Reading ~ Listening

Yesterday I unloaded a can of whup ass on myself of all people, stiring up a hornet's nest of audio literature rage with my rant against audiobooks.

Many of the commenters pointed out several virtues of audiobooks that I had not noted, and others put the concept of "reading v. listening" into contexts that made me rethink my assumptions. For everyone's general edification, I reprint and then synthesize some of the best remarks:

** Dan Wickett argued that if he can hold a conversation while driving, he can follow an audiobook:

While driving, I frequently have kids in the car. If I'm talking to them, and driving, while I'm obviously paying attention to the road, lights, etc., I still hear 95% of what my kids are saying and can hold that conversation with them - I think it's the same if I'm driving alone and the conversation is the one-sided version coming from my cassette player.

** Dave Munger pointed out that the definition of reading is slippery:

There are so many different types of reading that it's really difficult to say what is and what is not reading. For example, when I used to read aloud to my daughter . . . I was focused on performance, not comprehension. But it's quite a stretch now to say I haven't "read" The Hobbit. I read the whole thing, out loud!

Proofreading is an entirely different form of reading, and if it's done well, you really don't come off with much of an understanding of the text. . . .

Sometimes I'll skim or read something very quickly, and arguably I've "read" it, but have I understood it? . . .

As a scholar I read books in an entirely different way, and I might read a book several times, each time for a different purpose. I might, as many scholars do, place undue emphasis on a single passage that supports my pet literary theory. I might read the book in a subversive way that blatantly and intentionally contradicts the author's intention. Have I "read" the book now?

Jonathan argued for what an audio reading brings to a text:

I collect audio-recording of poetry. Inevitably I have also read the text. The recording is not a substitute for the text, but a supplement. Often I have the poem memorized anyway.

As a reader more oriented toward poetry than prose, I tend not to fetishize the printed word. Homer's contemporaries did not read him either. Print is a storage medium. My favorite storage medium, however, is my own faulty memory.

Dave also commented on that same topic:

Interesting. Reading was developed as a way to record spoken language, which Plato and many others argued was the superior means of communication, and now we've come to the point that oral communication is viewed as "disrespecting" the language.

Of course, Plato was arguing that oral communication was superior because you could question the speaker to find out exactly what he meant -- something that's a bit more challenging in an audiobook. But, as I pointed out in my review of Outlaw Sea here at Conversational Reading, you can also get additional information about the text from the intonation of the speaker. . . . 

I've argued over at Word Munger that books should come in both versions, so readers can switch back and forth . . .

Ed (on his own blog) also argued for the reading adding a certain element:

While I would agree with Scott that there's a fundamental difference between reading a book and listening to a book, I don't necessarily believe that audio books should be completely discounted. Personally, I've found that reading a book aloud (or hearing another person read a book aloud) allows one to discover or familiarize herself with a book's particular cant and rhythms. To some degree, it's a bit comparable to only experiencing a play on the page. Sometimes, the intonations, the delivery and the visual nature of the staging leads the mind to frame the narrative in a new context and unearth a subtext that may not have been as readily apparent from a strict read.

I think I can agree with these commenters on three main things:

1. For some books ("comfort" fiction, certain types of non-fiction), an audio track can supplant the book. I still think that something is lost, but I'm willing to agree that for these books the loss isn't essential.
2. Building on the idea of "loss," audio readings can "add" an element based on intonations and cadences that readers are not privvy to. I myself have experienced this, as sometimes while reading The Royal Family my mind has shot back to when I heard Vollmann read from Europe Central. I "heard" TRF in my head in Vollmann's voice, and the process was illuminating.
3. There are several different concepts of "reading." Knowing that reading is a spectrum and further knowing that Homer, James, etc could process verbally (and that poetry is often enjoyed verbally and poets give little regard to the printed word), I'll say that an audiobook listener can absorb more of a book than I had first assumed. I still don't think you get as much as if you read, but the gap isn't as large as I had previously thought.

That said, I still don't like the concept of audiobooks as presented in the article, as a way for busy people to cram books into an overburdened lifestyle. It's true that they at least get people to experience authors they probably never would have otherwise, but I think they also create a more disrespectful attitude toward books. I'll also note that many (but not all) of the arguments for audiobooks presented them as an adjunct to the original text.

Comments

[Dave Munger]

I've listened to several audiobooks, and I'd listen to more if I did more driving. I still prefer printed books, but one thing I can definitely say about audiobooks is that the books themselves are now associated with the things I was doing at the time I listened to them. Lord of the Rings goes with driving across the American west; Steven Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man with a long drive to a conference in Indiana; The Outlaw Sea with driving through the West Virginia mountains in a thunderstorm.

I think I probably remember these books more clearly because of these associations than I do many books I've read, but I also think the fact that they are associated with things the author clearly did not intend is probably a "misreading." I'm not sure it's "disrespectful," though -- after all, if I read Huckleberry Finn after reading Nietzsche, I'm also biasing my reading of that text.

Scott, I can see where you're coming from in suggesting that the article seems to "disrespect" books, but I also think many people disrespect books in much more serious ways -- for example, substituting reading book reviews for reading the books themselves. Now all we need are audio book reviews, and then we can really start disrespecting books!

[Scott]

Dave,

Would audio book reviews be meta-disrespect?

[Dave Munger]

No, I think we'd need audio-litblogs for that!

[Lynn S]

I just found this blog a few minutes ago.

I have never listened to an audio book and I never will as long as my eyes still work. I've never thought of audio books as "disrespectful" but listening is not reading. Poetry - that's something to consider. A poetry audio book sort of makes sense.