Treating all audiobooks equally is a mistake. Audio books are a transformation function applied to physical books. Asking whether they count as books is asking the wrong question. The more important question is: "what am I trying to get out of reading this book? And will an audiobook help me to do this better?"
The answer to this question will be unique to every person and every book. I read quite a few books for the entertainment value they provide - I like getting lost in a good novel occasionally without having to reflect too seriously on each passage. Audiobooks provide a convenient means of enabling me to enjoy the book, especially if driving, commuting, or performing some other task. However, if I am reading a nonfiction book, I want the book in front of me so I can double back to certain passages, check references and footnotes, write in the margins, skip to chapters and pages. I want more control over the reading experience. The audiobook forces me to trade all of that for an experience it provides.
I think for some people, audiobooks can end up like podcasts. People will sometimes listen to podcasts with intelligent people in the hopes that they learn something from the podcast. Maybe by listening to interviews with a famous mathematician or startup founder, one can learn some crucial aspect of becoming a successful mathematician or founder. However, the main value one gets out of podcasts is entertainment. Because you typically engage passively with a podcast, you are less likely to retain some useful bit of information that you hope to get.
I actually have the opposite experience, at least with the books I read. Nonfiction is typically highly repetitive and redundant so I find it suits audiobooks far better. Meanwhile fiction has a lot of subtle nuance and rewards carefully reading each sentence.
Of course this depends on what books you read in each category, if it’s a physics textbook vs Colleen Hoover then it’s the opposite.
For me this difference manifests in the speed I can listen to. I typically listen to podcasts at 1.7× speed whereas I listen to (fiction) audiobooks at 1× speed. Partly this is because it lets me appreciate a good reader's work better with intonation, different voices, etc., but it's probably also what you note that they're at different information densities.
Even so, I tend to rewind when I notice I missed something, e.g. due to my attention being needed elsewhere for a bit. I mostly listen while cycling and as long as I'm outside the city there's few distractions, but when sharing the streets with others there's often distractions that are more important than listening.
I've found this to be particularly true with William Gibson, tried to listen to some but a split second lapses in attention forcing me to go back often and I gave up. And just pick up a text.
I agree, but just the opposite for me. I prefer owning physical copies of fiction books, and listen to nonfiction audiobooks. Usually I find non-fiction books to have a lot of repetition. Of course it depends on the book, but I just feel that if I miss a passage, it won't be as confusing as missing a sentence of a good novel.
I tried podcasts and the majority of them are not different from tv shows or news cast, maybe not raw entertainment but it's in that bag. Sometimes you end up with someone presenting a new idea just right, but it's not common.
I find that the podcasts I listen to reveal a strikingly different thing when people can talk for 1-3 hours about something. It’s between what we were used to on television and a book. But as a dialogue.
Less true for Joe Rogan but more true for Rich Roll.
Fair point, but there a many long podcasts where the host and the guest can't connect enough and it's more of a technical-ish chat versus a learning moment.
I like your way of thinking about Audiobooks as
"Audio books are a transformation function applied to physical books."
They also help sometimes in getting the "musicality" of a work.
I didn't know how musical Moby Dick was until I heard the audiobook narrated by Frank Muller. He transformed the whole thing. Like when one reads Shakespeare and only afterwards watches it live.
I tend to have audiobook+book combos for almost every book I love, since it's also a good way to continue "reading" even when ones eyes are tired...
I think podcasts, audiobooks, and books are all information, and in general there are a huge number of purposes and formats and its a bit silly to treat any type of presentation as being specific to a particular purpose. Not everyone has the luxury to access information in their preferred format either.
For me what is often challenging is how much variation can go into the audio that can challenge my purpose, a dry or mechanical recitation of the text vs a skilled telling vs a full cast that is comprised of a huge variety of performers.
> Audio books are a transformation function applied to physical books
Very true - for me this is source of the problem with difficulty to find good quality technical audiobooks, I think that in order to "work" correctly, to properly deliver technical knowledge such audiobooks would have to be structured differently and thought out with upfront knowledge that information will be delivered in audio form.
This probably depends on the person. I have the same experience as you. I exclusively use audiobooks for fiction. If I'm reading for information I have to read a physical book. My wife is the complete opposite though. She retains the information much better if she hears it. She is dyslexic though so I'm sure that plays a big role.
It's for a similar reason that I find eReaders to be so disappointing. I have no interest in color or other aesthetic innovations, but I'm very interested in speed. I feel they have yet to reach some threshold such that I can confidently navigate backwards and forwards any number of pages at a time without losing focus.
I'm they're current implementation none of them come close to physical books for that, but I feel like they could if that were the goal.
Indeed - there's a lot of "UX features" in books that make them ideal. Something as simple as jamming your thumb between where you want to go back to, and where you are going. Another point for notebooks as well. I prefer a paper journal to a Notion document for the same reasons.
I think there's a distinction between the activity of reading a book with the activity of listening to a book. That's pretty obvious to me. If I was listening to an audiobook, I would never say "I'm reading right now", any more than if I was reading a book, I would never say "I'm listening to a book right now". Both of those cases seem so incorrect as to be confusing.
But if I am going through the list of books I "read" in the last year, I would include both printed and audio books in that list. In that sense, reading is used more like "consumed" or "studied" or "spent time with". It's not confusing to me in that context.
I think it's safe to say that some of this comes down to people's sense of shame or fear of being judged. There should be no judgment attached to reading books or listening to them, they're just two different activities. It still counts if you listen to it.
I say “I am reading X” when listening to it. I find my brain doesn’t have a huge distinction, I’m often “reading” 10+ books at the same time in a mix of audio and print formats so I don’t even remember which is which.
I'm the same in that I'd say "oh I've been reading so and so" this week, but I think GP meant it in terms of the period when they're actively listening, like, "what are you doing right now?" "I'm listening to an audiobook."
Listening to audiobooks is reading, end of story. Quit gatekeeping, free time to sit with a book & do nothing else concurrently is a huge luxury.
FWIW, recently I've started listening to audiobooks of nonfiction books while also reading along with the physical copy. Sometimes I pause the audiobook to jot notes down in the margins. I listen at about 3x speed so this helps me go a LOT faster than I could read myself and I also get the benefit of being able to write as I go, which imo makes a much bigger difference in retention than anything else (plus I can look back at my notes later). For fiction I just listen, usually while doing jigsaw puzzles at the same time.
Agreed. I notice daily fluctuation in my relative aptitudes for visually vs aurally ingesting media. On days when vision feels tough, I'll use osx screen reader at ~3x speed while looking at the document. Seeing the document helps me navigate, but I stumble when trying to parse sentences w/o the reader. Other days, I appreciate flitting around visually, parsing sentences nonlinearly and glancing back and ahead.
> I notice daily fluctuation in my relative aptitudes for visually vs aurally ingesting media.
Yes, same! I think ability to concentrate on written print & ability to concentrate on read-out-loud texts are pretty unrelated but both very trainable skills and you slowly lose acuity in each as you don't use the skills. If I'm reading an ebook for the first time in a while, my attention span is abysmal, and same with audiobooks.
When I first started listening to audiobooks the only way I could pay attention was if I was also doing something visual at the same time (jigsaw puzzles usually) and my mind wandered constantly. I thought audiobooks just weren't for me, but after months of listening now I can stare into space for several hours straight, completely immersed in the book.
> Listening to audiobooks is reading, end of story. Quit gatekeeping,
What is it with people complaining about so called gatekeeping. Most of the time there is nobody guarding the gate to keep people outside. Usually, there is just some reality of life that if you don't put in the work, you don't get the reward. Listening to audiobooks, can be entertaining or very educating or boring just as reading a book. But I severely doubt that there are more then 10 human beings (obviously made up number) that can listen to a classic algebra math book with all the proofs and get the same learning experience as from reading and working through a paper book with a stack papers and a pencil. On the other hand, listening to Elon Musks autobiography is something I can do while driving without any problems.
> FWIW, recently I've started listening to audiobooks of nonfiction books while also reading along with the physical copy.
That is an interesting approach. I've bought several books in their paper and audio book form to listen them first and use the paper as reference later. I will try using both at the same time.
> What is it with people complaining about so called gatekeeping
Because that's what it is. I spent a couple years reading /r/fantasy daily, and about once a month or so there would be a post something along the lines of "My SO/close friend/family member thinks I don't read because I listen to audiobooks. Are they right?" People believe there's debate about what they read there's debate about, and it can lead to accusatory comments like that. It's damaging when someone wants to be part of a community and feels like an outsider when they shouldn't.
> that can listen to a classic algebra math book with all the proofs and get the same learning experience as from reading and working through a paper book
1. I recently watched this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxDd8ocpcHk discussing what constitutes "valid" reading. Someone who reads 20 romance novels a month is a voracious reader just as much as someone who spends 3 years to get through Rudin. Reading romance novels is reading. Reading Star Wars novels is reading. Reading self-help books is reading.
2. Listening acuity improves with practice. If you listen at 3x speed (or faster, depending on the speed of the narrator), it's kind of incredible how many more words you can keep in your head at a time.
3. (This point is redundant because, see point 1) People attend math lectures all the time. Sure, there will be visual aids but who says you aren't supplementing with visual aids when you listen to an audiobook when you're learning something? And while I haven't researched it myself I'm sure there are a lot of accessibility options for listening to math that help a lot as well.
How can reading be valid or invalid? In my opinion the usage of the word valid in such a context is complete, nonsense. It is similar to trans people proclaiming, they are invalidated by misgendering. Some go even as far as claiming that their right to exist is questioned. That all happens in the mind of the self-proclaimed victim. If I don't want to use made up pronouns that change every hour, I don't deny anyone the right to exist and live a happy live. I am simply exasperated by the ever growing demands of them.
Back to reading. If you or anybody else doesn't feel welcomed enough by readers of great classical literature, it doesn't mean anything. Nobody is entitled to be respected as a "valid reader" by every other "valid reader" out there. If they don't see the value in what you read, it is their loss, who cares. Try to find someone else to form a peer group and don't complain about being kept out by a gatekeeper.
> 2. Listening acuity improves with practice. If you listen at 3x speed (or faster, depending on the speed of the narrator), it's kind of incredible how many more words you can keep in your head at a time.
That goes completely against my expectations and experience, with hearing up to factor 1,5 albeit. But, I'll try it.
> 3.
Usually students write down in math lectures.
My overall point is, there is no such thing as "valid" or "true" reading. There are different modes of consuming long form texts, some have advantages over others for certain kinds of texts or certain kinds of consumers. [1] The fact that not everybody agrees on that should not make anybody feel being kept out. Expecting to be supported by everybody is a sure way to be disappointed.
[1]: I've read somewhere, but can't find the reference at the moment. That the same complaints happened when people started to write down Homer's works instead of learning them by heart.
The important part is that you're actually "listening". I used to listen to audiobooks when I commute to work and I do learn from them. Stuck at home, I play audiobooks as part of multi-tasking, and there are many times that I'm just "hearing" so it's not as effective. Still good enough to familiarize with the book and be more prepared the next time around.
I know you're being facetious, but there's something to this. Both reading and listening are passive. They're indistinguishable from each other, but both are quite distinguishable from writing, or reading the way you would "read" a math or physics textbook (which involves very little of the activity of scanning words on the page and very much of the activity of scribbling stuff in a notebook and then staring at it for awhile).
I can’t listen to fiction as audiobooks. I get very easily distracted in my own thoughts and, in most of fiction, if you miss anything you miss everything. While reading, that one line saying which character entered the room is enough context to understand the dialog of the next few pages. On audiobook, it’s very easy, for me, to miss that line. So I am all the time thinking of something else, miss those lines, and realize I am completely lost. If I were to listen a fiction audiobook I would have to rewind 15 or 30 seconds every two or three minutes of book.
I listen to a lot of podcasts, but interviews, journalistic storytelling, humor. Those are either very redundant, a lot of the context is being reminded in a conversation, or it’s just doesn’t matter all that much if you listen to every single thing is said in the podcast.
It’s why I love to listen to audiobooks I’ve already read. I already know the context (even if subconsciously) and often gain things I missed reading them- I sometimes read too fast and skim over descriptions to see what happens.
I think some people have an ear for listening to books and others don’t. My wife is the same as you, but I can totally synchronize my mind with an audiobook and enter a flow state. I also really appreciate the task stacking the author describes it helps me stay on task with monotonous chores.
I think the most surprising thing for me is that I see/imagine the same images and have the same feelings when reading a book and when listening to that same book.
Airport thrillers, supermarket romance novels, pulp horror, Agatha Christie mysteries, and so on along such lines -- these don't really require any reader participation. They're the print equivalent of film and TV; they pull you along a narrative, and you're a passenger for the duration. These sorts of books work very well as audiobooks.
Anything that requires thought or reflection -- and this includes "hard" science fiction, as well as anything of a technical nature -- is very difficult for me to consume in audiobook form. I frequently lose track or zone out, and then I find that I've missed something important. Also, I can't take notes in an audiobook.
These definitely invite reader participation. They are designed like puzzles, like the rest of the whodunit genre. I have more trouble with such stories than with hard SF in audiobook format, as the scientific concepts in hard SF are usually well explained and hard to miss.
"Light" technical writing is usually fine in audiobook format, and by light, I usually mean writing that doesn't have exercises. Other things that work really well as audiobooks is if you are learning a spoken foreign language.
I'm gonna go the other way on that book / audiobook part.
Several times, I had tried to read Anathem... and I'd get a 100 or so pages into the book and start "skipping" the boring parts and then I'd lose the feel of the narrative and put it down to try again in a year or two. At which point I'd repeat it.
It wasn't until I got the audiobook that I was required to not skim/skip the "boring" parts that I was able to enjoy it in its totality.
There are other things that the audio book forces upon the listener - and less than ideal writing becomes more apparent. I did a listen of The Saga of Recluce in chronological order (not written order) and you could certainly feel which ones were written earlier (less about that person's "mechanics" with magic) and later ("I can do that" x 100). I also listened to the Foundation series (Prelude to Foundation onward)... the 1950s were jaring in things I'd skip over before (everyone was smoking) and Foundation's Edge was a bit awkward... the first chapter Foundation and Earth was were I stopped listening (I had read it before). With the Foundation, the writing and lecturing and "always right when it mattered" where things that were more difficult to listen to than to read. I wonder if the Second Foundation series by Benford, Brin, and Bear is something I can enjoy listening to.
My current listen is A Wizard of Earthsea which I feel really works well with an audio format - it feels more like a listening of the Odyssey in its epic style - and that was much better listened to than read. I'm curious how Always Coming Home will be (I read it long ago - enjoyed it then... but I know I skimmed over a lot trying to find the best parts).
I throughly enjoyed listening to The Interdependency series by John Scalzi in part because Wil Wheaton had the proper amount of snark and comfort with casual vulgarity that was part of the book that fit the characters better than I could form in my own mind.
For the most part, I've found that I have enjoyed listening to books as they often (to me) feel closer to the author's vision than what I can imagine. I enjoy reading too - and quickly read some books, but I've found myself coming back to the audio versions to enjoy them.
To me, pausing to reflect is less of a problem compared to getting distracted and losing my place or having to read the same paragraph over and over again.
Back when I had a 40+ minute train commute (and was working in the office all week, pre-pandemic), I used to listen to audiobooks on 1.5-3x, while also reading the actual book at the same time. That worked wonders for me, and it's easy enough to pause an audio book with headset controls to reflect on something.
I completely agree that different types of books need to be approached differently.
I especially look for Progression Fantasy books(zero reader participation needed) to listen to when I don't have the energy to consume anything serious.
I've also had interesting experiences with some technical non-fiction books, where I've zoned into the content and understood it better than I would have reading it.
A very long time ago I used a cassettes by mail rental service for my commute. It was great for fiction--especially shorter more easily digestible fiction. It really wasn't good for military history or anything that really benefited from maps or other graphics. As I recall, I mostly just defaulted to fiction after a few attempts.
One example that I enjoyed listening was The Count ot Mount Cristo. The story is long, it boring a lot of times, but a good narrator with good French pronunciation makes it more enjoyable. And being able to phase out during the boring parts is a good feature.
I like audiobooks for nonfiction. Especially anything business-y.
I like to let the audiobook flow through me on long runs like a guided meditation on a topic. The end effect is like having the book’s lessons embedded deep in your subconscious. There’s a special magic in engaging with a single topic over several focused hours that I’m too distracted to reproduce with a physical book.
If I need details or quotes from the book, or if I want to use it as a lookup reference, I like to then get the physical book. Now my audio read serves as a fast lookup table that helps me find the details.
Same here, and if the audiobook has ideas that grab my attention I'll often get the physical book to read later. I find that I can churn through several books a week and find a hidden gem in one that is worth following up.
I'll gladly pay one Audible credit and 3-5 hours of my time while at the gym or running to find out a book isn't worth buying than pay 2-3x as much for the paperback and 9-15 hours of my time dedicated to reading it to find out the same.
Shakespeare on tape really rocked my world. I read the texts only here and there, seen the plays, but hearing them, a multiple times each, is amazing and lets you really get why the Bard is the best, and really get the rhythm and rich poetry of the language, and the wisdom. Probably seeing the plays multiple times would amount to the same or better but isn’t as practical. Also, you get a healthy dose of director mixed in.
Other books on tape also fine. Some better than others depending on the person who is reading them. Some are amazingly good. But for the most part, to really grok a boom on tape (or other medium), you have to listen multiple times. Reading is often better quicker. But like I said, shakes on tape is amazing.
Spotify etc. helped curb piracy because it was convenient. Ebooks should be convenient, but are not. The experience is much worse than physical books and barely any cheaper. It pains me everytime I try to buy one.
Then came the ipad, and while the ipad is terrible for long reading it isn't obvious why an ebook would be better so most dismiss it right away.
> The experience is much worse than physical books [...]
We must have different reading habits, because my experience has been the exact opposite. On my Kindle I can read every book with the same font, same text size, same layout, same backlight. I don't have to struggle to balance big heavy doorstops, a book feels the same in my hand whether it has 200 or 1200 pages. The latest Paperwhite models are waterproof too, so I can take mine with me in the tub with no fear of dropping it in the water and ruining it. I read dozens of books each year, and a big reason for that is how convenient it is to do it on an e-reader.
Now, tech books, graphical novels, comics? For sure an e-reader sucks for these, and I still buy these in paper form, but for plain words (fiction and non-fiction)? You can pry my Kindle from my cold dead hands.
It is dismaying that used paperbacks are often cheaper than e-books. I am ashamed to admit that often buy used paperbacks, despite the negative ecological impact of shipping.
> In terms of dollars, ebooks represent less than 7 percent of the entire U.S. book trade.
This is surprising to me given the quality of e-readers out there now. The experience is quite nice, and you don't end up taking up a bunch of space or making a mess with physical books lying around.
Problem with ebooks is that you get product of a lesser value for a similar price. A paper book doesn't need a extra device you have to pay for, will outlast you with proper care, is DRM free and can be lent or resold. There is even a trend of treating physical books as collectors items, so you may even get some return on investment!
Also "book trade" doesn't include piracy, which works as the "solution" to the value problem.
For me, it's travel that's the big win. There's space at home as well (and moving if applicable) but that's mostly manageable if you prune things now and then. If I didn't travel by air I'd probably care a lot less.
Ebooks aren't good for everything--especially on a smaller format eink reader. But I still find it a bit surprising, and I'm sure this is true of others as well, that ebooks didn't become more dominant--especially for fiction.
It's gotten better. I tend to buy guidebooks preferentially on Kindle these days. But I still get cookbooks in hardcover unless they're a super-bargain as well as "coffee table books" of course.
E-readers are great for fiction and other text-only content, but the average e-ink reader is useless for textbooks and reference books with a lot of images/diagrams/photos.
Sidenote: Book publishers seem to refuse to embrace digital.
I just love going to my local library to "rent" a digital book on my Kindle only to be told that there's no availabile "copies"
Is love to read more on Kindle or other book readers if there was an actual good platform that was embraced by both national and international authors. Same with audio books for that matter. It's even worse than streaming somehow
The platform exists but it is probably not what you want: Library Genesis. Publishers insist on pushing paper-book characteristics like 'wear and tear' to digital copies in libraries so they can only be lent out a given number of times or a certain number of months after which they are 'worn out' and the library needs to buy a new copy. Here are some of the rules set by different publishers [1]:
Penguin Random House: one copy/one user, metered access: titles expire after 24 months, then library must repurchase
Hachette Livre: one copy/one user, metered access: titles expire after 24 months, then library must repurchase
HarperCollins: one copy/one user, metered access: titles expire after 26 checkouts, then library must repurchase
Macmillan: one copy/one user, libraries limited to 1 copy of newest titles for the first 8 weeks after publication, metered access: most titles expire after 24 months or 52 checkouts (whichever comes first), then library must repurchase
Simon & Schuster: one copy/one user, metered access: titles expire after 24 months, then library must repurchase
Ebooks are priced at 2 to 4 times the retail rice when sold to libraries.
A question to those working in publishing: where does the revenue end up? Is this another example of a rent-seeking scheme like Elsevier/Wiley et al. have been up to in scientific publishing or does it work like Spotify where at least part of the revenue goes to the authors?
One approach I've seen people take is to get non-resident library cards to large library systems like the NY Public Library or the Chicago Library. You can put multiple library cards into Overdrive/Libby/whatever and then you can see availability for all the valid cards you have.
And isn't this "available digital copy" issue at the heart of the lawsuit the Internet Archives is dealing with when they stopped placing copy limits on digital books at the start of the pandemic?
It might "count," but it's not half as good. It's small wonder to me that high schoolers "hate Shakespeare" and find the works hard to understand. They weren't written to be read, but to be performed!
As long as you enjoyed the work, I would say yes. While it's true that live performances give you the acting, set design, and costume design for the work, a close examination of the writing helps with appreciating the wordplay and usage of language more—as some of the elegance might be missed with seeing a performance just once (though you could pick up more if you see multiple performances of the same script).
I appreciate how the author brought up scripta continua as a response to those who dismiss listening to audiobooks as not reading. If you're not struggling to parse out the words like the ancient greeks and romans did, are you really doing all the work that could be done and getting the full experience?
I "read" a lot of non-fiction via audiobooks. Sure, it's not the same thing as visually parsing a line of poetry and figuring out how to say it, and then how to say it again with a totally different meaning. That's not the point of most non-fiction. You're learning about stuff. You are being informed. To "listen" to an entire book on a subject you're interested in, to learn many things about it, and then claim you "haven't read the book" is nonsense.
I would agree that, sometimes, you can tune boring passages out, but you can do that when reading a dead-tree book too. How many students have stayed up late, reading their course textbooks only to re-read the same page again and again because their mind is past its ability to absorb? Just as realizing you've tuned out and turning back a couple pages is a thing with books, so too is hitting the rewind button with an audiobook. Just as sometimes you have to put a dead-tree book down and think for a moment, so to does it pay dividends to hit pause on your audiobook.
I'd argue that there's a bigger difference between being an active vs passive listener/reader than there is between listening and reading.
The one thing I would concede is that there is some information audio just isn't up to conveying. Any book that is heavy on pictures, diagrams, or equations is not going to be possible to convey via pure audio.
I like listening to The Great Courses on Audible. They’re long and interesting, but they’re nothing I’d take notes on, they’re not anything that would change my life. I have used credits on a few nonfiction books, gotten 1/4 in, and bought the physical book because I wanted a better understanding of the material.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks, but quality and the amount of focus required varies a lot. Sometimes I put on some lightweight audiobook or podcast while playing games or doing chores. For most lightweight content I crank it up to somewhere between 2x and 3x playback speed and still follow along just fine.
Other times I'm dialed-in with an audiobook playing as I read along with the book. Most recently I've been doing this with Unsong, by Scott Alexander. The book is very engaging and detailed, so I'm fully immersed. For this book in particular it's useful to have an audiobook because I don't know how many of the references would be pronounced.
Anything more challenging or technically-focused usually requires me to physically read it in order to fully process the content.
For me, audiobooks present good analogues for both these cases.
I never skip lines in a book, but I might increase my reading speed if something is getting repetitive. Audiobooks also let you increase speed, and I often go to 2.5x or even 3x for low-information-content audiobooks.
For re-reading, you can skip back 30 seconds to re-listen.
Reading or listening isn't a very important distinction outside of personal preference, with the exception of illustrative figures and diagrams which just don't come across that well on audio.
What really matters is whether or not one absorbs the material. Inattentive reading is perhaps less likely than inattentive listening, and it's easier to reread a difficult paragraph visually instead of stopping the audio player, going back and finding the beginning of the relevant section, and listening to it again.
Reading a book exercises a part of the brain that listening does not. And that same part of the brain, the quiet focus, is necessary to solve hard problems and reflect on your choices in life.
For me it’s the same experience in my brain either way. This didn’t happen instantly though, I’ve done over 1000 audiobooks at this point and I could “feel” my brain rewiring how it processed them over time.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks at work, and it is definitely a different experience from reading a physical book, but there is a great deal of overlap.
There’s also a limitation to the books that can be put in audio format… not sure how House of Leaves would work in audio with all the footnotes.
The best audiobook I’ve ever listened to is Andy Serkis’ Lord of the Rings that came out recently. Before that the best a reader could do is make me not think about them, but this one rose to the level of a great performance.
Audiobooks make it possible to partake of books - non-fiction as well as fiction - while doing 'dumb' work. When I built the bathroom in our house I listened to The Gulag Archipelago. This is as long book so it was a good thing that the job involved lifting one corner of the (log-built) house using 2 20-ton hydraulic jacks to replace some rotten beams, rebuilding the floor beans and more of such. Some 5 years later I listened to the same book while installing PV-panels on the roof of the barn I built the year before. I listen to them while turning hay on the tractor, while running the snow plow, etc. I tend to have a mix of netcasts and audio books on the go so I can switch between them depending on what I'm doing and what I feel like listening to - currently 'Neuromancer' next to an interview with Eylon Levy (Aron Flam's Dekonstruktiv Kritik, a Swedish netcast) and The Corruption of Stakeholder Capitalism (New Discourses netcast).
Major newspapers and magazines have actually seriously considered this question, and put the money in for solving this. Some publications such as The Washington Post have added AI-generated readings to their articles, but I've personally found the readings slightly too unnatural (though they are fairly close to a human narrator) to read for longer articles. However, this might improve in the near future.
Other publications (such as The New Yorker) hire human narrators to read a selection of their articles. I appreciate this as the narration helped me enjoy certain lengthier articles that I would've skipped on reading otherwise. The Economist in particular repeatedly mentions that a small but significant portion of its subscriber base primarily listens to instead of reads their articles [1].
Seems we're fairly divided here between "audiobooks are for fiction" and "they work great as learning resource".
How about a slight tangent / challenge: Try to give a few examples of "which" audiobooks/podcasts/lectures are in Your own personal Top 3 or so (and maybe why).
My personal kickoff (I'm mostly in the fiction / "I need narrative" camp):
1. "The Poet's Corner" by John Lithgow (narrated by himself). This book probably converted me to even prefer audiobooks over regular paper / ebooks. Lithgow is a wonderful actor and in case of poetry, interpretation matters as much as the text itself. And the selection of different actors he brings in would be hard to beat even if it was done by a major Hollywood studio.
2. Bobiverse by Dennis E. Taylor, narrated by Ray Porter. If You like SF and haven't yet tried anything that's been narrated by Porter, please do yourself a favor and check his name out. I'll wait. The list is worth it.
3. Postwar by Tony Judt, narrated by Ralph Cosham. This one convinced me that what I need in an audiobooks is a narrative, but it does not necessarily need to be fiction. I'm a bity of a history nerd and reading one of the major works of 20th century in an audio form was the final straw that convinced me that audiobooks work great even for some non-fiction cases.
Basically, whenever I see I have a chunk of 30+ minutes of time when I "can" get away with running on autopilot and devoting part of my attention to listening (in my case - whenever I am cycling / running training, commutes, highway driving etc.), I now have the option of reading at the same time.
2) Comedian’s autobiography self-preformed (Martin Short, Guy Brannan, Trevor Noah and Jerry Seinfeld)
3) A Life in Parts,
Bryan Cranston
Sometimes I listen to an audiobook for a few chapters to hear the author’s “voice” and then start the print version from the beginning. A writer for whom this isn’t necessary? Garrison Keillor whose distinctive voice I can hear at-will and who writes exactly as he speaks.
I'm glad to hear that "Postwar" by Judt has a great audio recording, as I've read that the is book highly recommended by academic historians. This puts it next on my listening list (other books on my list about the 20th Century include "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Rhodes and "Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze" by Harmsen).
I'm struggling to think of a top three list from audiobooks alone in terms of memorability and enjoyment, but I can list a few that had a measurable impact on my life.
1. "What I Talk About When I Talk About Running" by Haruki Murakami, narrated by Ray Porter (coincidentally, also the narrator for the Bobiverse book you mentioned). This was a major influence of increasing my running volume and moving on to a more intense intermediate middle-distance program, and his experiences also gave me the motivation to push through discomfort in running and certain parts of life when necessary (with the ideas that "Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional," and that even world-class elite runners have days when they don't feel like training, but they go out and do so anyway).
2. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, narrated by Sissy Spacek. This reading wasn't required by my school growing up, but I've wanted to read this book for several years due to its great reputation. The audiobook version helped me finally enjoy the book over a month or so. I still remember Atticus Finch's quote that "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view [...] until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it," and the idea helped navigate through some complicated negotiations and social situations at various times.
3. Various other classics (sneaking a bit around the limit of a top three). The audiobook version of Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was an influence that led to an increased interest with space exploration and astronomy, and readings of Huxley's "Brave New World" and Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" helped me better appreciate the damaging effects of excessive escapism with entertainment, versus choosing efforts that require more struggle and difficulty.
I've also become more informed through listenings to Carreyrou's "Bad Blood" about the fall of Theranos, and Quinones's "Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic," though classic literature has interestingly been typically more relevant to my day-to-day life than non-fiction books so far, with the exception of certain memoirs such as Murakami's.
The answer to this question will be unique to every person and every book. I read quite a few books for the entertainment value they provide - I like getting lost in a good novel occasionally without having to reflect too seriously on each passage. Audiobooks provide a convenient means of enabling me to enjoy the book, especially if driving, commuting, or performing some other task. However, if I am reading a nonfiction book, I want the book in front of me so I can double back to certain passages, check references and footnotes, write in the margins, skip to chapters and pages. I want more control over the reading experience. The audiobook forces me to trade all of that for an experience it provides.
I think for some people, audiobooks can end up like podcasts. People will sometimes listen to podcasts with intelligent people in the hopes that they learn something from the podcast. Maybe by listening to interviews with a famous mathematician or startup founder, one can learn some crucial aspect of becoming a successful mathematician or founder. However, the main value one gets out of podcasts is entertainment. Because you typically engage passively with a podcast, you are less likely to retain some useful bit of information that you hope to get.