[basscomm]

> Look, it’s fine if audiobooks don’t work for you, and it’s fine to let your readers know why.

Listening to an audiobook is not the same as reading a book.

The whole point of the article was how to read more books, not how to have someone read books to you.

[latexr]

What a meaningless gatekeeping distinction. Unless your sole goal is to be a poser who wants to be perceived as a literate intellectual who is oh so cultured and well-read, however you consume the book is up to you. Who the heck is thinking “I really want to read more books, but only if it’s in the way this stranger tells me I should, not the way I enjoy”?

If you like reading paper books, good. If you like reading electronic books, good. If you like listening to audiobooks, good. If you like having your partner lovingly transcribe a book into individual postcards and mail them to you weekly, good. Consume the book however you want and don’t judge others by their preference.

[basscomm]

There are many reasons why someone might want to improve their reading, and the only solution to that is to practice reading.

Audiobooks are someone else's (i.e. not your) interpretation of a work. Kind of like how you might go watch a play or a movie instead of reading a script. There's nothing wrong with either of those things, but they're not reading.

[latexr]

> There's nothing wrong with either of those things, but they're not reading.

Why are you compelled to defend that (in my view) meaningless distinction? Why does it matter? I’m asking genuinely, so I can understand why we’re having this conversation.

[basscomm]

Defend what? That reading and listening are two different skills?

[Apocryphon]

I am somewhat biased against audiobooks as well, but how do you justify that consuming text, language, words is substantially different between reading and listening? Particularly in novels and the like? If you aren't re-reading passages, and only processing lines of text in a linear fashion, how is that any different from listening to a transcription?

[misiti3780]

I dont know you about you, but the reason I read is to learn and retain -- many studies havnt shown audiobooks are much worse than reading for retention.

Example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247504935_They_Hear...

[latexr]

> I dont know you about you, but the reason I read is to learn and retain

Millions of people read for entertainment. If you ask the people who read Fifty Shades and other erotic novels¹, how many do you think would say they do it “to learn and retain”? In fact, not retaining is something I would like to do with certain pieces of media, so I could reexperience their impact.

Have you ever listened to a good audiobook for a fictional story? There are fantastic versions of Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett stories where the voice acting really brings them to life in a way many readers cannot with their internal voice (see, for example, aphantasia). How about a book written by a comedian, read by the author? Having them read the funny bits with the intended delivery and in their own voice feels like you’re enjoying another of their stand-ups. They sometimes even go slightly off-script and make jokes not in the written book. Again: Consume books however you like and let others do the same. Why does it concern you how other people enjoy their books?

¹ No judgement. Smut is a big market and you do you as long as you’re not hurting anyone else.

[misiti3780]

I only read non-fiction, maybe my situation is unique.

[bluebarbet]

The "havnt" is letting you down.