Wonderful reflection! Is not the medium the driver of experience? A book is all about individual involvement detached from the sensory world of interconnection. An Audio book reintroduces the auditory element but In fixed linear so in a “sense” a by product of print… or could this be a step towards the re introduction of the potential of auditory sense of oral traditions as a result of our real time technologies? Most books of today weren't meant to be aural so they lead to the issues you express but if they follow the forms of Shakespeare, Homer, etc then they cater the medium.
I both read books and listen to audiobooks; each format fills a different need in my life at a time. Certain audiobooks have been so excellent that I end up buying the printed book to own it, and re-read it and write in it and savour each lovely turn of phrase. A few examples are Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver, read to perfection by a fellow with the speech patterns and accent of the area in which the story is set, which brings me there and holds me there, but the writing is so marvellous that I bought it to own and cherish it. I think when I get around to reading it, I will still hear that voice! Another such exquisite example is Abraham Verghese's latest novel, The Covenant of Water, read by the author himself. I don't think anyone else could have transformed that beautiful story into an audio version better than himself, in particular the pronunciation of the many unfamiliar (to me) place names and in the beautifully phrased English of south India. I'll mention only a further third (there are many more) that started out as "only" an audiobook but led to my buying and reading all the author's works: Ragged Company by Richard Wagamese.
Certainly there are the more mindless audiobooks suitable for commuting in traffic, or doing housework or cooking, murder mysteries, detective stories, anything that grabs your attention and has a fast-moving plot (some character development is always nice, but tends to come only from series with a continuing main character); they've all saved me at times from the pain of commercial radio and boredom, but I don't think I'd spend my rare and precious "sofa time" reading such novels.
I’m an avid reader & have been my entire life, ever since I was able to read. I prefer reading physical books, mainly because when I try listening to audiobooks my mind wanders & I have to rewind so much that it’s not enjoyable. At least with a physical book, rereading pages is easier, in my opinion. Plus, I love the smell & feel of physical books.
My daughter’s male friend asked me one morning recently, why I kept sniffing the book & my 48 yr old daughter replied for me, “Because it smells so good!” He admitted that he didn’t realize that books had a scent.
My youngest son, though, loves audiobooks. He’s had severe ADHD all his life & says that it’s much easier for him to concentrate on audiobooks than reading physical books. He’s always telling me about the narrators for books that we’ve both enjoyed. Sometimes I’m envious (who WOULDN’T enjoy hearing Bill Paxton read!), especially because he can listen to hours of books without too much rewinding. My own ADHD (yes, he inherited it from me) has me rereading entire chapters if I’m the least bit distracted or my brain is preoccupied.
I’m sure that the format of enjoying books is equally rewarding to both audio & physical readers. It’s all about what helps each individual enjoy the beauty of the written word, whether it’s read or heard.
with this definition, a person reading in print is also a translator, just like the audiobook performer; the original only exists in the author’s head. So can one translation lay claim to the original more than another?
I like the Woody Allen joke about the guy who took a speed reading course, and could read Tolstoy's "War and Peace" in thirty minutes. "It's a book about some Russians," he said.
I'm at a later stage of life. I read a book and listen to the audiobook of it at the same time. I take in the printed word, and hear those words as they are read to me. In this way, I retain the information better, and I benefit from both hearing the story, and reading it, as I've done since I began to read and hear stories told to me. Both formats are valuable, but putting both together gives me more pleasure than doing each alone.
possibly the best audiobook I have listened to is The Line of Beauty by alan hollinghurst read by alex jennings but i tried the stranger’s child( read by someone else) and it sounded ridiculous in a way it doesn’t read as on the page and I am always wary of that danger when choosing audiobooks- things that sound v charming and serious on the page translate as ridiculous on an audiobook- had this with the secret history too, it absolutely doesn’t work as an audiobook- and maybe why it wouldn’t potentially translate into film well?
Tbh this makes me wonder what your fiction would be like in audiobook form, because it's interested in disgust and parts of it (I mean this as a compliment) can sometimes feel like a little but of an endurance test to push through. What would it be like to read it in a format where you have no control over pacing and where every passage gets an equal amount of time?
Eleanor, thanks for this piece, it’s the first of yours I have encountered. You’re spot on, for me at least, that the difference between print and audio is how the reader/listener is engaged in time. I, for one, love to be outside of external time. I also like your observations of literary translation as art, the literary translation is a “new”, certainly different artistic creation than the original. I have read One Hundred Years Of Solitude in English (first, 40 years ago), in Spanish (five years later as a Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala), and again in English (this year, prepping for the upcoming series). All three experiences were vastly different. I also simultaneously read Los Detectives Salvajes/The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolaño chapter by chapter, to get my own feeling for the translator’s license. I would wonder if “reading” an audiobook multiple times would result in similar experiences to listening to a favorite musical record? I leave that exercise to someone else. Thanks again!
Should we read books aloud to our children ? Would we benefit from listening to an author reading excerpts of their book? Aren’t these the old school version of audiobooks present from time immemorial? I won’t even get into the fact that for most of history many (most?) literate people experienced much of the world’s greatest literature through readings by authors and professional (or amateur) recitations , not reading the words directly on the page (and this is true for prose texts, not just poetry, plays or oral compositions-turned-text such as the Iliad). I would suggest that it would benefit any discussion of this issue to think about these aspects ?
I do get into this topic a little in the piece (although it definitely deserves a piece of its own). The primary difference, as I say in the essay, is that earlier forms of oral performance involved spontaneity and live audience participation: they weren't just oral renditions of a written work.
What do you mean by “earlier”? For the 8th cent BCE you’re probably correct. Not for much that is more recent than that… oral recitations of written literature is an ancient tradition still extremely common in the west to the early 20th century. For most of history most people experienced literature from other people’s readings of the text. This was especially the case for poetry (also- scripture!).
Love this. I am an avid learner and read physical books, kindle and listen audiobooks. Reading a book is my favorite and due to my lifestyle and living location I drive and fly as well, hence listening and kindle. I love having the choices and sometimes I read a book after I listen to it if it’s for my learning.
I don't object to them being portrayed as *different* experiences. I *do* object to the many people out there who say (or imply) that listening to audiobooks is somehow an *inferior* experience. That's what the whole "audiobooks don't count" thing means to me.
I enjoy them both, and yes, there are some that don't work for me on audio, either due to the way they're written, complexity, or just dissatisfaction with the narrator, who definitely can make or break one, and some that work better for me than print.
As one who has loved the experience of reading the printed page for over 70 years, but has had to transition to audio books as I age and my eyesight declines, I can attest to the difference in the art forms. I miss the experience of wrestling with a paragraph or rereading a passage that might give me a better understanding of a character. I am, however, thankful that I can continue to enjoy and experience old favorites or new authors. The analogy of being on a moving train is apt and brings the same frustration of wanting to look back at a scene that has receded in the distance. Thank you for a wonderful and clear eyed discussion of an issue that I have often thought about. (Alexa read the article for me.)
After having read Bill Bryson's books, I loved then listening to the audio books. As he presents them, the words he chooses to emphasize and his inflection and pace frequently make me laugh even harder than when I first read them.
A key question for me is ‘can you say you’ve read a book when you’ve only listened to the audio version (as many people do)?’ I don’t think you can - a) because you just haven’t (that’s not what “reading” means) but b) more importantly, you’ve had a quite different experience. Being ‘aboard somebody else’s train’ is quite a good analogy I think. You’re pulled along at someone else’s pace, with limited opportunities to get off. The experience of conventional reading, however, is to me less like being in a spacious room than it’s like being on a long walk through an unfamiliar landscape, which you can take at your own pace, stopping when you like to take in the view, reflect on your progress, check your bearings, et cetera. I find audiobooks, or even books read on the radio, very difficult for this reason, that I will still drift off into my own thoughts, and completely lose track of the story, which has advanced without without me! The physical book is much more forgiving…
Wonderful reflection! Is not the medium the driver of experience? A book is all about individual involvement detached from the sensory world of interconnection. An Audio book reintroduces the auditory element but In fixed linear so in a “sense” a by product of print… or could this be a step towards the re introduction of the potential of auditory sense of oral traditions as a result of our real time technologies? Most books of today weren't meant to be aural so they lead to the issues you express but if they follow the forms of Shakespeare, Homer, etc then they cater the medium.
I both read books and listen to audiobooks; each format fills a different need in my life at a time. Certain audiobooks have been so excellent that I end up buying the printed book to own it, and re-read it and write in it and savour each lovely turn of phrase. A few examples are Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver, read to perfection by a fellow with the speech patterns and accent of the area in which the story is set, which brings me there and holds me there, but the writing is so marvellous that I bought it to own and cherish it. I think when I get around to reading it, I will still hear that voice! Another such exquisite example is Abraham Verghese's latest novel, The Covenant of Water, read by the author himself. I don't think anyone else could have transformed that beautiful story into an audio version better than himself, in particular the pronunciation of the many unfamiliar (to me) place names and in the beautifully phrased English of south India. I'll mention only a further third (there are many more) that started out as "only" an audiobook but led to my buying and reading all the author's works: Ragged Company by Richard Wagamese.
Certainly there are the more mindless audiobooks suitable for commuting in traffic, or doing housework or cooking, murder mysteries, detective stories, anything that grabs your attention and has a fast-moving plot (some character development is always nice, but tends to come only from series with a continuing main character); they've all saved me at times from the pain of commercial radio and boredom, but I don't think I'd spend my rare and precious "sofa time" reading such novels.
Love that idea: audiobook as translation, or adaptation. It’s an important distinction that doesn’t make that form lesser than the original text!
I’m an avid reader & have been my entire life, ever since I was able to read. I prefer reading physical books, mainly because when I try listening to audiobooks my mind wanders & I have to rewind so much that it’s not enjoyable. At least with a physical book, rereading pages is easier, in my opinion. Plus, I love the smell & feel of physical books.
My daughter’s male friend asked me one morning recently, why I kept sniffing the book & my 48 yr old daughter replied for me, “Because it smells so good!” He admitted that he didn’t realize that books had a scent.
My youngest son, though, loves audiobooks. He’s had severe ADHD all his life & says that it’s much easier for him to concentrate on audiobooks than reading physical books. He’s always telling me about the narrators for books that we’ve both enjoyed. Sometimes I’m envious (who WOULDN’T enjoy hearing Bill Paxton read!), especially because he can listen to hours of books without too much rewinding. My own ADHD (yes, he inherited it from me) has me rereading entire chapters if I’m the least bit distracted or my brain is preoccupied.
I’m sure that the format of enjoying books is equally rewarding to both audio & physical readers. It’s all about what helps each individual enjoy the beauty of the written word, whether it’s read or heard.
with this definition, a person reading in print is also a translator, just like the audiobook performer; the original only exists in the author’s head. So can one translation lay claim to the original more than another?
I like the Woody Allen joke about the guy who took a speed reading course, and could read Tolstoy's "War and Peace" in thirty minutes. "It's a book about some Russians," he said.
I'm at a later stage of life. I read a book and listen to the audiobook of it at the same time. I take in the printed word, and hear those words as they are read to me. In this way, I retain the information better, and I benefit from both hearing the story, and reading it, as I've done since I began to read and hear stories told to me. Both formats are valuable, but putting both together gives me more pleasure than doing each alone.
possibly the best audiobook I have listened to is The Line of Beauty by alan hollinghurst read by alex jennings but i tried the stranger’s child( read by someone else) and it sounded ridiculous in a way it doesn’t read as on the page and I am always wary of that danger when choosing audiobooks- things that sound v charming and serious on the page translate as ridiculous on an audiobook- had this with the secret history too, it absolutely doesn’t work as an audiobook- and maybe why it wouldn’t potentially translate into film well?
Tbh this makes me wonder what your fiction would be like in audiobook form, because it's interested in disgust and parts of it (I mean this as a compliment) can sometimes feel like a little but of an endurance test to push through. What would it be like to read it in a format where you have no control over pacing and where every passage gets an equal amount of time?
Eleanor, thanks for this piece, it’s the first of yours I have encountered. You’re spot on, for me at least, that the difference between print and audio is how the reader/listener is engaged in time. I, for one, love to be outside of external time. I also like your observations of literary translation as art, the literary translation is a “new”, certainly different artistic creation than the original. I have read One Hundred Years Of Solitude in English (first, 40 years ago), in Spanish (five years later as a Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala), and again in English (this year, prepping for the upcoming series). All three experiences were vastly different. I also simultaneously read Los Detectives Salvajes/The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolaño chapter by chapter, to get my own feeling for the translator’s license. I would wonder if “reading” an audiobook multiple times would result in similar experiences to listening to a favorite musical record? I leave that exercise to someone else. Thanks again!
As a huge re-reader, I love that idea of re-listening!
Should we read books aloud to our children ? Would we benefit from listening to an author reading excerpts of their book? Aren’t these the old school version of audiobooks present from time immemorial? I won’t even get into the fact that for most of history many (most?) literate people experienced much of the world’s greatest literature through readings by authors and professional (or amateur) recitations , not reading the words directly on the page (and this is true for prose texts, not just poetry, plays or oral compositions-turned-text such as the Iliad). I would suggest that it would benefit any discussion of this issue to think about these aspects ?
I do get into this topic a little in the piece (although it definitely deserves a piece of its own). The primary difference, as I say in the essay, is that earlier forms of oral performance involved spontaneity and live audience participation: they weren't just oral renditions of a written work.
What do you mean by “earlier”? For the 8th cent BCE you’re probably correct. Not for much that is more recent than that… oral recitations of written literature is an ancient tradition still extremely common in the west to the early 20th century. For most of history most people experienced literature from other people’s readings of the text. This was especially the case for poetry (also- scripture!).
Oh, I should have been clearer—what I meant was that live performance/reading (of written lit OR of oral lit) differs from a pre-recorded performance!
How so?
Love this. I am an avid learner and read physical books, kindle and listen audiobooks. Reading a book is my favorite and due to my lifestyle and living location I drive and fly as well, hence listening and kindle. I love having the choices and sometimes I read a book after I listen to it if it’s for my learning.
I don't object to them being portrayed as *different* experiences. I *do* object to the many people out there who say (or imply) that listening to audiobooks is somehow an *inferior* experience. That's what the whole "audiobooks don't count" thing means to me.
I enjoy them both, and yes, there are some that don't work for me on audio, either due to the way they're written, complexity, or just dissatisfaction with the narrator, who definitely can make or break one, and some that work better for me than print.
As one who has loved the experience of reading the printed page for over 70 years, but has had to transition to audio books as I age and my eyesight declines, I can attest to the difference in the art forms. I miss the experience of wrestling with a paragraph or rereading a passage that might give me a better understanding of a character. I am, however, thankful that I can continue to enjoy and experience old favorites or new authors. The analogy of being on a moving train is apt and brings the same frustration of wanting to look back at a scene that has receded in the distance. Thank you for a wonderful and clear eyed discussion of an issue that I have often thought about. (Alexa read the article for me.)
After having read Bill Bryson's books, I loved then listening to the audio books. As he presents them, the words he chooses to emphasize and his inflection and pace frequently make me laugh even harder than when I first read them.
I definitely recognize and enjoy the differences.
Audiobooks are perfect for those visually impaired.
A key question for me is ‘can you say you’ve read a book when you’ve only listened to the audio version (as many people do)?’ I don’t think you can - a) because you just haven’t (that’s not what “reading” means) but b) more importantly, you’ve had a quite different experience. Being ‘aboard somebody else’s train’ is quite a good analogy I think. You’re pulled along at someone else’s pace, with limited opportunities to get off. The experience of conventional reading, however, is to me less like being in a spacious room than it’s like being on a long walk through an unfamiliar landscape, which you can take at your own pace, stopping when you like to take in the view, reflect on your progress, check your bearings, et cetera. I find audiobooks, or even books read on the radio, very difficult for this reason, that I will still drift off into my own thoughts, and completely lose track of the story, which has advanced without without me! The physical book is much more forgiving…
Reading is not listening. And listening is not reading.