his own stories is amazing! He knows how to pronounce everything, he knows the rhythm of the words, he knows where it's going and what's important. How could anybody argue that's a bad thing?
That or they see a single post and act like it’s representative of something for easy applause. Either way it’s just a simple trick to give people a chance to applaud you for having an opinion.
Librarians and Tik Tok came to this same conclusion YEARS ago. Semantics is being used to devalue different ways of experiencing a writer’s craft. Comes off as very classist.
As a popular, award-winning author, the OP is providing evidence that audiobooks make up a not insignificant portion of her income. How is it a “ low act” to include evidence to support her point?
Okay. You can have that opinion. I’ve listened to only 2 books on tape: A River Runs Through It and The Magic of Believing. Both of which I tried, I mean really tried to read, but couldn’t make it through the really boring parts. I prefer to actually read the words. It increases my vocabulary
Not an indictment of Audio Books. I think they have a place. Both books were Excellent and I would have been less for not having ‘read’ them. But my first love will always be the written word. I think audio has a place but reading the written word is powerful in a way I don’t know how to explain
Maybe not. But listening to books means that my brain doesn’t register when a word I am not familiar with appears. When reading a book I’ll stop and look up the word. It expands my vocabulary. Listening I might not even notice it was a word I didn’t know.
As the mom of a young man with dyslexia I am so tired of this argument. Receiving information from printed text is reading - no matter how the words are processed.
100%. I actually prefer to listen to audio books of non-fiction because it forces me to consume it slower, as I'm normally a fast visual reader, and technical books often need a slower pace, but it's absolutely all reading!
I like the CONCEPT of audiobooks, but I can't for the life of me get the full effect out of them because of my attention span problems. Lettered books are marginally more digestible.
Not for me! Audiobooks are awesome and totally count as reading, but personally I don't retain things well that way. (I wish I did. I'd love to be able to read in situations where I can't read with my eyes.)
Now that depends very much on the person—audio processing issues here, would need to listen to something multiple times to retain as well as reading. But other people differ!
Best form of retention is see say do, and yeah I count auditory and visual as the same part of see. There are many ways to see can see through hearing see through vision and see through touch. See in that phrase is a vague see as in not providing your own action. But an action provided to you
I feel like asking “do you want to be right or do you want to be kind” to a person who cannot seem to fathom the concept that my experience of reading is almost identical to my experience of listening to books. I didn’t even get into the ableist vibe I was getting.
Douglas Adam’s was talking about ebooks vs paper books when he said people who knock ebooks are mistaking the plate for the meal. I suspect the same principal applies, but….
I am a very visual person. I get distracted and my way when listening to a book. Sorry.
People who say that are fools. I would not have read with my tired eyes any of the books I’ve listened to in the past 10 years. Another question for them: does reading to your children count?
I just read Earnest Gaines’ A Lesson Before Dying (excellent book!) I began reading a hard copy, switched to reading an ebook when I left the book at home, then switched to an audiobook when my eyes got too tired to continue reading. I finished the last 2 chapters in the book. It was all reading.
Audiobooks are a great solution to cataracts, multi tasking and just the enjoyment of LISTENING to a skilled reader's interpretation of the various characters' moods and voices ...I am especially fond of Jefferson Mays and Stephen Frye.
And I can do a book report as well as any
"reader" of books.
Someone had probably already said this but Libby and Hoopla are digital lending services offered by most public libraries! If you prefer eAudiobooks or eBooks, they are a great free service! There are so many ways to access books for free through your local libraries!
I will put in a word for Librivox, which takes public-domain works read by volunteers and makes them available for free download. No registration or login required, last I looked (which was years ago, to be fair).
I've seen criticisms of the readers, but enjoyed a book or two from there.
My ophthalmologist strongly suggested I stop reading books, although I seem to have no problem reading online as along as I'm on my desktop (phone is problematic). Anyway, I switched to audiobooks and I've been keeping my local library very busy. At first I didn't much like it, but now I'm OK.
I've been seeing variations of this complaint all over bluesky for the last two days.
I still don't understand. Reading is a thing. Listening is a different thing. Are there people out there claiming that reading is objectively superior to listening? I haven't seen anyone make that assertion.
I’ve seen a couple “Illiterate people can listen to an audiobook, so it doesn’t count as reading” takes that are, let us say, not exactly coming off well.
I get it, but to me words have meanings and those meanings matter. I'm not anti audiobook in any way, I just think reading and listening are not the same. Being able to read with your eyes is not the same as listening. A toddler can listen to a book, but toddlers are still illiterate.
But if an adult says to you that they read a book and they later reveal it was audiobook, do you tell them they have used the wrong word? Or do you understand perfectly well what they meant in that context?
Let me see if I'm picking up your meaning. There are people out there who unnecessarily point out that some can do one but not the other (the converse is also true, as we know) so that makes "reading" superior to "listening"? That's downright silly!
It’s also a matter of labels. Most of us here consider ourselves readers—we love books, we talk about books, we think about books, we rant about books. Telling someone they don’t actually read comes across like you’re cutting them off from being part of that group. People do not like that.
Yeah, it would not be for some stranger to make the judgement about whether one "reads" or not. Unless the distinction from listening were in some way relevant.
Audiobook deniers are the hipsters of the book world. We dont care you think vynil sounds better, because we know its just intangible nostalgia, not anything real.
I never thought audiobooks worked for me, but figuring out that I needed to listen at 2x speed has been the best thing ever. I listen while cleaning and gardening and have doubled the number of books I can consume. They're the best.
I just finished one and started another. I find that I can enjoy more books when I’m on the go; however, as much as I enjoy them, I prefer a book in my hand. My reading count is probably 80% audiobooks.
I buy the books that I listen to, because my library represents my aesthetic. I listen to books more these days, because reading the pages puts me right to sleep. I love to build a fire, pile up pillows, pour a glass of wine and...listen. Also, a book in traffic takes the edge away.
I think if you have a strong opinion on the way anyone consumes books there’s something wrong with you. None of this matters. They’re absorbing information, therefore it is good!
My only issue with audio books is that they don’t help people to learn correct spelling or punctuation. School aged kids up through college really need to read to polish up their grammar skills. Otherwise, audio books are great, except in my case. I’m not a great listener, but I’m a great reader. 😁
I wanted my now 9 year old to learn to read visually for all the reasons above. This doesn't mean I don't also read books aloud to him, though, because sometimes that is the way to get him sucked into a story. The struggle is mainly to keep him from asking me to read to him when it's his turn.
I agree, kids need to be read to, and it’s great that they can follow along in the book as you read to them. And, it makes kids better listeners when you read to them. It sounds like you have a good balance between the reading and listening. Your 9 year old is going to do great!
That’s true, it really helps with pronunciation. 😂 I have embarrassed myself a few times. The neat thing about reading books on my iPad Kindle app is that I can Google the words and have them pronounced for me in both the American and British versions. I love technology!💙
Did you see the couple people very confidently proclaiming that your brain responds differently to written words that spoken? I might have giggled on the train replying to them!
"Real", literally who cares. People who gatekeep are people who tie their entire sense of self into something are dumb. They're two separate actions, one requires you to move your eyes the other requires you to listen. Who cares how they get the same information.
I wouldn't call it "reading", but I also don't look down on it. It's just another method of consuming information. It exercises different areas of the brain.
It's vital for the visually impaired and helpful for folks who get bored with mindless chores.
And as an added bonus think of all the voice talent that may not have to wait tables anymore! Also a boon to small recording studios/engineers who are struggling now that everyone thinks their phone is Abbey Road.
Hell, I had someone tell me I hadn’t actually read a book because I read it from Kindle on my phone. “That’s not really reading”, she said sweetly condescendingly. 🙄😑
I'm a bookbinder and I do most of my reading on my phone now, just as I get my audio via my phone. I usually have about 100 books downloaded. So much easier to travel. Snobs gonna denigrate, it's reflex.
I am fine with everyone else calling books they listened to ones they read, but I don't use it myself because it somehow feels different to me. But I recognize that as an internal me problem.
Mostly I find I can’t sit still and listen the way I can while reading. And I’m more likely to zone out and lose track of stuff with audio than I am with text.
It’s similar to how I hate talking on the phone but don’t mind Zoom or purely text communication.
I tend to listen to audiobooks at faster than 1x. How fast depends on the narrator, but my default is 1.5. Lots of other folks in the comments also do this. You might try it, if audiobooks are a format you'd like to access.
I read. But I also do active stuff. It’s badass having the book able to be read out loud are you fucking kitten me? We’re in the fucking future! BE GRATEFUL FOR TECHNOLOGY ALREADY GATDAM
I find it interesting that the main naysayer argument here seems to be that the verb is listen not read. But nowhere did you make that argument. They don’t read very well ;)
IMO anyone who consumes a book is a reader.
And even with written tradition becoming common, we still relied on oral tradition. Not unusual for someone to read aloud while a group worked on embroidery or quilting.
Absolutely. The time we as a species has been able to enjoy the written word is a speck compared to the tens of thousands of years spent with stories spoken aloud around a fire.
I cannot read on the bus for more than a minute without getting motion sickness. My bus ride to work is thirty minutes. Audiobooks are such a blessing.
Thank you. I'm a barrister with dyslexia. My job involves so much reading that I have little energy to pick up a book for fun. Audiobooks have been so helpful. Using one media format is no more virtuous than the other.
I do have adaptive software, and I can have the computer read to me. Due to the layout of some documents I have to deal with, helpfulness varies. Screen masking, in particular having one highlighted line to focus on at a time, has been an absolute godsend. Thanks v much for the suggestions though!
Considering they were the first “books”. Oral traditions for tens of thousands of years far out dates the written word and for thousands of years the written word was meant to be read aloud as most people were illiterate.
audiobooks are my main form of reading and entertainment, even though I have attention problems, and my mind wanders a lot. But that happens when I read paper books, too. I’ve gotten in the habit of rewinding a lot, the same way I’d have to re-read written paragraphs. “Hey Siri, go back 30 seconds”
Drifting off happens to me a lot simply because I'm not very auditory. However if I play a monotonous game or crochet or drive while listening, I do much better.
My friend is an avid reader. She used to do physical book and audiobooks, but she had a baby a few months ago. Sometimes she can manage a kindle in one hand, but she mostly reads by audiobook now. Thank goodness they exist so she can still be a reader.
Why are you so angry? I don’t count books I listen to on my read books list because I didn’t read them. I listened to them. I will never get why some people are so angry about literal logic. It’s not affecting you or me whether someone calls listening to books reading or not. And yet, anger.
So the concept of being angry on someone else’s behalf, the concept of righteous anger… You do not understand them? You can only ever be angry about what directly affects you?
It’s not “too” angry. It’s certainly not what I expected coming over here from twitter. Someone being angry about something that doesn’t affect them is twitter behavior.
So hi! I write books for, among other people, reluctant readers in the 8-12 year old range. These are often kids who view a wall of text as an instrument of torture. BUT you can often get these kids hooked on graphic novels or audiobooks, and if you can, you sometimes make a lifelong reader.
One of the things we have fought uphill against for many years in school libraries is adults who see a graphic novel and go “That’s not a REAL book, pick something else.” When sometimes, a couple of those supposedly “not-real” books would mean they get into reading and start to branch out.
A friend of mine used to teach remedial reading. One of the tools she used was providing a headset/CDs so the kids could hear the audiobook as they read the physical book. It helped a lot for kids who struggled to parse unfamiliar words.
Moreover, science has shown that visually ingesting a book and listening to an audiobook are essentially the same in the brain and comprehension outcomes. This lay article points to a lot of the research.
Why is this the case? Because reading as a cognitive...
My now 15-year-old daughter was one of those reluctant readers who loved Harriet the Hamster and Dragonbreath. Last week she finished reading the Handmaid's Tale and today she started Iron Widow. You definitely helped to make her a reader.
I don't want to live in a world where people aren't allowed to get angry about injustices perpetrated against others because it doesn't affect them directly. I'm not going to let bullies and worse be awful to people in front of me because "eh, it's not happening to me".That's a HORRIBLE way to think
100% its reading. Blind people cant read in a traditional way & braille books are EXCEPTIONALLY expensive compared to an audio book. If its got book or novel in the name. Its reading.
Also, it was my nans blind neighbour who got me into Audio Fiction. She was listening to Harry Potter when i went to help do a spot of housework work & take her dog for an off the harness run around in the park.
Not to hijack Ursula’s thread, but I don’t think it’s whether someone says “I just finished listening to Name of the Rose” when they listened to it on audiobook, it’s the insistent few who insist that if you listened to “Name of the Rose” you’re not fit to stand among those who read it in text.
"The Insistent Few" is a very admirably polite name for people who are petty, confused, and, above all, desperately insecure. They're everywhere. Always ignore them.
You’re just defining your terms differently. OP is arguing that wrt to engagement and inclusion of young people who struggle to process text — many neurodivergent and/or disabled — listening SHOULD be considered reading.
YOU use a personal hobby chart that separates by format. Okay! No conflict. 🤷🏻
Why on earth wouldn't you count the audiobooks as read? You know what was in them, you heard every word, presumably understood the plot and benefited from the content in every intended way. But it doesn't count at all unless you literally looked at the printed word?
"It's not affecting you or me whether someone calls listening to books reading or not"
But yours is the viewpoint that restricts people's behavior! No one on the "audiobooks are reading" side is saying "you are not permitted to say you listened to an audiobook." But you're here saying that...
No. The person who has failed logic is you, because you don't understand that words have multiple meanings. Have you ever read the room? How about read the writing on the wall? How about read the tea leaves? Read between the lines? Yes? Then we're done here.
My question is whether anyone is actually saying that "reading" a physical book is superior to "listening" to an audiobook.
The issue was just reading v. listening. Is that a judgment call? Or are people reading (no pun intended) too much value judgment into the linguistic distinction?
The difference is you believe I care enough to die on this hill. I offered you a very reasonable, well-thought out opposing opinion. You responded by being dismissive and rude. That is Twitter behavior.
I am here to participate, not to denigrate. I recommend you choose your hill as appropriate.
1. I don't hold a preferred position on this "Debate". Reading is reading, and listening is listening. Both have unique and individual personal value.
2. I am dismissive of this, because it is a pointless issue IMHO.
3. Your feelings were not considered or attacked. YOU made it personal to you.
Comments
But I read written words like the wind!
As an adult working six days a week, that's a luxury of days gone by.
What I can do? Listen to audiobooks while I work.
(Also hearing impaired, but not so significantly that I can't enjoy a good audiobook)
… and besides, we’re pretty sure you’ll be back the next time something is set on fire.😆❤️
There’s a subset of people trying very hard to exclude me from their definition of an intelligent person. Am I even a sentient human? It bums me out.
I don’t have any mitigating circumstances; but sometimes I’m just tired and want to listen instead of keep my eyes open.
“Tell me a story” is as old as humanity.
Ugh, humans. 🤷🏻♀️
putting audiobooks in a second, lesser category based solely on personal opinion (and to be clear, there is no other support for this idea) is inherently disrespectful.
Smaller me: But I wanna follow the discourse to the source™!
See lectors in factories. Workers may have been illiterate, but they were well informed.
Using 'reading' as the word for 'absorbing and internalizing all the words' seems disrespectful of cultures with oral storytelling traditions
I think I'm going to stop the struggle and go with your approach (for both the reasons you listed!)
Quoting Sir Terry (and Murderbot) is always in order.
3:O)>
Your blocks are a service to your threads, besides.
Audio books have been a life saver,when i am in too much pain at night,listening too a audio book can be a god sent.Can also send me to sleep.Yet i remember the last word
Audiobooks saved my sanity!
I only wish it was easy to buy the books still, Amazon & Rakuten have turned that option into an rental sector
ABs work for me bc I can be doing something else at the same time. Crafting, chores, simple games, or even just fidgeting. They've been life saving.
A friend has less time to read and so does audiobooks because she can listen on her commute/while doing chores.
And like you, I don't use audiobooks for the same reasons, but they are a wonderful means of storytelling.
But I am a staunch proponent of audio text access. “Reading by ear” is reading, full stop.
1. I'm very familiar with (formerly) Recordings for the Blind and Dyslexic now Learning Ally (not yet on Bluesky)
2. my problem is my comprehension goes DOWN as the speed goes up, so even faster versions not a help.
But I can still ruin the ending for people so I think it still counts.
To this day, I still want to pronounce demonstrative as: demo-n-stray-tive. I read it before I heard the word.
It may be equally good or differently good, but it’s not the same.
Which again, I think is a great substitute, stand in, or replacement for reading, it’s just technically not reading.
If only people would mind their business on how people consume books!
Also, I don't want to kiss your ass and good for you to get a royalty check.
I thought people were mean and arrogant about facts on twitter...
But hey, good news! Thanks to the nuclear block here on Bluesky, you can send this conversation and all others like it to the void if you wish!
Versa. Love both ways.
Oh wait, no, that's not how those senses work.
"Reading" is also not a sense. What you are describing is "looking" or "seeing". You can say "I just looked at a book" if you want.
POWERFUL i think it could be re implemented with a systemd approach i’ll make the pull request rn bro LETS GO 1luv
(Having spent years divesting myself of my Calvinist upbringing, may I just say:
FUCK the Puritans)
(I also hope I didn’t do too much damage in that time. That theology is FUCKING TOXIC, and I certainly espoused and said some things I’m not proud of.)
Because what's happening at that point is simply humans reverting back to oral storytelling that was so popular before the advent of the printed word
Good story telling is an art
I still do expect spelling errors from those raised on emoji's,podcasting,audiobooks and purposely misspelled words in pop culture
Which, if you actually stop to think about it, another example of what I was talking about
If not, It still doesn't really do anything to disprove what I said
So what are we doing here?
Also chatGPT is usually bland and factually wrong but grammatical, which is a different issue.
You can split all the hairs you want to.It's not going to change my view
What does bother me are some of these people,who I have encountered in real life,using that as an excuse to jump on the anti-intellectual bandwagon
WTF is happening to our world?
At least, not without consequences...
If you have suggestions I'll wait.
Second, do a modicum of research about who you're even talking to; pubbed, self-pubbed, or aspiring.
Third, read UrsulaV's suggestions.
Who cares even a little about how someone else experiences stories? People worry too much about making sure everyone does things just like them
warned us-respect the ray of
light, it will strike you blind
I then proceeded to give myself
2 eye strains later in life
Eye strain is serious
It means your eyes have failed
Audiobooks help take a load off
The human eye is not made
of steel lol
It’s possible that happens. People contain multitudes.
He was also farsighted, wore reading glasses by 2nd grade. So far as anyone could tell, once he had the glasses he had no trouble reading. But...
And would you tell a blind person they'd never read a book?
In Hebrew, for example, seeing and reading are entirely separate steps, because I'm much less fluent.
But I want to scream about the availability sometimes.
I have been using speechify, but it runs out.
Just because you’re wrong a lot doesn’t suddenly make you correct.
So, in that sense, I guess yeah it's not reading.
But also, it's like, who gives a shit about that if u still experience the book lol
I guess that's why semantics-based argumentation tends to fall flat in a lot of cases. It sort of crumbles apart into pedantry about what the Dictionary says, without taking into account the complex and often transient nature of language.
"Well, that common usage is wrong, because the dictionary says--"
"Good point, we'll update it to include the common usage!"
I don't usually quote people to dunk on them, but I responded with my own take: authors should ...
And that's when he said that he never bought audibooks, he only checked them out from the library. 🙄
See how stupid it sounds?
I also haaaaate subtitles.
GUESS WHAT?
I'm one person in 8 billion. Audiobooks are books, and listening = you've read the book. Subtitles are awesome and I'm glad they exist.
Gatekeeping is for assholes.
I am a very visual person. I get distracted and my way when listening to a book. Sorry.
As well it should - reading or listening, it's still the same information going in.
And I can do a book report as well as any
"reader" of books.
I've seen criticisms of the readers, but enjoyed a book or two from there.
I still don't understand. Reading is a thing. Listening is a different thing. Are there people out there claiming that reading is objectively superior to listening? I haven't seen anyone make that assertion.
Again, I hope that doesn't happen too often.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/audiobooks-or-reading-to-our-brains-it-doesnt-matter
Audiobooks are a different experience than reading print, but both are valuable. I would never say "they're not real reading".
It's vital for the visually impaired and helpful for folks who get bored with mindless chores.
It’s similar to how I hate talking on the phone but don’t mind Zoom or purely text communication.
IMO anyone who consumes a book is a reader.
Trying to explain a topic you know *very little about* to the *expert* who posted something you disagree with.
Why is this the case? Because reading as a cognitive...
https://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/audio-book-or-reading-science-shows-there-is-no-difference-to-your-brain
fascinating
YOU use a personal hobby chart that separates by format. Okay! No conflict. 🤷🏻
But yours is the viewpoint that restricts people's behavior! No one on the "audiobooks are reading" side is saying "you are not permitted to say you listened to an audiobook." But you're here saying that...
My form of entertainment is superior to yours! Really? Sure about that?
I'm guessing that type of person is bitter about something else completely unrelated and has poor problem solving skills...
The issue was just reading v. listening. Is that a judgment call? Or are people reading (no pun intended) too much value judgment into the linguistic distinction?
But if that's the hill someone wants to die on... I'll just wave.👋
I am here to participate, not to denigrate. I recommend you choose your hill as appropriate.
2. I am dismissive of this, because it is a pointless issue IMHO.
3. Your feelings were not considered or attacked. YOU made it personal to you.
Sometimes they tell me this character is goofy, however.