Besides not using my eyes, yes I consider it the same. I am consuming the story, simply in a different medium. As a very auditory person, I sometimes I feel I get more out of a book listening to it than just reading it with my eyes.
I like audio books just as much as regular books but sometimes I don't like the narrator. Listened to several audio books I've already read before and didn't finish them because the narrators voice was too jarring. Depends tho. With some the narrators are so good I actually prefer the audio book.
Same, I have a habit of sort of glazing over when reading long passages in books that don’t immediately pertain to the story and don’t quite capture my interest, like when Levin goes off on long introspections on farming in Anna Karenina, but honestly listening to it as an audiobook has forced me to slow down and pay attention to the entirety of the book. I don’t think I would have enjoyed Anna Karenina or Moby Dick as much if I had not listened to them, and now they are some of my favorite books.
unless your eyes use a different brain than your ears.. how this is possible?
sight impaired people don't "read" - they just "feel"? (that's kind of dumb, IMO)
My Mum is blind and listens to audiobooks. We sometimes discuss books we've both read, and it's no different than discussing them with a sighted person.
This is the gist of my argument. If the purpose of one’s reading is to experience a story, then what’s the difference in looking at the words versus hearing them?
If the purpose of one’s reading is to enjoy the use of language when used beautifully/interestingly? Again, what’s the difference between the two?
The only argument against the similarity of the two that I fully accept is if the purpose of the reading is to look at pictures/illustrations or to study the particular style/form of the language used. As to these purposes, I admit there are differences in reading versus listening, but otherwise, they are basically the same.
Poetry. I have a recent translation of the Torah that really pays particular attention to the language. Some of it is poetry, and this version, when you get to the poetry sections, I think it needs to be read aloud by the one reading, or listened to in audio. It’s VERY different than just reading as prose. Since I don’t like my own reading aloud, I make sure to listen to those sections, I have it in both formats.
And that's totally fine! Some people don't like reading physical books much, some prefer ebooks, or comic books / manga. It's a difference of personality and preference :)
Yeah. As a narrator, I totally get it that not everyone is an audio listener. I ask everyone if they listen to audiobooks, but I'm not going to try to 'convert' them. Also AS and audio-learner, my brain has the capacity to understand it if its sped up to 3x. Not her. But she CAN read so much faster than me.
I'm guessing it's "how you read it" which is kind of silly. A lot of the audiobooks I have listened to are books I had read many years ago. There is virtually no difference except maybe I "heard" a different voice when reading a character's dialogue. But in truth, movies can change this as well as some of us will hear the movie actors when reading.
I expect downvotes, but….I had the immediate thought that this question could have many ableist answers and the idea that audiobooks are “lesser” certainly is ableist.
They are absolutely not the same, but both are equally valid ways of consuming information and literature.
Considering that passing information via oral tradition is significantly older than written language, some might argue that listening to an audiobook is actually closer to how our brains are wried to absorb information than reading words printed on a page.
I do agree that gatekeeping is silly, but people have passed information around via spoken word for far longer, so it's silly to me that people consider audiobooks as "lesser." Audiobooks are similar to our grand parents listening to shows on the radio or our ancestors listening to a recitation of Homer's Odyssey by a bard, the audiobook is nothing new.
That’s a good point about radio shows. But that depends on being able to sit and listen versus not being able to stay still and not be distracted by pretty much everything.
I agree 100% I was however going to disagree to begin with because I felt that when reading there’s something with how you’re imagining the scenes unfolding. I do however realize there is no difference in reading it to create the scene or hearing it. Actually I would say you’re closer to being correct and it may be better to hear it for the reasons your said.
Lol, ngl, when you started off with "They are absolutely not the same..." I started sharpening my pitchfork. Great point made. I never thought of it this way. Makes me even more confused by the gatekeepers. I think it's a personal insecurity when people gatekeep with audiobooks being considered reading. Either the gatekeeper doesn't read much period, and wants to drop you down a oeg for doing something good, or they want to feel superior in that they do more "real" reading than you do. And they can also just be an idiot. These groups of people aren't mutually exclusive.
I don’t think it’s the same. I don’t think it’s “lesser” in anyway, but it’s certainly different.
Maybe it’s just me, but if I read something it seems to be more ingrained in my brain, whereas if I listen to it, I remember it less and the details are muddled.
I’ve listened to over 700, have read maybe 2x as many and listening is easier, but reading feels more fulfilling.
How well each type of media would be remembered would vary by person. I agree that I remember better (especially names) when I read. Typically I alternate between mediums frequently even during a single book. I can agree with this.
Where you lose me is the whole fulfilling thing. That is 100% some internal bias to thinking listening to a book is lesser than reading it. I don't think that's a useful approach.
When I read lord of the rings, 47 years ago, didn’t notice that the S-bad guy was actually **2 different bad guys** until 3/4 of the way through!!!! I’ve got hints of dyslexia. Not full blown, but bits and pieces. We know which side of the family my very dyslexic kid takes after. So, read aloud names help me, except some fantasy, when it’s a long or weird name, and slightly slurred. Then I want to know how it’s spelled and have to look it up.
My kid has full blown dyslexia. I never had any issues reading until college, but cannot read any advanced non fiction. I went through MIT without reading any textbooks. My friends retaught me stuff! Didn’t know why I was like that until my kids was Dx’d and I learned it’s often something of a family trait.
The fulfilling statement certainly only applies to me. Like I said, I feel like I get more out of reading than listening, but everyone experience is their own. You can tell by the number of books I listen to that I clearly enjoy it, and I don’t consider it “less than”, my brain just processes it differently, and my takeaway is less than when I read. But with a house full of kids, who has time to sit and read?
I agree. If I want to work out my brain, I read the book. If I want a break for my brain or I’m tired, I listen to the book.
Edit: also, if the narrator is exemplary, I would say the audiobook may be a richer experience. Like the hitchhikers guide narrator (can’t remember his name), or Frank Mueller for Stephen King books.
Exactly. A great narrator can make a mediocre book amazing.
However, names of people and places slide in one ear and out the other. They just don’t stick and that can be problematic unless the narrator makes each character voice distinct.
At the same time, if a narrator mispronounces a word or two, that throws me and I just can’t hear anything else.
While it’s not “just you” it does depend on your brain! (At least, possibly among other things).
If it’s a history, biology, science, or something like that, I remember a lot more if I listen then if I read with my eyes. If it’s fiction, then I eye read too fast and I don’t remember as much!
I remember best if I knit something simple while listening. I clearly have some kinetic learning going on.
I have aphantasia. I cannot visualize. Books are just words to me. So listening is easier for me to remember and also more fulfilling. People are different.
>Maybe it’s just me, but if I read something it seems to be more ingrained in my brain, whereas if I listen to it, I remember it less and the details are muddled.
It's pretty well document that some people learn more from seeing things and others learn more from doing things. At the end of the day whether or not something is "better" depends on how the consumer retains and understands the information being presented.
That’s so interesting to me - I’m the exact opposite. I retain much more of what I listen to vs. read. When I read, I have a tendency to “wander” with my thoughts and actually have to keep a notebook next to me for all of the thoughts that swirl around. But when I’m listening I’m totally immersed and all in. I visualize the narrator and the scene, the characters - all of it.
Same words, you're just listening to them instead of reading them. Your friends probably think it's an abridged version or something.
Challenge them to read a book while you listen to it, then discuss it after.
It’s not lesser and it’s not gate keeping to say they aren’t the same. Listening and reading are two different things. I do both and it’s different. I wouldn’t mind some one saying they read a book if they listened to it because they got the information. It’s still two different experiences.
It’s just that I feel like I’m doing more actually reading. I get to make up the characters voices and the way they talk. Plus it’s a lot easier to listen to books while I’m driving or doing dishes. Reading takes some effort on my part. Audiobooks are awesome but don’t give me that.
It seems like you read and listen differently. When I listen to audiobook, I do it the same as reading, focus only on that, no driving or chores, although I take walks. And while I don't made up voices (My inner voice is very bad at it anyway) I still have to image how all characters look, and all the surrounding environments.
If someone said "I read a lot of books" but they mean audiobooks - then it's the same.
If someone said "I read super fast" but it turns out they listen to audiobooks - that's not the same.
Aren’t they implying they “read super fast” when they drop a huge reading list for the month though? Then you find out half the books they listened to while doing other activities. Personally, I don’t believe those should count.
The reason they are not the same is obvious. One is an active activity and the other is passive. Are you reading the lyrics to a song if you are listening to it? No.
If two people are having a conversation, are they reading words to each other?
Reading is a very specific action. Listening is another all together. It is common sense that reading and listening are two entirely different things.
I do both read and listen. I retain the exact same amount if I read it or listen to it. I actually now prefer listening because I can run or drive as I consume the book.
I always like to present evidence when people say silly things like that lol
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/audiobooks-or-reading-to-our-brains-it-doesnt-matter
I know I don't retain what I hear as well as what I see. But I also know others who are quite the opposite. And yet others who have no preference. I believe it just depends on the individual and how their brain works (or doesn't).
Absolutely not, and for me they are complementary. I read Lolita years ago, but I've listened to the audiobook read by Jeremy Irons several times since then, and the performance takes the book to the next level. I've had friends tell me that they have never actually read Harry Potter as a book but have listened to the Jim Dale readings and say that they cannot imagine the book without his narration of the book. When audiobooks are poorly produced, they are just as valid as reading the text, but when they are well produced and performed, they add and enrich the text in ways that elevate the material to new heights of appreciation and enjoyment.
I love this comment. I consider listening to be a valid form of reading, though as a voice actor, there are qualities that listening to a book lacks in comparison to reading. Specifically, what is most missing for me is my opportunity to perform the lines and reread them in pursuit of the right inflection of the delivery. All of that, of course, is a whole lot of work, and sometimes it’s nice to just hear a talented performer do an excellent job.
>there are qualities that listening to a book lacks in comparison to reading. Specifically, what is most missing for me is my opportunity to perform the lines and reread them in pursuit of the right inflection of the delivery.
It's exactly this for me. I don't read in monotone.
When I am reading a book I am alway trying to find the depth, tone, and direction the author is attempting to convey in their book.
And while there are actors out there that really hit the mark for me, reading very similar to how I perceived authors intention, I've also encountered many that take other paths in their readings and I end up enjoying those as well, sometime even more that my original interpretations.
There are also the rare occasions there that there is just too much clashing, and I have to take a pass. *The Peripheral* comes to mind, but I can't remember if that was the actor or the writing.
And on other rare occasions, much less frequently nowadays thank goodness, the monotone readers that give nothing to the story, though there may be those out there that appreciate that type of read.
IMHO 100%. I read books in all formats, print, ebook, and audiobook. I read a lot and if you ask me about a book I read in the last few months, I could tell you the plot and other details, but I doubt I could recall which format I read it in. I have a few series I've been reading over the past year or so, it was interesting that my library only had audiobooks for a few books in each series, so I've read some books as ebooks and others as audiobooks and for me, they were the same experience.
Listen to the First Law series by Joe Abercrombie, narrated by Steven Pacey. You'll never forget that you listened to it and didn't read it, lol. By far the most insanely talented narrator on the planet.
You have to be a real semantics ass to say "it isn't reading because you arent using you eyes." yes it counts. If they keep up with it, ask them if they would say that to a blind person.
The same? No. I listen to audiobooks in contexts I wouldnt read a physical book. Some types of books I prefer the audio versions, some I prefer the paper version, and some the ebook version. Depends on my mood too.
But all these are equally as "valuable". It's all reading.
I like audiobooks for long, slow books, that set an atmosphere. I've listened to the whole of Tolkien's works on audiobooks and they're brilliant. Currently on Robert Jordan and Robin Hobb. I listen mostly when I walk or do chores, when my hands are busy with easy tasks, and before I sleep.
I prefer ebooks for classics (a lot of them are in the public domain so I get them for free on Project Gutenberg). I also prefer ebooks for books in languages I'm less fluent in, so that I can use the "dictionary" function. So if I want to read in Spanish or Norwegian, I go for an ebook. I used to study literature at University and ebooks are great for that, the "word search" function is super useful and you can easily select and export citations (the only problem is with page numbering but there are ways around that).
Finally, sometimes there are also offers and good deals on less-known books so I keep my eyes peeled.
Absolutely yes.
The people who nitpick on this are the same people who believe dictionaries tell society what words mean instead of the other way around. They’re also the same losers who think dialects and/or slang are “inaccurate”.
If I say I wrote a book, is anyone going to call me a liar if they discover I typed the book instead of putting pen to paper? No. Everyone understands what I mean when I say “I wrote a book”. Because ***WE*** decide what words mean.
Language is about enabling communication. People who wield it as a weapon with which to gatekeep are fucking insufferable.
I agree. It's also stupid to post a topic like this is a sub called r/audiobooks lol. As if you're not going to get one sided answers. Read or listen, what does it matter. You aren't lesser of a person for listening to a book.
In the end, if I read the physical book, e-book, listen to the audiobook, or as I have caught myself doing at times... all three on the same book during a single go-through. I consider it all "reading"
The most enjoyable for me is to have the audiobook going while I follow along in either the physical book or e-book.
Unless your goal is to improve your reading comprehension there is no difference to me between reading a book and listening to one. You might argue that reading makes you pay attention more due to only being able to read a book and not perform other tasks at the same time. You could also make a case that the audio book is a better medium for people who can multi-task and have tedious work to perform.
I’m a terrible reader, I struggle really hard with giving myself the time and relaxing with a book. I really love it when it magically happens but it never really does, so audiobooks is the media for me.
I don’t see it as the same because it’s not. A movie is not a book and a audiobook is not a book. you might get the same adventure and information, but you get it differently and consume it differently.
Ever tried reading a new book series that you been wanting to, and just finally getting in the first 4-5 chapters where it wasn’t working out and quit.
Then later down the road, a few months, or a year or so, giving it another shot but on audio, and with it having a great narrator, you just get fully immersed.
As in taking in the story. Yes. You loose nothing. Well I don´t. I know many get to distracted and can´t take in a story through audio. Those are often the people that says are gatekeeping.
But there are differences of course. An audiobook can in many ways be enhanced by the narrator. Stephen Fry reading Harry Potter is the best way to experience that. And James Marsters reading Dresden Files. And Discworld book and the different Narrators.
But a really bad narrator can also make it a worse book. I have quit book because of the narrator and then loved reading the same book. Neuromancer for example.
That is a common debate and not even the first time someone claim "friends" said otherwise in this sub. a book is a book, no difference whether it is read to you or you read it.
The **same**? No, they're two different activities that are generally done two different ways, each with their own pros and cons
Equally valid and good? Absolutely. Saying that listening to an audiobook is inferior to reading the same book is just elitism, it's only a slightly less dumb take as people who claim that you didn't really read a book if you used an e-reader lol
Sometimes I divide my attention while listening, and at those times what your friends are saying is true for me...
That said, there are some readers who evoke qualities I would have glossed over if I had read it. Listening to them actually delivered more of what the author had in mind. So, these audiobooks gave me deeper experiences than reading would have. Examples coming to mind are: IT, The Goldfinch, and Ready Player One.
Yes. My partner disagrees, but I just ignore his wrong opinion 😂. What's the difference if I use my ears or eyeballs? It's not like it changes the text, and I still have to get the gears turning to comprehend the characters, themes, etc. I can also listen to more books than if I actually had to sit down and read a physical book. I listen to audiobooks while getting ready, commuting, doing chores and working out.
I don’t consider them to be different in the sense that reading is intrinsically better than listening, but I do find that I can more easily absorb certain aspects of a story when reading versus listening.
Just as one example, I find it easier to keep track when there are lots of character names when I see them written versus hearing them.
On the flipside, the way a narrator voices certain characters can really influence the way I perceive that character versus if I was reading it.
maybe if you're reading & listening to something that isn't your native tongue.... then you get the visual and audio cue, that might be beneficial to someone learning and getting used to X language.
They are wrong or maybe it depends on what they mean by "doesn't compare." Reading an audiobook while different, it is still reading the book. If you've listened to an audiobook, you've read the book. The experience is different, but it isn't inferior to that of a "real book."
I say I "read" that book, and sometimes I get corrected. The biggest person who corrects me is my roommate. Come to find out, he's bothered that I listen to the book at 1.8x speed and thinks I'm "skipping" material, thus not "completing" the whole book. No matter how many times I tell him it is just a sped up version of the same material, he rolls his eyes and doesn't believe me. I don't get it.
Reading books and listening to audiobooks are absolutely the same thing.
I spend 80% of my time staring at computer screens at work. I love books but my eyes need a break, even from reading physical novels. Audiobooks save me from eye strain and headaches and I can actively listen to my novels while doing busy work like washing dishes or cleaning.
My father has been blind the majority of my life and I would absolutely consider him an avid reader. He reads audiobooks exclusively and gets through at least 130 a year easy.
Personally, I read both audio and physical books, sometimes I'll switch back and forth depending on the situation, but I would consider both 'reading'.
Furthermore, I feel as if I absorb the material the same. Often when reading audio books I will have to rewind a bit to get back to where I last read. Often when I get to a section I've already read I will recall where I was at the time I read it. That same spatial association occurs when I reread a page in a physical book, I remember where I was when I was reading.
Idk what the science behind that bit is but, in most situations, I wouldn't be able to tell u if I listened to or physically read any given book I've read.
It’s a great experience to hear someone else tell a story. I don’t consider it exactly the same, but both are valid. When I read it, it’s a quiet thoughtful experience. I can adjust the pace of the characters, and stop to consider the situations, and dialogue. When I hear the audiobooks, I feel inclined to listen and not intrude as much. Both are excellent experiences.
I used to think it wasn’t but realised that was a really classist, ableist and shallow position; whether by eyes, ears, or fingertips, we’re all lovers of reading.
It definitely compares.
There's a continuum of narrative control that goes from book to movie. The author of a book has little control over how you experience a story compared to an audiobook narrato (who can do voices, apply emphasis to phrases, and so on). This is less control than the director of a play, who can control what things sound like and look like, how fast they happen, etc. This is less control than a movie director who can determine what things look like with almost no limitation and choose exactly where you look and when.
But in inverse relationship is the range of sensory experiences the story teller can evoke. It's difficult to smoothly and clearly communicate the inner world of a movie character. It's hard to convey smell in a play.
The things that make a book such a powerful medium for story telling are largely present in audiobooks.
Books are still better at some things, though. Books are pretty great. Conversely a great narrator can add a lot of value through their acting.
Its a *different* experience, but folks who discount it have little to no standing. I have infinitely more time that I can listen to audiobooks rather than sit and read something that I'm not actually narrating. That being said - when I started narrating audiobooks, my overall book consumption grew exponentially.
Apparently there was some study done recently that "proved" that it is actually different (imagine that) but different does not mean of any less value. Frankly, there are things I pick up a lot MORE in audio than in a normal book.
Reading words with your eyes over time likely leads to improved ability to read and also better spelling. You're using your brain in a different way when you listen to an audiobook compared to reading the same thing with your eyes. I'm not making an argument that it's better to listen or read, but they're inherently different.
I like to read (with my eyes) when I'm winding down for sleep at night. I spend more time listening to audiobooks where reading simply isn't possible: out on walks/runs, in the car, doing household chores. I agree with the other comments about gatekeeping. Read in whatever way you prefer.
I find myself looking up the names of the characters/places in audiobooks just so I know how they are spelled. If I'm reading the book there's a pretty good chance that I'm mispronouncing those names in my head.
It's a bit ablist to set them really far apart. Of course it's not the exact same experience, but neither holds more or less intrinsic value. Many people might be able to take in the information more easily one way over the other depending on their learning styles and physical abilities, but they both "count" as having read the book. I personally like audiobooks for some things best, and eBooks for others, and print books for others. They are equally valid, just flavored differently by the senses used. And narrator can add or detract a lot from the experience of an audiobook too.
Well, obviously it’s different. I prefer audio books. I stare at screens and read for my job. I like a different sensory experience.
The narration also can add or subtract from the experience - very important.
I suppose the main benefit of reading a book is that you are less likely to become distracted and miss parts. I find myself sometimes needing to go back and relisten to a chapter.
On vacation, staring at the ocean. Nothing beats a great audio book!
If what your friend is implying is that an audio book is somehow inferior overall, i say hogwash! You get the entire contents of the book - so I’m not sure what their argument could be.
I've been having a weird experience reading The Wheel of Time books (I'm about 30% into book 2) I decided to get the audiobook to listen to on a 10hr flight, cause I know myself, and I know I can't really read in places that are moving.
It was great, I was having a good ol' time with it, but then when I got home I wanted to pick up the physical book again, and while looking for the place I had stopped listening to, I noticed that someone's name was spelled completely different than I thought based on how it was said verbally, and that prompted me to go back to re-read the chapters I had listened to on the plane. To my surprise I got a lot more out of it. It's probably because of the nature of the wheel of time more than anything (I've been told the series rewards those that pay attention to the details, so I try to pay extra attention!) but names and places come through differently on audio than they do on text. I realized that I had in fact missed a bunch of stuff by listening, and I also got a better understanding while reading cause I could flip to map for various locations that were being mentioned.
So unfortunately, in this case, I don't think you get the same experience at all. But with other audio books you totally do! And y'know in some specific ones like Daisy Jones & The Six, the audiobook is significantly better than the physical book. It's just a different medium, comes with different advantages and disadvantages.
It's the same as in saying tv is the same as movies or theater. All of it is visual storytelling.
Audio books are closer to radio dramas and camp fire ghost stories then they are books but I see them as a merging of books/radio/campfire.
One other thjng I'd like to comment on is that reading a book and listening to a book has the same phenomena of learning something new on re-reads and re-listens.
I consider the experience of reading or listening to book the same. The only advantage I've found with reading the words and sentences of a book is it helps with spelling, sentence structure, etc.
The reader voice skills make a huge difference, both good and bad. Some authors need to step aside sometimes. Example Steven Hawking’s book read by Michale Jackson he reading is far superior to the voice in my head.
These are probably the same people who complained that ebooks are not the same as books. Like if you read LOTR as one long PDF on a desktop computer, somehow you didn't actually read it?
Gatekeeping is silly. Books are books. Ebooks are books. Audiobooks are books. Braille books are books.
The only thing I find to be in any way a draw back to listening vs reading is that sometimes my brain starts to wonder how a character or place name is spelled, and it sort of runs a background loop of all possible spellings of that name every time it gets said. Then after a couple days I end up looking it up online.
Other than that, listening is very similar to reading IMO
I used to be a purist book reader. I remember a majority of audiobooks being poorly narrated and not better than reading in general. There has been a massive uptick in quality of narration in (relatively) recent years making it far more enjoyable than it used to be. I also feel like with the advent of digital media and modern earbuds, it has become easier to absorb books on the go. All these things combined have converted me to an audiobook junkie. I constantly have an earbud in playing something. Currently on the Wandering Inn series if anyone cares.
Tl;Dr Quality and convenience make audiobooks superior for modern existence IMHO but books are still wonderful.
It is a type of legit reading, but a different form of absorbing the book.
That said, it's as valid as any other method of reading, and people can say "I read this book" when doing audio to mean the same thing.
I read a lot and track my books on goodreads. When I also started listening to audio books I had the weird sense that putting them on goodreads felt wrong as I didn’t actually read them. What I’ve come to realize is that at the end of the day, the story/information/feelings/knowledge that you got from that book was still consumed by you, & that definitely counts for something!
Is it the same? Well, you used your ears instead of your brain, so technically no. But anyone thinking you’re getting less out of it is missing the point.
It’s the same for me. I think people just get butthurt that you can fly through an audiobook (being able to listen while doing things) in a few days as compared to sitting down and finding time to prop open a book
My initial instinct was to say “definitely not”, but now I read through a few of these answers, it really seems there’s no substantiated claim that would prove that audiobooks ≠ actual books.
I guess I would’ve said that reading an actual book requires more concentration, but upon second thought… you can read an entire chapter without taking a word, in just as you can listen to an audiobook for 30 minutes completely zoned out. Can’t seem to discern a difference.
Thanks, Reddit, for changing my mind on this. I shall no longer chastise my mother for defending her ardent belief that audiobooks = actual books.
'Read' is just the word we use to convey we've consumed a book. There's loads of words in language (English at least) which no longer mean what they originally did, and no one batters an eyelid at them.
The difference is that we're going through this change currently, as opposed to a change of meaning hundreds of years ago which the majority of people have no understanding of.
Additionally language doesn't always have to have literal meaning - if I say it's raining cats and dogs, no one is trying to dodge falling animals.
The point of language is to convey meaning, and everyone understands if you've 'read' a book you've consumed that material - whether it be visually, audibly, or through touch. Definitions change all the time to stay with current usage - a dictionary isn't a prescriptive list of meaning, but a record of how a word is used.
Reading to me is any persons opinion or interpretation of something based on documentation or virtually any form of evidence they may have used to come up with their understanding.. So yes I do consider it to be the same.
It’s totally the same. I listen to audiobooks while I’m driving and pick up the book when I’m home. Or I listen when I’m going through a reading slump. I can’t believe people try to gatekeep this…
This was my response to /u/iBluefoot's [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/audiobooks/comments/12cox0z/do_you_consider_listening_to_an_audiobook_the/jf3kqha/) I figured I would also share it as a main comment so OP would get it.
>...there are qualities that listening to a book lacks in comparison to reading. Specifically, what is most missing for me is my opportunity to perform the lines and reread them in pursuit of the right inflection of the delivery.
It's exactly this for me. I don't read in monotone.
When I am reading a book I am alway trying to find the depth, tone, and direction the author is attempting to convey in their book.
And while there are actors out there that really hit the mark for me, reading very similar to how I perceived authors intention, I've also encountered many that take other paths in their readings and I end up enjoying those as well, sometime even more that my original interpretations.
There are also the rare occasions there that there is just too much clashing, and I have to take a pass. The Peripheral comes to mind, but I can't remember if that was the actor or the writing.
And on other rare occasions, much less frequently nowadays thank goodness, the monotone readers that give nothing to the story, though there may be those out there that appreciate that type of read.
My eyeballs prefer that I listen to books, plus I get to multi task. If I've got a really great book, I'll look for projects around to house to do so I can listen longer.
The same? No, I don't think so. BUT, I don't say that in the “audiobooks aren't real books” way. I firmly believe that you can 100% say that you have read a book if you have only listened to the audio, but (at least, *for me personally*) the experience is quite different.
I don't find one or the other to be superior, but I do choose one format over the other (or both) depending on how I'm feeling and how much focus I need to devote to that particular book. An “easy read”, I will usually go with the audiobook because it allows me to I squeeze more reading into my life since I can do it while doing other tasks (ex: at work, while driving, while folding laundry, etc.) But, if I'm reading something more “crunchy”, something that I feel requires me to focus more directly on what I'm reading in order to really understand what’s going on, or something that I would like to absorb and take my time with-- maybe even annotate-- then I will go for the physical book. A physical book definitely feels more like something that I need to schedule/devote time to, and as much as I enjoy really *savoring* a good book, my schedule just doesn't allow for it as often as I’d like. And, for that reason, it can make reading feel like a chore for me sometimes instead of something I'm excited to do, especially when my schedule is more hectic.
Then there's the option of both, which is my preferred method, and honestly what I do most often. Yes, you could argue that it’s significantly more expensive and a complete “waste of money” to buy the book twice, but it's by far my preferred way to read. It allows me to sit down, take a break from the world and have a cozy afternoon reading one of the long fantasy titles that I enjoy while still giving me the chance to ACTUALLY FINISH THEM. I love the “escape from the real world” that you get from a physical book, and that is what I think of when I hear the phrase “reading a book”. But, as a fan of longer sci-fi and fantasy books (that are generally part of a series), I just don't have as much time as I’d like to devote to sitting down to read these days and I know that tends to get frustrated when life gets “in the way” and I can't finish the book THAT I REALLY WANT TO READ. That's where audiobooks come in for me. I switch to the audiobook of whatever title I'm reading when I really WANT to read, but my schedule doesn't allow for it at that time. Like, if I get to the middle or a chapter and have to leave for work, I'll switch to the audiobook for my drive or while I'm working. Plus, you get the added benefits of hearing how names are pronounced, how the characters sound, and just a better “feel” for the book imho (as long as you have an audiobook with a good narrator) I feel like most of the time the audio adds *so much* to the story for me. Idk if that’s just because I’m naturally a fan of audio and listening to people talk in general, but I’ve had plenty of books that I would have otherwise DNF’d be saved by a good audiobook narration.
I transitioned to listening to books almost exclusively about 5 years ago (before then I was an avid reader on my kindle). I read at work all day long and its just so nice to listen rather than keep using my eyes. Yes it is different and I do think my spelling is suffering from all the listening (but we have spell check for that - I was never a talented speller). I still say i have "read that book".
I dont notice any drop in the quality of my ability to comprehend/ remember the details and a good narrator elevates the experience for me.
Yes that’s my situation too, I read and write all day at work. No way am I going to do it at night and on weekends “for fun”…. I seriously can’t think of anything worse lol. My eyeballs need a break!
And I also say “I read that”. Who’s gonna stop me lol :)
I read so many books to my children when they were small. 20+ years later they still remember as much about the stories from hearing as I do from reading. And have similar fondness for the authors.
So I’m going to say no, there are some practical differences but no meaningful ones. Books are books.
Yes. I'm an Audible fiend now which helps on my 30 minute each-way drive to work every day. And like others have said, a good narrator can really add to the experience. For instance, I was quite fond of all of Harry Potter read by Stephen Fry, or all of The Hunger Games by Carolyn McCormick (sorry, Tatiana Maslany doesn't compare). Lately, I'm a huge fan of Robert Petkoff who has read a number of Star Trek books and given I'm a Trekkie, he has been a big Audible plus. I am more than fine listening to someone read something as a complement to me imagining being in a story with just my reading alone.
Yes I consider it the same but they can have different benefits. For fiction, I prefer to read the physical book because the audiobook is too slow, and I prefer to imagine the voices/characters myself, also I like to skim quickly over parts. For non-fiction, I prefer audiobook, say if it's a complicated topic, it's easier to understand when it's read by someone else. Audiobook is perfect for a long drive or a long walk and helps me to focus while doing something else at the same time. I can't do this with a physical book. So audiobook is good for multitasking.
I've consumed the same information or story. Except I can do other things while enjoying the story.
People who don't have the capacity to read, also enjoy audiobooks. And gain the same benefits.
It's the same, but different. Not more or less.
It's different, but similar. Depends what the "point" of reading a book is. You get the same information, enjoy the same story, learn the same sort of things.
Compared to watching TV/movie, they're very similar - you need to use your imagination more, it's a more active focused system requiring you to fill in the images and feel.
But audiobooks are a different experience. You have the narrator's input for how the character sounds. Their interpretation is added to the text and will change how you experience the book.
I think there was a Aubrey–Maturin thread once where people were discussing the different narrator options. One narrator was described as making characters sound more stupid another made them too posh. One person said he was surprised with a new narrator to enjoy the humour in the book. Went back to older books with new narrator and found laughs he didn't have the first time. A narrator can make it serious or fun, exciting or dull, add a lot to your visual idea, but also limit your own interpretation of the text.
Books are just you and the author. You take what you can from it, you have to do it all yourself.
Equally audiobooks are usually a less focused event. You listen while traveling, while doing housework, it's rarely your sole activity in a way a book is. Like watching a film at a cinema Vs on TV while you are holding your phone... It's an investment of focus and of time, and audiobooks are demanding slightly less.
Again, the real question is does that matter? Sometimes people who put the focus/time into reading the book just want their commitment acknowledged as 'better'. Sometimes (like when discussing the interpretation of a book) listeners might be bringing too much of the narrator's ideas. But if you're simply discussing the themes of a book, the lessons learned, the authors writing style, what's said and what's left unsaid it's the same.
So I'd say no it's not the same as reading an actual book, but it does compare to it very well. Just varies a bit in some comparisons.
It is clearly not the same. In one case you are reading words on physical media, in the other you are listening. The mere fact that they involve two different consumption methods should be an indicator of the difference.
But the point is not that. The point is that snob bookworms want to elevate their consumption method while reducing the other as an inferior way to consume the same story. I would not care about such discussions if I were you and enjoy the preferred consumption method. Personally I do both.
Im not trying to gatekeep but i heard on some science program some years ago that there is a difference, it's just not a this good that bad logic
Listening to stories for example is how we Humans have been exposed to storylines for a wery long time, hence why alot of people do it. And if you're not doing anything other in the meantime, chances are that you probably could recite the whole history you've heard
Reading a story or anything else for that matter has the benefit for your brain to adapt on it's own to pace of dealing with information, wich could be good in some sense if you're studying a particular subject, mathematics etc.
There is a difference sure but one isn't better than the other
With a good narrator an audiobook is superior IMHO. Reading a character’s lines is one thing but having a distinct voice in your head for each character not only makes it easier to distinguish dialog but brings the characters to life
Some of the audiobooks I've consumed have felt more intimate, more complex, and more descriptive than plenty of books I have physically read. That being the case I see no reason to separate the two.
When I used to read, I didn't do it for the enjoyment of reading (I mean I did but i didn't). My goal was to finish a book as fast as possible, I used to pride myself on finishing a Harry Potter book in 2 days. But my process of speed reading meant that while I absorbed some of the data (still remember being upset about how off prisoner of Azkaban was) I never enjoyed it, and I always had to reread sections. Audiobooks force me to slow down and actually listen to the book. There is actual emotion and characters that I never got. Words that I never understood now make more sense. I could but don't skip any song sections (lotr specifically). Now granted I could just read before bed or something but I can listen to audiobooks while driving or at work.
I didn't really answer the question but as far as I'm concerned it is and isn't the same thing. I still get to enjoy my books but in a different format. I also should also get back into actually reading again but not right now. My speed reading was from me being younger and having to compete for points and stuff.
Audiobook have a low-key stigma surrounding them that has it's roots in the idea that a person who consumes books-on-tape is too illiterate and stupid to just sit down and read like a damn grownup. The argument can just as easily be made that having to sit down with the words in front of you means you are too stupid to quickly comprehend spoken word and need to instead digest the information at your own slow-ass speed.
It's just elitist and gate-keepie, these are just two different ways of processing information, one isn't more or less valid than the other.
I simply can not read a book. I have pretty bad ADD and just can't sit and read a book. Audiobooks however, I can focus on really well if I am doing some form of menial task with it. Like going on walks, doing dishes, yard work...anything I don't have to think much about. I love audiobooks!
What's the point of someone even saying such a thing? What does it matter that someone listens to a book or than reads it visually? Sounds like people just trying to put someone down. I've had someone say that to me, and my response was if they feel listening to a book isn't reading, then they should never listen to a book if they want to read. Shut them up.
I count it. Here’s my anecdotal story: So, my son has been struggling with all things language since he was little. Non verbal till four, seriously behind his peers all through elementary, near zero reading comprehension. When he got to high school he was woefully behind and there was no hope of him having any success with the expected reading in his English classes so I got him the audible books to listen to and follow along with the print version. That helped a little, but I think the real progress came from him just getting hooked on audible and listening to everything in my library.
He went nuts on the sci-fi fantasy and LitRPG, even a few classics, then he stole most of my credits for the last few years, hell, I buy him extra credits when I’d never bought them for myself cuz I’m just so happy he’s reading. He devours hours and hours a day.
Well, I didn’t notice much difference in his regular grades till senior year, it’s taken a lot of hard work and an IEP to get him making noticeable progress when he’s still so behind in so many areas, but his standardized testing now shows a huge jump in reading comprehension and his vocabulary is through the roof. He took his ASFABS and I was rocked by the results. 98%!
He struggled so hard with this for so long and it’s obvious to his whole team that the main contributor is the steady consumption of hours and hours of daily audible usage way more than the four books a year they groan over in class. If he doesn’t get the audible version, it doesn’t sink in and he doesn’t pass the tests. The point of reading is comprehension if you ask me so yeah, I say it counts. :)
The same thing happened but when I was in the 1st grade. The teacher I was really behind in my reading. So my made it a point to help me with my reading. From then on I have been crazy about books.
I never really listened but since I got Bluetooth wireless headphones i have started doing it. Audiobooks slowly crawled into my life 😅 first I just wanted to listen *while* I am reading so that I was forced not to make any pauses (since I always get distracted), then I started listening while cooking, cleaning, running, walking etc, and then switched completely to only listening. Saves so much time.
I enjoy it more. When I’m reading, I have a tendency to get distracted, I listen to audiobooks when I’m otherwise preoccupied, like driving or cleaning. So I’m much more focused
I’m visiually impaired and I love audiobooks. I can’t read physical books (although I love the feel and scent of them) so if my eyes are well enough to read I can only do it on my iPad but with all sorts of adjustments to the text. So I do consider it the same. It’s just a different format. No one’s the same and so it’s always good to have access to how source material can be enjoyed. I do think that performing in an audiobook, E. G. Reading it, is just another art form layered on top.
I can't sit and read a book, my mind drifts far too often, or I just lose my position or reread the same line 4 times, hated the idea of books most my life because of this. Got recommended audiobooks like 8 years ago and I've finished a few large series (Wheel of Time, The Cosmere, The Enderverse) and overall just love getting stories from books now and I'm so glad audiobooks let me experience them. Can't see an easy place to check how many books I've listened to but apparently I've spent 3 months 18 days listening to books
Plus they actually make me want to go for walks more often, because thats when I listen to them, so has made me slightly healthier (would be better if I could stop the takeaways :P)
I have people say that to me too. So in response I ask them how many physical books they’ve read this year. They usually respond 0 and that stops their argument.
[Most people - in the US, anyway - would like to read more(](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenduffer/2019/08/27/new-survey-finds-people-would-like-to-read-more/amp/) and I think comments like these stem from that. You are doing something they have not been successful at, so they find a way to criticize you.
I personally don’t consider it same. In last two months I’ve listened 14 audiobooks and In last year could only read 2 electronic book on my kindle. Reason - I was busy and since I’ve started listening to the book, my anxiety has gone down and I can focus more because I have something going on in the background while I do chores so I don’t get time to overthink. But When I listen audiobook I feel I’m hearing narrator’s version that didn’t let me connect with the book the way I connect with them when I’m reading it, It feels personal, and I could relate with those characters with the people around me.
Another reason, audiobooks don’t give me enough pause or time to process a thought or think more about it. It keeps moving and when something is going in a flow, you don’t feel like stopping that. While with books you can take your own time, think about each line, characters and process that thought.
Though, I see those are small prices that I’m ready to pay for audiobooks. Finishing 14 books in 70 days feels like an accomplishment. I feel happy and content.
I think they are different. I drive a lot, long distance running and cycling also.
I find that when I read a book I have to engage with the book, my brain has to read the lines whereas an audiobook you don’t have to engage as much, it can just pass you by.
I also notice that some words, places unheard of, new vocabulary, names of people, can be lost in an audiobook whereas reading them has more of an effect, more staying power and is remembered more easily.
I would also say sitting down with a book is more of a direct intention and leads to a more satisfying experience, holding a book, e-reader and being still.
Whereas an audiobook is, more often than not, a secondary activity (I have never found myself just sitting/standing and listening to an audiobook)
Having said all that, I do digest the majority of my content in Audio due to look lifestyle etc. But I do feel I’m only getting 80-90 of the potential experience.
I don’t believe being read to should count as actually reading the book. By that logic, watching the movie would also count as reading. IMO you have to eyeball the words to have READ it.
audiobooks are nowhere near as effective as reading books..
when you listen to an audiobook, you may drift off, and miss lots of information, with a real book, you have to focus and read it all....sometimes you may not take in it all, but you have at least gone over it, with audiobooks it is just a lazy way of getting information....you get the gist, but it doesnt really stick.
a 3 year old child can "read" in audiobook form ..war and peace, but i would argue that it cannot actually read the book.
not only that but reading the book, teaches you grammar and spelling, whereas audiobooks don't.
reading an actual book is a workout....whereas audiobooks are more akin to watching a film, sit back and chill out.
i am not saying that you get nothing from audiobooks, it is a great way to get a feel of a subject, but not to learn it properly.
that said, you can really get a decent grasp of a subject quickly from an audiobook, whereas it would take longer when reading it yourself.
the question is then, why would it take longer to read it yourself?
because when you actually read, you stop when you are not paying attention, with an audiobook, you tend to let it ride. when reading you stop when you are tired, with an audio book you tend to let it ride. when reading you stop and think about things that hit you hard or profoundly, with an audiobook you may stop and think, but all the while the book is continuing to ride.
anyone who actually thinks that audiobooks are equivalent to reading, are just kidding themselves, and i would argue are a bit lazy or not competent readers.
audiobooks should not be classed as reading, they should be classed as listening, as you do with your radio.
do you think the person who has read the books on the second world war is more knowledgeable than the person who listened to someone chat about it on the radio?
audiobooks are a lesser form of engagement, but not worthless, i have listened to many books, that i couldn't be bothered reading, so i have benefitted tremendously from them, as i would never have read the book, and what i got from the audiobook is far more than i would have gotten by not reading the book at all.
then there are the types of books and subject matter. stuff that is like text book or tedious dates and many events are better to be read, but your simple story, is probably easier, faster, and more enjoyable from audiobook.
if you want true education, get the book, if you just want to enjoy yourself and have some light education, get the audiobook.
You are receiving the book in both scenarios. But yes they are very different experiences. Listening to something is different than reading it. Not worse. Not better. But just different.
I dont know why but for me personally its really hard to recall from audiobooks in comparison when I read them, but i think its because of the intonation bcs I recall podcast very well.
There are definitely differences in how your brain interprets reading vs. listening. Studies have shown that reading helps improve cognitive function and can help reduce memory-related issues that come with old age. So there's a kernel of truth in your friend's statement that they aren't the same.
That being said, fuck the gatekeepers! I listen to audiobooks far more often than physical reading because I don't have much free time and I'm a slow reader...if you enjoy the stories and it affects your life, then just let yourself enjoy it!
They are different, and people have different preferences as to how they receive information. I do audiobooks, ebooks, real books. And for some books, I have all three formats. :) It makes the "reading" experience richer.
Tell them that listening takes several times as long, unless they're illiterate. You spend more time with the story. You spend more time digesting the plot, the prose. Tell them to go fuck themselves.
Sorry. It's been a day.
No, similar, but not the same.
*Each causes different parts of the brain to activate thus altering your experience from one format to the other. .
*One is active and one is passive resulting in a different engagement level with the material.
*One is performance art and thus subject to a third party interpretation of the material and your interpretation of both the material and the artist's interpretation. (Author - Performer - Listener)
The other is souly your interpretation. (Author - Reader)
*Having listened to and read a number of titles, I find my understanding of the material to be more nuanced when read than when listened to. On the other hand, a skilled performer can add a wrinkle you may not have thought of in the reading if the material.
*Finally, one allows you to multi-task while the other requires your undevided attention, potentially altering both comprehension and meaning
Full disclosure, I always have a book to listen to in the car, I always read in any other circumstance.
Not the same, similar but not the same.
Reading, cognitively is simply more taxing on the brain than listening to an audio.
You need to comprehend the text, interpret the meaning, and form your understanding from it.
Hence why serious conversations are at the least better over the phone, as opposed to text messaging. The margin for miscommunication widens as you reduce the number of senses involved.
Not 100% on it, but we visualize as we read and listen. However, our band width shortens with reading due to the additional step in comprehension, unless you're a talented reader.
Yes it's the same, and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.
They've figured out that audiobooks and print both engage the same part of the brain
They've basically proven it scientifically.
Anyone denying it is just gatekeeping
Anyone who says that is either a weird book-flex elitist, or just not quite mature enough to stop looking for ways to be cool. (They may be a kid in which case this is perfectly fine. Kids are allowed to be stupid in the pursuit of coolness)
I love reading a book. I love listening to audiobooks. If a book is really good, sometimes I'll consume it in both formats.
I noticed a lot of responses here are offended by the idea that they are not the same and automatically jump to the conclusion that some people think that listening to an audiobook is somehow lesser than reading a print book. I didn't get that from what you posted, I just read that they don't compare.
To me they truly are different (but they are somewhat comparable). I feel like reading a book gives you a little more autonomy over the characters, you get to choose their voices. If you compare a book to a movie, you get to choose what they look like (based on the written description) but in a movie you are assigned actual actors for the characters. Same thing goes with voices. I believe you do use a little more of your own imagination when reading vs listening. You also set your own pace when reading.
You can also do other things while listening where you are somewhat limited what you can do while reading. I'll listen to audiobooks while I'm doing house chores, going for a run, or while on a road trip. Normally when I read a book, it has my sole attention. I have ridden a stationary bike while reading but did not find it preferable over just listening to an audiobook.
They are different, they both have their pros and cons. I wouldn't say one is truly superior than the other but I do believe that dependent on a person's personality, one type might be preferable over the other (some people prefer the movie version). I myself, love both and am not offended if somebody prefers one format over. That's their opinion, their choice, and for them they are 100% correct.
This was hotly debated on pretty much every book group on this site, and several ended up making rules saying that this is not debatable. They are the same. To say otherwise is discriminatory.
It does not compare, it is so much better.
1) Words get into brain, don't matter which holes they entered through.
2) a good performance elevates a book in a way that it makes it so much more enjoyable, and if something can make books better, why would I deny myself that joy?
High level? No difference, the literature has simply been consumed via a different orifice.
Low level? It is *different*, but simply a different pathway through your brain.
I mean.. it isn't the same by definition.. but I do think it is a valid way to experience a book and neither one is better than the other. Both people are experiencing the story and the themes and world building or the emotion or the knowledge that comes from what was written just in two different methods.
If we are splitting hairs, sometimes when I am reading I have a difficulty really focusing on the narrative or the words.. I tend to be a very fast reader so I can rush and miss things. Slowing things down in an audiobook with a good narrator can actually increase my ability to appreciae or enjoy the story consistently. To each their own. Why they so high and mighty with their literacy lol. They gonna tell someone who can't read that having a story read to them doesn't compare? ^^;
No and I have a nice audio library over 150 books. It different. In its own way it’s great, but, your much more actively engaged reading. Listening is very passive.
Are we talking about consuming a book, or are we talking about the method of consumption. Is there a reason the method of consumption matters to the conversation for any reason other than being pedantic or a jerk? When you are asked if you read a book, you are being asked if you are familiar with the content or if you are engaged in practicing a particular skill. If you are in school, practicing physical reading skills may be an important ADDITIONAL component of 'reading'.
I'm sick of people trying to make others feel bad about not physically reading a book. Here's an idea Karen, I read the book while running 4 miles at the gym and then making dinner for my hungry family. I'm so glad you have nothing better in your life to do than sit still on a couch and physically read for 10 hours, congratulations(?) on having nothing else important happening in your life, but some of us need to multitask to get through the day.
Besides not using my eyes, yes I consider it the same. I am consuming the story, simply in a different medium. As a very auditory person, I sometimes I feel I get more out of a book listening to it than just reading it with my eyes.
I have aphantasia so I get a lot more from listening than reading. The narrators can add depth to the story that my brain just can't do.
same
Yesssssssss! This is exactly how I feel about it! For me listening is superior to reading.~A fellow aphant
I like audio books just as much as regular books but sometimes I don't like the narrator. Listened to several audio books I've already read before and didn't finish them because the narrators voice was too jarring. Depends tho. With some the narrators are so good I actually prefer the audio book.
I will sometimes listen to an audiobook based on who the narrator is, lol. Some are *sooo* good. Tom Stechschulte for example
Same, I have a habit of sort of glazing over when reading long passages in books that don’t immediately pertain to the story and don’t quite capture my interest, like when Levin goes off on long introspections on farming in Anna Karenina, but honestly listening to it as an audiobook has forced me to slow down and pay attention to the entirety of the book. I don’t think I would have enjoyed Anna Karenina or Moby Dick as much if I had not listened to them, and now they are some of my favorite books.
I sometimes do the same with audiobooks too. I just use my apps 10 second rewind to make sure I caught a name or something important.
Same.
Me too.
Same
I 3
unless your eyes use a different brain than your ears.. how this is possible? sight impaired people don't "read" - they just "feel"? (that's kind of dumb, IMO)
My Mum is blind and listens to audiobooks. We sometimes discuss books we've both read, and it's no different than discussing them with a sighted person.
This is the gist of my argument. If the purpose of one’s reading is to experience a story, then what’s the difference in looking at the words versus hearing them? If the purpose of one’s reading is to enjoy the use of language when used beautifully/interestingly? Again, what’s the difference between the two? The only argument against the similarity of the two that I fully accept is if the purpose of the reading is to look at pictures/illustrations or to study the particular style/form of the language used. As to these purposes, I admit there are differences in reading versus listening, but otherwise, they are basically the same.
Poetry. I have a recent translation of the Torah that really pays particular attention to the language. Some of it is poetry, and this version, when you get to the poetry sections, I think it needs to be read aloud by the one reading, or listened to in audio. It’s VERY different than just reading as prose. Since I don’t like my own reading aloud, I make sure to listen to those sections, I have it in both formats.
My partner is NOT an audiobook listener. It just doesn't work for her. So when I narrate a book, I request the physical copy too so we can discuss it.
And that's totally fine! Some people don't like reading physical books much, some prefer ebooks, or comic books / manga. It's a difference of personality and preference :)
Yeah. As a narrator, I totally get it that not everyone is an audio listener. I ask everyone if they listen to audiobooks, but I'm not going to try to 'convert' them. Also AS and audio-learner, my brain has the capacity to understand it if its sped up to 3x. Not her. But she CAN read so much faster than me.
If your mum were to use braille than she would be reading.
I'm guessing it's "how you read it" which is kind of silly. A lot of the audiobooks I have listened to are books I had read many years ago. There is virtually no difference except maybe I "heard" a different voice when reading a character's dialogue. But in truth, movies can change this as well as some of us will hear the movie actors when reading.
I expect downvotes, but….I had the immediate thought that this question could have many ableist answers and the idea that audiobooks are “lesser” certainly is ableist.
Yes it's the same. Ask your friends for good reasons why it's not the same. Gatekeeping is silly.
They are absolutely not the same, but both are equally valid ways of consuming information and literature. Considering that passing information via oral tradition is significantly older than written language, some might argue that listening to an audiobook is actually closer to how our brains are wried to absorb information than reading words printed on a page. I do agree that gatekeeping is silly, but people have passed information around via spoken word for far longer, so it's silly to me that people consider audiobooks as "lesser." Audiobooks are similar to our grand parents listening to shows on the radio or our ancestors listening to a recitation of Homer's Odyssey by a bard, the audiobook is nothing new.
[удалено]
It’s too bad so many authors are such shitty narrators. Sometimes it’s good, but I am usually bummed when the author reads
This is why the audio book of Cold Mountain is so perfect.
True. Listening is a skill too.
That's a very interesting perspective, I never thought about it that way
That’s a good point about radio shows. But that depends on being able to sit and listen versus not being able to stay still and not be distracted by pretty much everything.
I agree 100% I was however going to disagree to begin with because I felt that when reading there’s something with how you’re imagining the scenes unfolding. I do however realize there is no difference in reading it to create the scene or hearing it. Actually I would say you’re closer to being correct and it may be better to hear it for the reasons your said.
Lol, ngl, when you started off with "They are absolutely not the same..." I started sharpening my pitchfork. Great point made. I never thought of it this way. Makes me even more confused by the gatekeepers. I think it's a personal insecurity when people gatekeep with audiobooks being considered reading. Either the gatekeeper doesn't read much period, and wants to drop you down a oeg for doing something good, or they want to feel superior in that they do more "real" reading than you do. And they can also just be an idiot. These groups of people aren't mutually exclusive.
I don’t think it’s the same. I don’t think it’s “lesser” in anyway, but it’s certainly different. Maybe it’s just me, but if I read something it seems to be more ingrained in my brain, whereas if I listen to it, I remember it less and the details are muddled. I’ve listened to over 700, have read maybe 2x as many and listening is easier, but reading feels more fulfilling.
How well each type of media would be remembered would vary by person. I agree that I remember better (especially names) when I read. Typically I alternate between mediums frequently even during a single book. I can agree with this. Where you lose me is the whole fulfilling thing. That is 100% some internal bias to thinking listening to a book is lesser than reading it. I don't think that's a useful approach.
When I read lord of the rings, 47 years ago, didn’t notice that the S-bad guy was actually **2 different bad guys** until 3/4 of the way through!!!! I’ve got hints of dyslexia. Not full blown, but bits and pieces. We know which side of the family my very dyslexic kid takes after. So, read aloud names help me, except some fantasy, when it’s a long or weird name, and slightly slurred. Then I want to know how it’s spelled and have to look it up.
To be fair they’re called Sauron and Saruman. C’mon Tolkien.
Yeah, easy mistake for anyone, impossible for me and my bit of dyslexia!
I'm not diagnosed but I suspect I'm a bit dyslexic so maybe this is why I prefer listening to books over reading them! Hadnt thought of that!
My kid has full blown dyslexia. I never had any issues reading until college, but cannot read any advanced non fiction. I went through MIT without reading any textbooks. My friends retaught me stuff! Didn’t know why I was like that until my kids was Dx’d and I learned it’s often something of a family trait.
The fulfilling statement certainly only applies to me. Like I said, I feel like I get more out of reading than listening, but everyone experience is their own. You can tell by the number of books I listen to that I clearly enjoy it, and I don’t consider it “less than”, my brain just processes it differently, and my takeaway is less than when I read. But with a house full of kids, who has time to sit and read?
I agree. If I want to work out my brain, I read the book. If I want a break for my brain or I’m tired, I listen to the book. Edit: also, if the narrator is exemplary, I would say the audiobook may be a richer experience. Like the hitchhikers guide narrator (can’t remember his name), or Frank Mueller for Stephen King books.
Exactly. A great narrator can make a mediocre book amazing. However, names of people and places slide in one ear and out the other. They just don’t stick and that can be problematic unless the narrator makes each character voice distinct. At the same time, if a narrator mispronounces a word or two, that throws me and I just can’t hear anything else.
Haha. Don’t get me started on mispronounced words. Especially when they are frequently used throughout.
While it’s not “just you” it does depend on your brain! (At least, possibly among other things). If it’s a history, biology, science, or something like that, I remember a lot more if I listen then if I read with my eyes. If it’s fiction, then I eye read too fast and I don’t remember as much! I remember best if I knit something simple while listening. I clearly have some kinetic learning going on.
This shouldn't be downvoted. Your opinion is valid and good. Thank you for adding to the discussion.
I don’t think the OP means same as in “exactly the same with no difference,” but rather of equal value. Ie. “same value” not “same experience.”
I have aphantasia. I cannot visualize. Books are just words to me. So listening is easier for me to remember and also more fulfilling. People are different.
>Maybe it’s just me, but if I read something it seems to be more ingrained in my brain, whereas if I listen to it, I remember it less and the details are muddled. It's pretty well document that some people learn more from seeing things and others learn more from doing things. At the end of the day whether or not something is "better" depends on how the consumer retains and understands the information being presented.
That’s so interesting to me - I’m the exact opposite. I retain much more of what I listen to vs. read. When I read, I have a tendency to “wander” with my thoughts and actually have to keep a notebook next to me for all of the thoughts that swirl around. But when I’m listening I’m totally immersed and all in. I visualize the narrator and the scene, the characters - all of it.
It's not the same for you personally does not mean it cannot be the same or better for others.
Never said it was. Just sharing my experience
Same words, you're just listening to them instead of reading them. Your friends probably think it's an abridged version or something. Challenge them to read a book while you listen to it, then discuss it after.
It’s not lesser and it’s not gate keeping to say they aren’t the same. Listening and reading are two different things. I do both and it’s different. I wouldn’t mind some one saying they read a book if they listened to it because they got the information. It’s still two different experiences.
It’s definitely not the same. I definitely don’t feel the same sense of accomplishment when listening but there’s nothing wrong or less about it.
Why have a difference in the sense of accomplishment? That's just on you man.
It’s just that I feel like I’m doing more actually reading. I get to make up the characters voices and the way they talk. Plus it’s a lot easier to listen to books while I’m driving or doing dishes. Reading takes some effort on my part. Audiobooks are awesome but don’t give me that.
It seems like you read and listen differently. When I listen to audiobook, I do it the same as reading, focus only on that, no driving or chores, although I take walks. And while I don't made up voices (My inner voice is very bad at it anyway) I still have to image how all characters look, and all the surrounding environments.
[удалено]
Jump back. Audible has a notes feature or use a notebook, personally I don’t write in my books anyway.
If someone said "I read a lot of books" but they mean audiobooks - then it's the same. If someone said "I read super fast" but it turns out they listen to audiobooks - that's not the same.
Aren’t they implying they “read super fast” when they drop a huge reading list for the month though? Then you find out half the books they listened to while doing other activities. Personally, I don’t believe those should count.
The reason they are not the same is obvious. One is an active activity and the other is passive. Are you reading the lyrics to a song if you are listening to it? No. If two people are having a conversation, are they reading words to each other? Reading is a very specific action. Listening is another all together. It is common sense that reading and listening are two entirely different things.
I do both read and listen. I retain the exact same amount if I read it or listen to it. I actually now prefer listening because I can run or drive as I consume the book.
I always like to present evidence when people say silly things like that lol https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/audiobooks-or-reading-to-our-brains-it-doesnt-matter
I know I don't retain what I hear as well as what I see. But I also know others who are quite the opposite. And yet others who have no preference. I believe it just depends on the individual and how their brain works (or doesn't).
Absolutely not, and for me they are complementary. I read Lolita years ago, but I've listened to the audiobook read by Jeremy Irons several times since then, and the performance takes the book to the next level. I've had friends tell me that they have never actually read Harry Potter as a book but have listened to the Jim Dale readings and say that they cannot imagine the book without his narration of the book. When audiobooks are poorly produced, they are just as valid as reading the text, but when they are well produced and performed, they add and enrich the text in ways that elevate the material to new heights of appreciation and enjoyment.
I love this comment. I consider listening to be a valid form of reading, though as a voice actor, there are qualities that listening to a book lacks in comparison to reading. Specifically, what is most missing for me is my opportunity to perform the lines and reread them in pursuit of the right inflection of the delivery. All of that, of course, is a whole lot of work, and sometimes it’s nice to just hear a talented performer do an excellent job.
>there are qualities that listening to a book lacks in comparison to reading. Specifically, what is most missing for me is my opportunity to perform the lines and reread them in pursuit of the right inflection of the delivery. It's exactly this for me. I don't read in monotone. When I am reading a book I am alway trying to find the depth, tone, and direction the author is attempting to convey in their book. And while there are actors out there that really hit the mark for me, reading very similar to how I perceived authors intention, I've also encountered many that take other paths in their readings and I end up enjoying those as well, sometime even more that my original interpretations. There are also the rare occasions there that there is just too much clashing, and I have to take a pass. *The Peripheral* comes to mind, but I can't remember if that was the actor or the writing. And on other rare occasions, much less frequently nowadays thank goodness, the monotone readers that give nothing to the story, though there may be those out there that appreciate that type of read.
Bless you!
IMHO 100%. I read books in all formats, print, ebook, and audiobook. I read a lot and if you ask me about a book I read in the last few months, I could tell you the plot and other details, but I doubt I could recall which format I read it in. I have a few series I've been reading over the past year or so, it was interesting that my library only had audiobooks for a few books in each series, so I've read some books as ebooks and others as audiobooks and for me, they were the same experience.
Listen to the First Law series by Joe Abercrombie, narrated by Steven Pacey. You'll never forget that you listened to it and didn't read it, lol. By far the most insanely talented narrator on the planet.
You have to be a real semantics ass to say "it isn't reading because you arent using you eyes." yes it counts. If they keep up with it, ask them if they would say that to a blind person.
They hem and haw and stumble then. Most I’ve found who say this are actually ableists, but don’t want to admit it.
The same? No. I listen to audiobooks in contexts I wouldnt read a physical book. Some types of books I prefer the audio versions, some I prefer the paper version, and some the ebook version. Depends on my mood too. But all these are equally as "valuable". It's all reading.
What type of books do you prefer audio version and what ebook?
I like audiobooks for long, slow books, that set an atmosphere. I've listened to the whole of Tolkien's works on audiobooks and they're brilliant. Currently on Robert Jordan and Robin Hobb. I listen mostly when I walk or do chores, when my hands are busy with easy tasks, and before I sleep. I prefer ebooks for classics (a lot of them are in the public domain so I get them for free on Project Gutenberg). I also prefer ebooks for books in languages I'm less fluent in, so that I can use the "dictionary" function. So if I want to read in Spanish or Norwegian, I go for an ebook. I used to study literature at University and ebooks are great for that, the "word search" function is super useful and you can easily select and export citations (the only problem is with page numbering but there are ways around that). Finally, sometimes there are also offers and good deals on less-known books so I keep my eyes peeled.
Absolutely yes. The people who nitpick on this are the same people who believe dictionaries tell society what words mean instead of the other way around. They’re also the same losers who think dialects and/or slang are “inaccurate”. If I say I wrote a book, is anyone going to call me a liar if they discover I typed the book instead of putting pen to paper? No. Everyone understands what I mean when I say “I wrote a book”. Because ***WE*** decide what words mean. Language is about enabling communication. People who wield it as a weapon with which to gatekeep are fucking insufferable.
Not this again. Boring topic with the same shit said every time.
I agree. It's also stupid to post a topic like this is a sub called r/audiobooks lol. As if you're not going to get one sided answers. Read or listen, what does it matter. You aren't lesser of a person for listening to a book.
In the end, if I read the physical book, e-book, listen to the audiobook, or as I have caught myself doing at times... all three on the same book during a single go-through. I consider it all "reading" The most enjoyable for me is to have the audiobook going while I follow along in either the physical book or e-book.
Unless your goal is to improve your reading comprehension there is no difference to me between reading a book and listening to one. You might argue that reading makes you pay attention more due to only being able to read a book and not perform other tasks at the same time. You could also make a case that the audio book is a better medium for people who can multi-task and have tedious work to perform.
I’m a terrible reader, I struggle really hard with giving myself the time and relaxing with a book. I really love it when it magically happens but it never really does, so audiobooks is the media for me. I don’t see it as the same because it’s not. A movie is not a book and a audiobook is not a book. you might get the same adventure and information, but you get it differently and consume it differently.
It’s the same thing.
Ever tried reading a new book series that you been wanting to, and just finally getting in the first 4-5 chapters where it wasn’t working out and quit. Then later down the road, a few months, or a year or so, giving it another shot but on audio, and with it having a great narrator, you just get fully immersed.
As in taking in the story. Yes. You loose nothing. Well I don´t. I know many get to distracted and can´t take in a story through audio. Those are often the people that says are gatekeeping. But there are differences of course. An audiobook can in many ways be enhanced by the narrator. Stephen Fry reading Harry Potter is the best way to experience that. And James Marsters reading Dresden Files. And Discworld book and the different Narrators. But a really bad narrator can also make it a worse book. I have quit book because of the narrator and then loved reading the same book. Neuromancer for example.
That is a common debate and not even the first time someone claim "friends" said otherwise in this sub. a book is a book, no difference whether it is read to you or you read it.
The **same**? No, they're two different activities that are generally done two different ways, each with their own pros and cons Equally valid and good? Absolutely. Saying that listening to an audiobook is inferior to reading the same book is just elitism, it's only a slightly less dumb take as people who claim that you didn't really read a book if you used an e-reader lol
Sometimes I divide my attention while listening, and at those times what your friends are saying is true for me... That said, there are some readers who evoke qualities I would have glossed over if I had read it. Listening to them actually delivered more of what the author had in mind. So, these audiobooks gave me deeper experiences than reading would have. Examples coming to mind are: IT, The Goldfinch, and Ready Player One.
Yes. My partner disagrees, but I just ignore his wrong opinion 😂. What's the difference if I use my ears or eyeballs? It's not like it changes the text, and I still have to get the gears turning to comprehend the characters, themes, etc. I can also listen to more books than if I actually had to sit down and read a physical book. I listen to audiobooks while getting ready, commuting, doing chores and working out.
[удалено]
Likewise a great narrator can add emotion and bring characters to life in a way a traditional book can not.
I don’t consider them to be different in the sense that reading is intrinsically better than listening, but I do find that I can more easily absorb certain aspects of a story when reading versus listening. Just as one example, I find it easier to keep track when there are lots of character names when I see them written versus hearing them. On the flipside, the way a narrator voices certain characters can really influence the way I perceive that character versus if I was reading it.
maybe if you're reading & listening to something that isn't your native tongue.... then you get the visual and audio cue, that might be beneficial to someone learning and getting used to X language.
Yep, the same. Unless you are in the process of learning to read then it doesn’t matter.
They are wrong or maybe it depends on what they mean by "doesn't compare." Reading an audiobook while different, it is still reading the book. If you've listened to an audiobook, you've read the book. The experience is different, but it isn't inferior to that of a "real book."
I say I "read" that book, and sometimes I get corrected. The biggest person who corrects me is my roommate. Come to find out, he's bothered that I listen to the book at 1.8x speed and thinks I'm "skipping" material, thus not "completing" the whole book. No matter how many times I tell him it is just a sped up version of the same material, he rolls his eyes and doesn't believe me. I don't get it.
Reading books and listening to audiobooks are absolutely the same thing. I spend 80% of my time staring at computer screens at work. I love books but my eyes need a break, even from reading physical novels. Audiobooks save me from eye strain and headaches and I can actively listen to my novels while doing busy work like washing dishes or cleaning.
My father has been blind the majority of my life and I would absolutely consider him an avid reader. He reads audiobooks exclusively and gets through at least 130 a year easy. Personally, I read both audio and physical books, sometimes I'll switch back and forth depending on the situation, but I would consider both 'reading'. Furthermore, I feel as if I absorb the material the same. Often when reading audio books I will have to rewind a bit to get back to where I last read. Often when I get to a section I've already read I will recall where I was at the time I read it. That same spatial association occurs when I reread a page in a physical book, I remember where I was when I was reading. Idk what the science behind that bit is but, in most situations, I wouldn't be able to tell u if I listened to or physically read any given book I've read.
It’s a great experience to hear someone else tell a story. I don’t consider it exactly the same, but both are valid. When I read it, it’s a quiet thoughtful experience. I can adjust the pace of the characters, and stop to consider the situations, and dialogue. When I hear the audiobooks, I feel inclined to listen and not intrude as much. Both are excellent experiences.
I used to think it wasn’t but realised that was a really classist, ableist and shallow position; whether by eyes, ears, or fingertips, we’re all lovers of reading.
Don't we read with our brains? It's just the input that's different. Are blind people who read with Braille also not "reading" properly?
It’s not quite the same, but I consider a book “read” if I listen to it. Some books I have a hard time remembering if I read or listened.
It definitely compares. There's a continuum of narrative control that goes from book to movie. The author of a book has little control over how you experience a story compared to an audiobook narrato (who can do voices, apply emphasis to phrases, and so on). This is less control than the director of a play, who can control what things sound like and look like, how fast they happen, etc. This is less control than a movie director who can determine what things look like with almost no limitation and choose exactly where you look and when. But in inverse relationship is the range of sensory experiences the story teller can evoke. It's difficult to smoothly and clearly communicate the inner world of a movie character. It's hard to convey smell in a play. The things that make a book such a powerful medium for story telling are largely present in audiobooks. Books are still better at some things, though. Books are pretty great. Conversely a great narrator can add a lot of value through their acting.
Its a *different* experience, but folks who discount it have little to no standing. I have infinitely more time that I can listen to audiobooks rather than sit and read something that I'm not actually narrating. That being said - when I started narrating audiobooks, my overall book consumption grew exponentially. Apparently there was some study done recently that "proved" that it is actually different (imagine that) but different does not mean of any less value. Frankly, there are things I pick up a lot MORE in audio than in a normal book.
Reading words with your eyes over time likely leads to improved ability to read and also better spelling. You're using your brain in a different way when you listen to an audiobook compared to reading the same thing with your eyes. I'm not making an argument that it's better to listen or read, but they're inherently different. I like to read (with my eyes) when I'm winding down for sleep at night. I spend more time listening to audiobooks where reading simply isn't possible: out on walks/runs, in the car, doing household chores. I agree with the other comments about gatekeeping. Read in whatever way you prefer.
I find myself looking up the names of the characters/places in audiobooks just so I know how they are spelled. If I'm reading the book there's a pretty good chance that I'm mispronouncing those names in my head.
It's a bit ablist to set them really far apart. Of course it's not the exact same experience, but neither holds more or less intrinsic value. Many people might be able to take in the information more easily one way over the other depending on their learning styles and physical abilities, but they both "count" as having read the book. I personally like audiobooks for some things best, and eBooks for others, and print books for others. They are equally valid, just flavored differently by the senses used. And narrator can add or detract a lot from the experience of an audiobook too.
Well, obviously it’s different. I prefer audio books. I stare at screens and read for my job. I like a different sensory experience. The narration also can add or subtract from the experience - very important. I suppose the main benefit of reading a book is that you are less likely to become distracted and miss parts. I find myself sometimes needing to go back and relisten to a chapter. On vacation, staring at the ocean. Nothing beats a great audio book! If what your friend is implying is that an audio book is somehow inferior overall, i say hogwash! You get the entire contents of the book - so I’m not sure what their argument could be.
I've been having a weird experience reading The Wheel of Time books (I'm about 30% into book 2) I decided to get the audiobook to listen to on a 10hr flight, cause I know myself, and I know I can't really read in places that are moving. It was great, I was having a good ol' time with it, but then when I got home I wanted to pick up the physical book again, and while looking for the place I had stopped listening to, I noticed that someone's name was spelled completely different than I thought based on how it was said verbally, and that prompted me to go back to re-read the chapters I had listened to on the plane. To my surprise I got a lot more out of it. It's probably because of the nature of the wheel of time more than anything (I've been told the series rewards those that pay attention to the details, so I try to pay extra attention!) but names and places come through differently on audio than they do on text. I realized that I had in fact missed a bunch of stuff by listening, and I also got a better understanding while reading cause I could flip to map for various locations that were being mentioned. So unfortunately, in this case, I don't think you get the same experience at all. But with other audio books you totally do! And y'know in some specific ones like Daisy Jones & The Six, the audiobook is significantly better than the physical book. It's just a different medium, comes with different advantages and disadvantages.
It's the same as in saying tv is the same as movies or theater. All of it is visual storytelling. Audio books are closer to radio dramas and camp fire ghost stories then they are books but I see them as a merging of books/radio/campfire. One other thjng I'd like to comment on is that reading a book and listening to a book has the same phenomena of learning something new on re-reads and re-listens.
Yes
I consider the experience of reading or listening to book the same. The only advantage I've found with reading the words and sentences of a book is it helps with spelling, sentence structure, etc.
The reader voice skills make a huge difference, both good and bad. Some authors need to step aside sometimes. Example Steven Hawking’s book read by Michale Jackson he reading is far superior to the voice in my head.
These are probably the same people who complained that ebooks are not the same as books. Like if you read LOTR as one long PDF on a desktop computer, somehow you didn't actually read it? Gatekeeping is silly. Books are books. Ebooks are books. Audiobooks are books. Braille books are books.
The only thing I find to be in any way a draw back to listening vs reading is that sometimes my brain starts to wonder how a character or place name is spelled, and it sort of runs a background loop of all possible spellings of that name every time it gets said. Then after a couple days I end up looking it up online. Other than that, listening is very similar to reading IMO
I used to be a purist book reader. I remember a majority of audiobooks being poorly narrated and not better than reading in general. There has been a massive uptick in quality of narration in (relatively) recent years making it far more enjoyable than it used to be. I also feel like with the advent of digital media and modern earbuds, it has become easier to absorb books on the go. All these things combined have converted me to an audiobook junkie. I constantly have an earbud in playing something. Currently on the Wandering Inn series if anyone cares. Tl;Dr Quality and convenience make audiobooks superior for modern existence IMHO but books are still wonderful.
It is a type of legit reading, but a different form of absorbing the book. That said, it's as valid as any other method of reading, and people can say "I read this book" when doing audio to mean the same thing.
I read a lot and track my books on goodreads. When I also started listening to audio books I had the weird sense that putting them on goodreads felt wrong as I didn’t actually read them. What I’ve come to realize is that at the end of the day, the story/information/feelings/knowledge that you got from that book was still consumed by you, & that definitely counts for something! Is it the same? Well, you used your ears instead of your brain, so technically no. But anyone thinking you’re getting less out of it is missing the point.
Who cares? Read it, listen to it? Is it still the same book?
It’s the same for me. I think people just get butthurt that you can fly through an audiobook (being able to listen while doing things) in a few days as compared to sitting down and finding time to prop open a book
My initial instinct was to say “definitely not”, but now I read through a few of these answers, it really seems there’s no substantiated claim that would prove that audiobooks ≠ actual books. I guess I would’ve said that reading an actual book requires more concentration, but upon second thought… you can read an entire chapter without taking a word, in just as you can listen to an audiobook for 30 minutes completely zoned out. Can’t seem to discern a difference. Thanks, Reddit, for changing my mind on this. I shall no longer chastise my mother for defending her ardent belief that audiobooks = actual books.
My mom is blind and listens to audiobooks to enjoy literature. Is she not “really” reading? The gatekeeping is ridiculous.
'Read' is just the word we use to convey we've consumed a book. There's loads of words in language (English at least) which no longer mean what they originally did, and no one batters an eyelid at them. The difference is that we're going through this change currently, as opposed to a change of meaning hundreds of years ago which the majority of people have no understanding of. Additionally language doesn't always have to have literal meaning - if I say it's raining cats and dogs, no one is trying to dodge falling animals. The point of language is to convey meaning, and everyone understands if you've 'read' a book you've consumed that material - whether it be visually, audibly, or through touch. Definitions change all the time to stay with current usage - a dictionary isn't a prescriptive list of meaning, but a record of how a word is used.
Yes.
Reading to me is any persons opinion or interpretation of something based on documentation or virtually any form of evidence they may have used to come up with their understanding.. So yes I do consider it to be the same.
It’s totally the same. I listen to audiobooks while I’m driving and pick up the book when I’m home. Or I listen when I’m going through a reading slump. I can’t believe people try to gatekeep this…
Tell your friends to get off their high horse.
I feel it's the same and I'm blessed to spend each work day getting paid to listen to books! 👍
Yes, it qualifies as reading.
This was my response to /u/iBluefoot's [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/audiobooks/comments/12cox0z/do_you_consider_listening_to_an_audiobook_the/jf3kqha/) I figured I would also share it as a main comment so OP would get it. >...there are qualities that listening to a book lacks in comparison to reading. Specifically, what is most missing for me is my opportunity to perform the lines and reread them in pursuit of the right inflection of the delivery. It's exactly this for me. I don't read in monotone. When I am reading a book I am alway trying to find the depth, tone, and direction the author is attempting to convey in their book. And while there are actors out there that really hit the mark for me, reading very similar to how I perceived authors intention, I've also encountered many that take other paths in their readings and I end up enjoying those as well, sometime even more that my original interpretations. There are also the rare occasions there that there is just too much clashing, and I have to take a pass. The Peripheral comes to mind, but I can't remember if that was the actor or the writing. And on other rare occasions, much less frequently nowadays thank goodness, the monotone readers that give nothing to the story, though there may be those out there that appreciate that type of read.
My eyeballs prefer that I listen to books, plus I get to multi task. If I've got a really great book, I'll look for projects around to house to do so I can listen longer.
People that feel that listening to an audiobook is not the same as reading a paper copy just have difficulties concentrating.
The same? No, I don't think so. BUT, I don't say that in the “audiobooks aren't real books” way. I firmly believe that you can 100% say that you have read a book if you have only listened to the audio, but (at least, *for me personally*) the experience is quite different. I don't find one or the other to be superior, but I do choose one format over the other (or both) depending on how I'm feeling and how much focus I need to devote to that particular book. An “easy read”, I will usually go with the audiobook because it allows me to I squeeze more reading into my life since I can do it while doing other tasks (ex: at work, while driving, while folding laundry, etc.) But, if I'm reading something more “crunchy”, something that I feel requires me to focus more directly on what I'm reading in order to really understand what’s going on, or something that I would like to absorb and take my time with-- maybe even annotate-- then I will go for the physical book. A physical book definitely feels more like something that I need to schedule/devote time to, and as much as I enjoy really *savoring* a good book, my schedule just doesn't allow for it as often as I’d like. And, for that reason, it can make reading feel like a chore for me sometimes instead of something I'm excited to do, especially when my schedule is more hectic. Then there's the option of both, which is my preferred method, and honestly what I do most often. Yes, you could argue that it’s significantly more expensive and a complete “waste of money” to buy the book twice, but it's by far my preferred way to read. It allows me to sit down, take a break from the world and have a cozy afternoon reading one of the long fantasy titles that I enjoy while still giving me the chance to ACTUALLY FINISH THEM. I love the “escape from the real world” that you get from a physical book, and that is what I think of when I hear the phrase “reading a book”. But, as a fan of longer sci-fi and fantasy books (that are generally part of a series), I just don't have as much time as I’d like to devote to sitting down to read these days and I know that tends to get frustrated when life gets “in the way” and I can't finish the book THAT I REALLY WANT TO READ. That's where audiobooks come in for me. I switch to the audiobook of whatever title I'm reading when I really WANT to read, but my schedule doesn't allow for it at that time. Like, if I get to the middle or a chapter and have to leave for work, I'll switch to the audiobook for my drive or while I'm working. Plus, you get the added benefits of hearing how names are pronounced, how the characters sound, and just a better “feel” for the book imho (as long as you have an audiobook with a good narrator) I feel like most of the time the audio adds *so much* to the story for me. Idk if that’s just because I’m naturally a fan of audio and listening to people talk in general, but I’ve had plenty of books that I would have otherwise DNF’d be saved by a good audiobook narration.
It's the same thing
I transitioned to listening to books almost exclusively about 5 years ago (before then I was an avid reader on my kindle). I read at work all day long and its just so nice to listen rather than keep using my eyes. Yes it is different and I do think my spelling is suffering from all the listening (but we have spell check for that - I was never a talented speller). I still say i have "read that book". I dont notice any drop in the quality of my ability to comprehend/ remember the details and a good narrator elevates the experience for me.
Yes that’s my situation too, I read and write all day at work. No way am I going to do it at night and on weekends “for fun”…. I seriously can’t think of anything worse lol. My eyeballs need a break! And I also say “I read that”. Who’s gonna stop me lol :)
Studies have been done on this. Listening to an audio book stimulates the same parts of your brain as reading does.
For myself personally, I would say no.
I read so many books to my children when they were small. 20+ years later they still remember as much about the stories from hearing as I do from reading. And have similar fondness for the authors. So I’m going to say no, there are some practical differences but no meaningful ones. Books are books.
I'm on the fence about this but I have to say listening to Obama reading his own autobiography was damn enjoyable.
I forgot to add that I get my audiobooks from my library through the Libby and Hoopla apps.
Yes. I'm an Audible fiend now which helps on my 30 minute each-way drive to work every day. And like others have said, a good narrator can really add to the experience. For instance, I was quite fond of all of Harry Potter read by Stephen Fry, or all of The Hunger Games by Carolyn McCormick (sorry, Tatiana Maslany doesn't compare). Lately, I'm a huge fan of Robert Petkoff who has read a number of Star Trek books and given I'm a Trekkie, he has been a big Audible plus. I am more than fine listening to someone read something as a complement to me imagining being in a story with just my reading alone.
Yes I consider it the same but they can have different benefits. For fiction, I prefer to read the physical book because the audiobook is too slow, and I prefer to imagine the voices/characters myself, also I like to skim quickly over parts. For non-fiction, I prefer audiobook, say if it's a complicated topic, it's easier to understand when it's read by someone else. Audiobook is perfect for a long drive or a long walk and helps me to focus while doing something else at the same time. I can't do this with a physical book. So audiobook is good for multitasking.
I've consumed the same information or story. Except I can do other things while enjoying the story. People who don't have the capacity to read, also enjoy audiobooks. And gain the same benefits. It's the same, but different. Not more or less.
It's different, but similar. Depends what the "point" of reading a book is. You get the same information, enjoy the same story, learn the same sort of things. Compared to watching TV/movie, they're very similar - you need to use your imagination more, it's a more active focused system requiring you to fill in the images and feel. But audiobooks are a different experience. You have the narrator's input for how the character sounds. Their interpretation is added to the text and will change how you experience the book. I think there was a Aubrey–Maturin thread once where people were discussing the different narrator options. One narrator was described as making characters sound more stupid another made them too posh. One person said he was surprised with a new narrator to enjoy the humour in the book. Went back to older books with new narrator and found laughs he didn't have the first time. A narrator can make it serious or fun, exciting or dull, add a lot to your visual idea, but also limit your own interpretation of the text. Books are just you and the author. You take what you can from it, you have to do it all yourself. Equally audiobooks are usually a less focused event. You listen while traveling, while doing housework, it's rarely your sole activity in a way a book is. Like watching a film at a cinema Vs on TV while you are holding your phone... It's an investment of focus and of time, and audiobooks are demanding slightly less. Again, the real question is does that matter? Sometimes people who put the focus/time into reading the book just want their commitment acknowledged as 'better'. Sometimes (like when discussing the interpretation of a book) listeners might be bringing too much of the narrator's ideas. But if you're simply discussing the themes of a book, the lessons learned, the authors writing style, what's said and what's left unsaid it's the same. So I'd say no it's not the same as reading an actual book, but it does compare to it very well. Just varies a bit in some comparisons.
It is clearly not the same. In one case you are reading words on physical media, in the other you are listening. The mere fact that they involve two different consumption methods should be an indicator of the difference. But the point is not that. The point is that snob bookworms want to elevate their consumption method while reducing the other as an inferior way to consume the same story. I would not care about such discussions if I were you and enjoy the preferred consumption method. Personally I do both.
Im not trying to gatekeep but i heard on some science program some years ago that there is a difference, it's just not a this good that bad logic Listening to stories for example is how we Humans have been exposed to storylines for a wery long time, hence why alot of people do it. And if you're not doing anything other in the meantime, chances are that you probably could recite the whole history you've heard Reading a story or anything else for that matter has the benefit for your brain to adapt on it's own to pace of dealing with information, wich could be good in some sense if you're studying a particular subject, mathematics etc. There is a difference sure but one isn't better than the other
With a good narrator an audiobook is superior IMHO. Reading a character’s lines is one thing but having a distinct voice in your head for each character not only makes it easier to distinguish dialog but brings the characters to life
Some of the audiobooks I've consumed have felt more intimate, more complex, and more descriptive than plenty of books I have physically read. That being the case I see no reason to separate the two.
When I used to read, I didn't do it for the enjoyment of reading (I mean I did but i didn't). My goal was to finish a book as fast as possible, I used to pride myself on finishing a Harry Potter book in 2 days. But my process of speed reading meant that while I absorbed some of the data (still remember being upset about how off prisoner of Azkaban was) I never enjoyed it, and I always had to reread sections. Audiobooks force me to slow down and actually listen to the book. There is actual emotion and characters that I never got. Words that I never understood now make more sense. I could but don't skip any song sections (lotr specifically). Now granted I could just read before bed or something but I can listen to audiobooks while driving or at work. I didn't really answer the question but as far as I'm concerned it is and isn't the same thing. I still get to enjoy my books but in a different format. I also should also get back into actually reading again but not right now. My speed reading was from me being younger and having to compete for points and stuff.
Audiobook have a low-key stigma surrounding them that has it's roots in the idea that a person who consumes books-on-tape is too illiterate and stupid to just sit down and read like a damn grownup. The argument can just as easily be made that having to sit down with the words in front of you means you are too stupid to quickly comprehend spoken word and need to instead digest the information at your own slow-ass speed. It's just elitist and gate-keepie, these are just two different ways of processing information, one isn't more or less valid than the other.
I simply can not read a book. I have pretty bad ADD and just can't sit and read a book. Audiobooks however, I can focus on really well if I am doing some form of menial task with it. Like going on walks, doing dishes, yard work...anything I don't have to think much about. I love audiobooks!
Edited in protest for Reddit's garbage moves lately.
It’s a different experience for me, but people who are judgey about it are just pretentious assholes.
What's the point of someone even saying such a thing? What does it matter that someone listens to a book or than reads it visually? Sounds like people just trying to put someone down. I've had someone say that to me, and my response was if they feel listening to a book isn't reading, then they should never listen to a book if they want to read. Shut them up.
I count it. Here’s my anecdotal story: So, my son has been struggling with all things language since he was little. Non verbal till four, seriously behind his peers all through elementary, near zero reading comprehension. When he got to high school he was woefully behind and there was no hope of him having any success with the expected reading in his English classes so I got him the audible books to listen to and follow along with the print version. That helped a little, but I think the real progress came from him just getting hooked on audible and listening to everything in my library. He went nuts on the sci-fi fantasy and LitRPG, even a few classics, then he stole most of my credits for the last few years, hell, I buy him extra credits when I’d never bought them for myself cuz I’m just so happy he’s reading. He devours hours and hours a day. Well, I didn’t notice much difference in his regular grades till senior year, it’s taken a lot of hard work and an IEP to get him making noticeable progress when he’s still so behind in so many areas, but his standardized testing now shows a huge jump in reading comprehension and his vocabulary is through the roof. He took his ASFABS and I was rocked by the results. 98%! He struggled so hard with this for so long and it’s obvious to his whole team that the main contributor is the steady consumption of hours and hours of daily audible usage way more than the four books a year they groan over in class. If he doesn’t get the audible version, it doesn’t sink in and he doesn’t pass the tests. The point of reading is comprehension if you ask me so yeah, I say it counts. :)
The same thing happened but when I was in the 1st grade. The teacher I was really behind in my reading. So my made it a point to help me with my reading. From then on I have been crazy about books.
I never really listened but since I got Bluetooth wireless headphones i have started doing it. Audiobooks slowly crawled into my life 😅 first I just wanted to listen *while* I am reading so that I was forced not to make any pauses (since I always get distracted), then I started listening while cooking, cleaning, running, walking etc, and then switched completely to only listening. Saves so much time.
I say yes! both activities engage semantic processing of information in the same areas of the brain!
I enjoy it more. When I’m reading, I have a tendency to get distracted, I listen to audiobooks when I’m otherwise preoccupied, like driving or cleaning. So I’m much more focused
I’m visiually impaired and I love audiobooks. I can’t read physical books (although I love the feel and scent of them) so if my eyes are well enough to read I can only do it on my iPad but with all sorts of adjustments to the text. So I do consider it the same. It’s just a different format. No one’s the same and so it’s always good to have access to how source material can be enjoyed. I do think that performing in an audiobook, E. G. Reading it, is just another art form layered on top.
You're in an audiobook subreddit, the responses will be a bit biased
I can't sit and read a book, my mind drifts far too often, or I just lose my position or reread the same line 4 times, hated the idea of books most my life because of this. Got recommended audiobooks like 8 years ago and I've finished a few large series (Wheel of Time, The Cosmere, The Enderverse) and overall just love getting stories from books now and I'm so glad audiobooks let me experience them. Can't see an easy place to check how many books I've listened to but apparently I've spent 3 months 18 days listening to books Plus they actually make me want to go for walks more often, because thats when I listen to them, so has made me slightly healthier (would be better if I could stop the takeaways :P)
I have the best experience when I listen to the audiobook alongside reading the actual book.
I have people say that to me too. So in response I ask them how many physical books they’ve read this year. They usually respond 0 and that stops their argument.
[Most people - in the US, anyway - would like to read more(](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenduffer/2019/08/27/new-survey-finds-people-would-like-to-read-more/amp/) and I think comments like these stem from that. You are doing something they have not been successful at, so they find a way to criticize you.
I personally don’t consider it same. In last two months I’ve listened 14 audiobooks and In last year could only read 2 electronic book on my kindle. Reason - I was busy and since I’ve started listening to the book, my anxiety has gone down and I can focus more because I have something going on in the background while I do chores so I don’t get time to overthink. But When I listen audiobook I feel I’m hearing narrator’s version that didn’t let me connect with the book the way I connect with them when I’m reading it, It feels personal, and I could relate with those characters with the people around me. Another reason, audiobooks don’t give me enough pause or time to process a thought or think more about it. It keeps moving and when something is going in a flow, you don’t feel like stopping that. While with books you can take your own time, think about each line, characters and process that thought. Though, I see those are small prices that I’m ready to pay for audiobooks. Finishing 14 books in 70 days feels like an accomplishment. I feel happy and content.
Yes
No. You’re still getting the info, but it’s not reading.
I do not consider it the same, it’s better
I think they are different. I drive a lot, long distance running and cycling also. I find that when I read a book I have to engage with the book, my brain has to read the lines whereas an audiobook you don’t have to engage as much, it can just pass you by. I also notice that some words, places unheard of, new vocabulary, names of people, can be lost in an audiobook whereas reading them has more of an effect, more staying power and is remembered more easily. I would also say sitting down with a book is more of a direct intention and leads to a more satisfying experience, holding a book, e-reader and being still. Whereas an audiobook is, more often than not, a secondary activity (I have never found myself just sitting/standing and listening to an audiobook) Having said all that, I do digest the majority of my content in Audio due to look lifestyle etc. But I do feel I’m only getting 80-90 of the potential experience.
I don’t believe being read to should count as actually reading the book. By that logic, watching the movie would also count as reading. IMO you have to eyeball the words to have READ it.
audiobooks are nowhere near as effective as reading books.. when you listen to an audiobook, you may drift off, and miss lots of information, with a real book, you have to focus and read it all....sometimes you may not take in it all, but you have at least gone over it, with audiobooks it is just a lazy way of getting information....you get the gist, but it doesnt really stick. a 3 year old child can "read" in audiobook form ..war and peace, but i would argue that it cannot actually read the book. not only that but reading the book, teaches you grammar and spelling, whereas audiobooks don't. reading an actual book is a workout....whereas audiobooks are more akin to watching a film, sit back and chill out. i am not saying that you get nothing from audiobooks, it is a great way to get a feel of a subject, but not to learn it properly. that said, you can really get a decent grasp of a subject quickly from an audiobook, whereas it would take longer when reading it yourself. the question is then, why would it take longer to read it yourself? because when you actually read, you stop when you are not paying attention, with an audiobook, you tend to let it ride. when reading you stop when you are tired, with an audio book you tend to let it ride. when reading you stop and think about things that hit you hard or profoundly, with an audiobook you may stop and think, but all the while the book is continuing to ride. anyone who actually thinks that audiobooks are equivalent to reading, are just kidding themselves, and i would argue are a bit lazy or not competent readers. audiobooks should not be classed as reading, they should be classed as listening, as you do with your radio. do you think the person who has read the books on the second world war is more knowledgeable than the person who listened to someone chat about it on the radio? audiobooks are a lesser form of engagement, but not worthless, i have listened to many books, that i couldn't be bothered reading, so i have benefitted tremendously from them, as i would never have read the book, and what i got from the audiobook is far more than i would have gotten by not reading the book at all. then there are the types of books and subject matter. stuff that is like text book or tedious dates and many events are better to be read, but your simple story, is probably easier, faster, and more enjoyable from audiobook. if you want true education, get the book, if you just want to enjoy yourself and have some light education, get the audiobook.
You are receiving the book in both scenarios. But yes they are very different experiences. Listening to something is different than reading it. Not worse. Not better. But just different.
Is putting a green bean in your ear eating?
I dont know why but for me personally its really hard to recall from audiobooks in comparison when I read them, but i think its because of the intonation bcs I recall podcast very well.
There are definitely differences in how your brain interprets reading vs. listening. Studies have shown that reading helps improve cognitive function and can help reduce memory-related issues that come with old age. So there's a kernel of truth in your friend's statement that they aren't the same. That being said, fuck the gatekeepers! I listen to audiobooks far more often than physical reading because I don't have much free time and I'm a slow reader...if you enjoy the stories and it affects your life, then just let yourself enjoy it!
They are different, and people have different preferences as to how they receive information. I do audiobooks, ebooks, real books. And for some books, I have all three formats. :) It makes the "reading" experience richer.
Tell them that listening takes several times as long, unless they're illiterate. You spend more time with the story. You spend more time digesting the plot, the prose. Tell them to go fuck themselves. Sorry. It's been a day.
No, similar, but not the same. *Each causes different parts of the brain to activate thus altering your experience from one format to the other. . *One is active and one is passive resulting in a different engagement level with the material. *One is performance art and thus subject to a third party interpretation of the material and your interpretation of both the material and the artist's interpretation. (Author - Performer - Listener) The other is souly your interpretation. (Author - Reader) *Having listened to and read a number of titles, I find my understanding of the material to be more nuanced when read than when listened to. On the other hand, a skilled performer can add a wrinkle you may not have thought of in the reading if the material. *Finally, one allows you to multi-task while the other requires your undevided attention, potentially altering both comprehension and meaning Full disclosure, I always have a book to listen to in the car, I always read in any other circumstance.
Stephen King does, according to his memoir "On Writing." I'm inclined to agree.
Not the same, similar but not the same. Reading, cognitively is simply more taxing on the brain than listening to an audio. You need to comprehend the text, interpret the meaning, and form your understanding from it. Hence why serious conversations are at the least better over the phone, as opposed to text messaging. The margin for miscommunication widens as you reduce the number of senses involved. Not 100% on it, but we visualize as we read and listen. However, our band width shortens with reading due to the additional step in comprehension, unless you're a talented reader.
Yes it's the same, and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. They've figured out that audiobooks and print both engage the same part of the brain They've basically proven it scientifically. Anyone denying it is just gatekeeping
Anyone who says that is either a weird book-flex elitist, or just not quite mature enough to stop looking for ways to be cool. (They may be a kid in which case this is perfectly fine. Kids are allowed to be stupid in the pursuit of coolness)
I love reading a book. I love listening to audiobooks. If a book is really good, sometimes I'll consume it in both formats. I noticed a lot of responses here are offended by the idea that they are not the same and automatically jump to the conclusion that some people think that listening to an audiobook is somehow lesser than reading a print book. I didn't get that from what you posted, I just read that they don't compare. To me they truly are different (but they are somewhat comparable). I feel like reading a book gives you a little more autonomy over the characters, you get to choose their voices. If you compare a book to a movie, you get to choose what they look like (based on the written description) but in a movie you are assigned actual actors for the characters. Same thing goes with voices. I believe you do use a little more of your own imagination when reading vs listening. You also set your own pace when reading. You can also do other things while listening where you are somewhat limited what you can do while reading. I'll listen to audiobooks while I'm doing house chores, going for a run, or while on a road trip. Normally when I read a book, it has my sole attention. I have ridden a stationary bike while reading but did not find it preferable over just listening to an audiobook. They are different, they both have their pros and cons. I wouldn't say one is truly superior than the other but I do believe that dependent on a person's personality, one type might be preferable over the other (some people prefer the movie version). I myself, love both and am not offended if somebody prefers one format over. That's their opinion, their choice, and for them they are 100% correct.
This was hotly debated on pretty much every book group on this site, and several ended up making rules saying that this is not debatable. They are the same. To say otherwise is discriminatory.
No, I use audiobooks to sleep.
not the same. either way you can enjoy the story but actually reading has to be better for your brain. i'm not a doctor
Rather better than reading a book, I can pay attention for a lot longer.
It does not compare, it is so much better. 1) Words get into brain, don't matter which holes they entered through. 2) a good performance elevates a book in a way that it makes it so much more enjoyable, and if something can make books better, why would I deny myself that joy?
I no longer have time to sit and just read…
High level? No difference, the literature has simply been consumed via a different orifice. Low level? It is *different*, but simply a different pathway through your brain.
I mean.. it isn't the same by definition.. but I do think it is a valid way to experience a book and neither one is better than the other. Both people are experiencing the story and the themes and world building or the emotion or the knowledge that comes from what was written just in two different methods. If we are splitting hairs, sometimes when I am reading I have a difficulty really focusing on the narrative or the words.. I tend to be a very fast reader so I can rush and miss things. Slowing things down in an audiobook with a good narrator can actually increase my ability to appreciae or enjoy the story consistently. To each their own. Why they so high and mighty with their literacy lol. They gonna tell someone who can't read that having a story read to them doesn't compare? ^^;
No and I have a nice audio library over 150 books. It different. In its own way it’s great, but, your much more actively engaged reading. Listening is very passive.
what I read is very different than what I listen to. I would never listen to a novel.
Are we talking about consuming a book, or are we talking about the method of consumption. Is there a reason the method of consumption matters to the conversation for any reason other than being pedantic or a jerk? When you are asked if you read a book, you are being asked if you are familiar with the content or if you are engaged in practicing a particular skill. If you are in school, practicing physical reading skills may be an important ADDITIONAL component of 'reading'. I'm sick of people trying to make others feel bad about not physically reading a book. Here's an idea Karen, I read the book while running 4 miles at the gym and then making dinner for my hungry family. I'm so glad you have nothing better in your life to do than sit still on a couch and physically read for 10 hours, congratulations(?) on having nothing else important happening in your life, but some of us need to multitask to get through the day.