Comment by yesfitz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yesfitz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The survey this is based on[1] counts listening to audiobooks as "reading", which can only inflate the numbers.

I have nothing against audiobooks, but they are not the same as reading. It is a passive consumption of the content. You can daydream or lose focus and the story keeps rolling on. If you lose focus while reading, the story stops. You may find that you've "read" a few sentences, but it's quickly self-correcting.

Additionally, reading forces you to parse tone, interpret context, and resolve syntactic ambiguity on your own. Listening to a narrator removes those tasks.

I think that this door was opened when we started accepting that reading graphic novels was the same as reading a book of text. Rather than elevating new(ish) media for storytelling for their own merit, we've lumped them into another medium that was already deemed "good".

All that said, listening to an audiobook or reading a graphic novel is still better than not reading a book at all.

1: https://today.yougov.com/entertainment/articles/53804-most-a...

I used to think the same way as you about audiobooks but this year I had three weeks where I wasn't supposed to read a screen after eye surgery and so I tried some audiobooks. It took a few days but eventually I got to the point where it was indistinguishable from reading - where I could picture in my mind everything happening.

This is quite different from tv and film where you're just watching and not using your mind.

I think you are fairly unique in audiobook consumption though. I imagine most people (myself included when I do) consume audiobooks where they would have otherwise listened to podcasts or radio, meaning stochastically in the car, doing chores, generally during other activities.

If I were to sit down in my book corner chair, putting on an audiobook and leaning back, I can imagine I'd have the same experience as you, but that is when I would otherwise read a book the traditional way. Perhaps this will change when I get older and wish to rest my eyes and arms while taking in a book.

I'll double up here. For me, audiobooks are 'the same' as reading a book. Yes, I know they are not exactly the same, but the experience for me is pretty darn close enough.

Now, I use audiobooks because I can then take the dog for a walk and do other chores while listening to them. For me, it's a good way to get my mind working while my body is too. Plus, you can speed up the narration to some multiple so you're at the same pace as if you were reading anyway.

For me, it's no different than if I were a cigar roller with someone reading out a book to the lot of us.

Is it exactly the same? No, of course not. But if the alternatives to doing chores is 1) doing them with no auditory enjoyment 2) doing them with some podcast/radio station blaring topical news 3) doing them with a classic book

then, I'm going for 3. It's just the best use of time

I think you are fairly unique in your inability to listen to audiobooks. I talk with a lot of friends about books and have been in very long-running book clubs. Almost nothing differentiates book readers and book listeners. Mostly book readers don't know how to pronounce some character names.

The ability to picture the scene in your mind is not why listening to an audiobook is different from reading.

Put another way, reading involves:

1. Parsing and interpreting the words on the page.

2. Synthesizing the information in our heads (scenes, arguments, etc.)

3. Interpreting the synthesis (Does it work? Is there subtle or implied information in the synthesis? What comes next?)

My argument is that audiobooks drastically alter step 1.

Let's not denigrate any forms of media though. They all have their unique benefits. You can use your mind or not during the consumption of any of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com