-Jack Wylder, here. Thought Larry’s comments on this needed to be preserved
Every now and then I see some pedantic weasel get all snooty how listening to audiobooks doesn’t count as reading. I just saw some dork acting smug and superior because “Reading is active. Listening is passive.”
Lol no. 😀 That is not how this works AT ALL.
Here is a peak behind the curtain of how this actually works. I’m one of those authors who’s style translates extremely well into audio. I do really good there. In fact one time one of the main execs at Audible needed to do a presentation about writing for audio, so he asked me in particular to help him come up with a list of tips and tricks. (and we’ve done episodes of WriterDojo about what I told him). So I’ve given a whole lot of thought to this topic, and I’ve learned from a lot of very smart people.
Eyes, ears (or fingers if you read braille) those are just the input device to feed story into your brain. There are different tricks we authors can do to make the story more interesting for either. Once the story is in your brain, if the story is good enough the reader/listener is going to go into a certain flow state we like to call “immersion.”
The whole active/passive thing is ridiculous, because when you are actively immersed in the story whatever input device you’re using becomes irrelevant, and you go into autopilot, and either way your brain is busy digesting that story.
You can “actively” read, but if you’re immersed, it’s automatic. In fact, while your brain is reading this line, your subconscious is already skipped ahead one line and is processing it too, and your brain is still processing the line above. (this is why profanity is 3x more powerful in written form than audio, because of the difference in the nature of the input device). On the eyeball side we’ve got visual tricks. On the audio side there is the added benefit of a narrator who can add emotion and emphasis.
But if you hook electrodes to someone’s brain who is in that active flow state where they are immersed in the world, and their imagination is processing and they’re creating visuals and are emotionally engaged, same parts of the brain are lighting up. And this is when you get pissed off when the doorbell rings and reminds you that the real world still exists.
The difference between absorbing your story from books/audio and TV is that the visualization component is being done for you.
Anybody who thinks you can’t read a book “passively” has never meandered their way through a boring read, nor if they think audio isn’t “active” has never been sucked into a good audiobook.
Getting people into that immersive state is my job. The reason I’m good at both audiobooks and regular books is that I’m a story teller first, writer second. Writer is just my preferred delivery method, and if I’d been born a thousand years ago I would’ve been the dude telling stories around the campfire at night.
I guess I’m not interested in banging my dick on the table about how many books I’ve read/listened to/watched. These days it’s mostly listen. And it’s interesting how my reading impressions of characters differ from the characters brought to life in audio.
I read all the Hard Magic books and stories before I heard Bronson Pinchot bring them to life. Holy cow can that man perform! Sally Faye Viera was so much more interesting told by Pinchot.
Audio books is one of those areas where I just let other folks enjoy themselves.
I find listening to them annoying and have a hard time retaining anything I heard, especially if doing something like driving (Wife on the other hand loves listening to audio books when driving).
When at museums with those audio “guides” I ask if they have a transcript I can borrow. I get much more out of the exhibits that way and get through way faster without standing around waiting for the audio file to finish so I can move on, and enjoy the visit much more.
Those that like them, Rock On With Your Own Bad Selves!
I lose focus if there isn’t a visual component when reading so audio books don’t work for me. I hope everyone else is having fun with them.
I love audio books! Especially when the narrator creates a persona for each character. Reminds me of olde tyme radio serials. Much more immersive than reading. (Does anyone actually READ Shakespeare for fun?) And while do still read quite a bit, I have to be stationary in one spot. Audio is accessible while walking or driving.
Audio books are too much like a lecture, or a meeting. Both of which put me to sleep.
Reminds me of the class in ‘Real Genius’ in which, as the semester grinds on, more and more of the students just put tape recorders on their desks and skip the class. In the end, there is a lecture hall full of tape recorders and zero students. Finally, the professor starts a big reel-to-reel machine on his desk playing and leaves the room. If you can’t beat ’em…
The thing I like about audiobooks is that I can listen to them while doing mundane task like driving or doing laundry. Things that use a different part of the brain.
I also like to sit down and read, but when I do that nothing else gets done.
That’s what’s great about both media. Sometimes nothing else wants doing.
Same here, I have audio books for doing yardwork, exercise, or working in the garage. E-books for when I’m out and about and need something while waiting in a line or at a restaurant, and dead-tree books for when I have the time.
When somebody says that reading is active and listening is passive, what that really means is that their lips still move when they read.
Books (Novels, short stories, whatever…) are about ideas as much as story. Story works well in audio-books, as you say; ideas don’t.
Absolutely true. I listen to fiction but generally read non-fiction. I have listened to some non-fiction but ideas require more “attention” than story. Story is immersive but ideas require a level of focus that is not what I would call immersive.
Bla bla bla you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I am very impressed by and envious of people who can absorb an audio book while doing other tasks; I’ve never been able to do that. I either realize I’ve missed the last ten minutes and have to rewind, or I realize I’ve been standing or sitting doing nothing for ten minutes and have to catch up. Music I can listen to with half my brain but not stories. And I read at about three times the speed most audiobook narrators talk, so I have trouble staying with a given piece for any length of time. I would never say audiobooks aren’t real brain food, but there are differences.
Does this mean the audio books read by Gerrard Reynolds will be available day 1 for Graveyard of Demons and Heart of the Mountain?
Audiobooks are real books.
I don’t review audiobooks mainly because I review new books, and the audiobooks I listen to are mainly older. I listen to at least 20 a year, mostly while driving.
Some are perfect for commuting. With the Nero Wolfe books, it is like having Archie Goodwin sitting in the passenger seat, telling the story as you go along.
Other are an excuse to dip into a book I have otherwise been unable to read. Works great for old classics by Walter Scott or William Thackery. The only time it didn’t work was with Moby Dick. I’ve tried to read that dozens of times over my life and fell asleep every damn time. I finally decided to listen to an audio version. (I had a 45-min one-way commute at the time.) Nope. It almost put me to sleep while I was driving. I finally pulled it and listened to “Space Viking” for the nth time, instead.
I just finished listening to Heinlien’s Time Enough For Love. Now I’ve read that at least 4 times. But I didn’t really enjoy the audio performance.
Remember Heinlien went with an unusual format for this book. Lots of different POVs, along with lectures between chapters. There was nothing bad about the reader. But it just did not translate well to audio.
I’ve been told that Michael Crichton’s writing style was based on imagining the action from a screenwriter’s POV. Since he wrote a bunch of screenplays, I can see that.
Our host does pretty well on writing for audio. I’m sure it doesn’t hurt that Audible asks him for original exclusive content now and then.
“You can “actively” read, but if you’re immersed, it’s automatic”
Going by my own experience with second language, I can tell you fluency plays a significant part in reading being automatic. Even if you are immersed, you will be immediately smacked out by a (typographical) character you don’t know and be back to active reading.
“Anybody who thinks you can’t read a book “passively” has never meandered their way through a boring read…”
What’s funny, is my immediate reaction upon reading the “reading is active, listening is passive” was that, “Whoever said that, hasn’t taken a high school english class.” You can’t convince me you made it through High School without reading at least 1 book that was torture to read, but you had to because “classic.”
I strongly suspect many of the people who deride audiobooks are the sort of people who only read “literary fiction.” They don’t know how to enjoy a book… They approach reading as an adult with the same mindset they had as a child.
As a child, they read the Assigned Reading given to them by Teacher, they memorize the Keywords and Major Themes, and then regurgitate it all in their Book Report. They get their Gold Star and life is good.
As an adult, they read the Assigned Reading given to them by The New Yorker, memorize the Keywords and Major Themes, and regurgitate it all during a Mocktail Party. They get their Knowing Nod and life is good.
They live their entire lives without ever escaping eighth grade.
Keep in mind that audio books have completely changed the game for the blind and visually impaired. My grandson is one such, and may never learn to read all that well. But with audio books and screen readers, the playing field is leveled.
It takes a lot of time and money to create a braille book. Ditto for the blind waiting for readers to complete reading specialized material.
Electronic readers have given real time access to books, journals, magazines, and reports/emails/blogs.
It’s a game changer.
I had not considered this.
It annoys me greatly when Amazon disables text to speech in a kindle book. Sometimes I want to continue with the book I had been reading with my eyes, but need to drive somewhere or wash the dishes or something. So I have to switch books, switch devices (to one with a screen reader that amazon doesn’t control), or hope the public library has it in audio format. Because I really don’t want to have to pay for it twice just to bring back a convenient feature that my old keyboard kindle used to have.
Also, my family has a mix of eye readers, ear readers, and whatever’s convenient at the time readers. It’s nice to be able to share books in the household.
Fundamentally it’s an accessibility issue. Some books will never have a professional audio version done. Text to speech works tolerably well for those.
Even though I prefer reading with my eyes in a quiet environment, letting my ears rest from all the noise and chatter, recently I’ve been finding myself listening to more audio books. Partly because I had severe vision problems for a year or so (mostly fixed now). At some point I figured out that audio books (or podcasts) are better for my sanity than TV news or talk radio when doing boring manual tasks. But sometimes the ear readers in our house found out about the title first… so audio is what we have. 😄
I don’t think I’ve turned on my car radio since Audible became a thing.
“The whole active/passive thing is ridiculous”
Going out of your way to insult people who experience things differently than you do? Myself I find that I am more immersed when I read than when I listen to something, I would be willing to stipulate that you and others might experience things differently. Or should I emulate YOU and insist that YOU are ridiculous for having a mind that works differently than mine?
Every now and then I see some pedantic weasel get all snooty how listening to audiobook is superior as reading
What a dumb interpretation of what I wrote there. 😀
As a blind and largely audio consumer
Audiobooks… well, me, they put to sleep. Doesn’t matter how good the book is or how well it’s read. BUT… I have a near-blind friend who can really only do audiobooks, because reading print for more than a few minutes hurts what’s left of her remaining eye. And she really gets into them even if the voice is the just autotext on her phone. She’s been ‘reading’ audiobooks long enough that there’s really no difference in her brain; the immersion happens regardless of input method — it’s still ‘reading’ by any reasonable description. In fact, she says she “reads” Talking Books, and means it exactly as for print.
So, yeah, it’s fairly obvious even without electrodes that it manages the same durn thing, tho it may take motivation or training to achieve it.
Just remind them that Shakespeare was not meant to be read. It was meant to be listened to. And that Shakespeare was more concerned with putting asses in seats and entertaining people than being “culturally significant.”
Very true about Shakespeare being listened to, and on stage. All the descriptive stuff of creating the scene and the atmosphere isn’t present in a play script the way it is in novels, where all those details need to be described because there are no visuals.
Back in the late 80s our English teacher figured out how to ruin Shakespeare. She made us go up and down the rows of desks, one after the other, taking turns reading a certain number of lines from a play. Didn’t matter which characters or scenes. Made worse because many students were functionally illiterate, undiagnosed dyslexic, ADHD (and bored silly), or simply not accustomed to 400 year old English. It was baaaad. Really bad.
I could tolerate Shakespeare in print well enough to follow the story, but it was no fun at all. Until several years later, when friends took me to see it performed live and it made a lot more sense.
Reading a book aloud gives the author the freedom to write “peak” but say “peek” with the audience none the wiser. Leaving “pique” feeling slighted.