I need a ruling on this

[nocera]

I'm not going to hate on somebody choosing to listen to a book over reading it. I get it. Sometimes I prefer listening to a book over reading it. World War Z, by the way, GREAT audio book. I am, however, going to hate on somebody for bragging about how many books they've either read of listened to. Nobody gives a ****.

[robbiestoupe]

Audiobooks are pretty neat in their own way. I listen on my way to work, and yes, get distracted from time to time and miss small chunks of the story. But I also tend to have a more vivid imagination of what I'm listening to. When I listen to long book series (GoT, Expanse series) I'll get deja vu when riding on the same road and not listening to the book. I remember exactly what was going on when I passed the same point on the trip.

[LITT]

ITT - people who read books getting upset for people being more efficient at reading books

[nocera]

I spent two years in grad school reading between two to four novels a week. I got pretty damn efficient at it. It was not enjoyable at all.

[MWB]

ITT - people who read books getting upset for people being more efficient at reading books

Yeah, the more I think about this, the more I'm on this side. The purpose of a book is to communicate something to another person, whether it's information or entertainment or something else. If the person is engaged in the process (and certainly the two methods will have varying levels of engagement), whether it's read or listened to, the overall effect is the same: information is transferred. I guess the one caveat to that is that in something like a text book, your level of understanding will go up if you annotate the book. Although you could take notes if you listened to the same text.

[robbiestoupe]

There was a good point made that a book that is meant to be educational, inspiring, profound - those books should not be consumed via audiobook. I've tried, and I spent way too much time hitting the rewind button that I may as well have been texting and driving. Not good.

[dodint]

ITT - people who read books getting upset for people being more efficient at reading books

Yeah, the more I think about this, the more I'm on this side. The purpose of a book is to communicate something to another person, whether it's information or entertainment or something else. If the person is engaged in the process (and certainly the two methods will have varying levels of engagement), whether it's read or listened to, the overall effect is the same: information is transferred. I guess the one caveat to that is that in something like a text book, your level of understanding will go up if you annotate the book. Although you could take notes if you listened to the same text.

Like watching a movie on a phone screen while riding on the bus vs. watching it in IMAX. It's the same information, right?

[shafnutz05]

I really wish I could get into more audio books more, but nothing replaces the feel of a book in my hand.

[count2infinity]

Btw. I know I said I’m not bragging about listening to 100 audio books… I’m also not bragging if I read 100 regular books. Anyone that does just needs to take a seat.

The thing I hate with educational philosophy (in general) is they assume everyone absorbs information the same way and that there’s value in one type of learning over another. Do what’s best for you.

[MWB]

ITT - people who read books getting upset for people being more efficient at reading books

Yeah, the more I think about this, the more I'm on this side. The purpose of a book is to communicate something to another person, whether it's information or entertainment or something else. If the person is engaged in the process (and certainly the two methods will have varying levels of engagement), whether it's read or listened to, the overall effect is the same: information is transferred. I guess the one caveat to that is that in something like a text book, your level of understanding will go up if you annotate the book. Although you could take notes if you listened to the same text.

Like watching a movie on a phone screen while riding on the bus vs. watching it in IMAX. It's the same information, right?

Poor analogy, IMO. IMAX is meant to amplify the visual experience. It is completely pointless to have some types of movies on imax. How do you amplify the reading experience?

I like biographies. I read, more than listen to them, but have done both. I’m getting the same information from both versions.

[Troy Loney]

The output is the basically the same, but the action is different.

[nocera]

I think audio books and books books are entirely separate things, for the most part. An audio book, especially a good audio book, entirely changes the way you experience the story. Listening to Harry Potter is completely different than reading it. I've already mentioned this, but World War Z is really the ultimate way to experience that book. It's a much more fleshed out world, the author was intimately involved in the production, and actually recommends it over simply reading the book. So no, I don't see the phone screen vs IMAX analogy since in the end, the medium is exactly the same, just the screen size/audio is different. The medium of audio books is entirely separate from the medium of paperback.

[dodint]

ITT - people who read books getting upset for people being more efficient at reading books

Yeah, the more I think about this, the more I'm on this side. The purpose of a book is to communicate something to another person, whether it's information or entertainment or something else. If the person is engaged in the process (and certainly the two methods will have varying levels of engagement), whether it's read or listened to, the overall effect is the same: information is transferred. I guess the one caveat to that is that in something like a text book, your level of understanding will go up if you annotate the book. Although you could take notes if you listened to the same text.

Like watching a movie on a phone screen while riding on the bus vs. watching it in IMAX. It's the same information, right?

Poor analogy, IMO.

This is where we go separate ways. Have a good weekend.

[MWB]

Lol

[dodint]

Not because of anything you said. I just think we've gone beyond the original dispute to an area of pointlessness. I think we both enjoy reading, and listening, and are happy for anyone that does either. All that's left if trying to pinpoint the exact merits of each and I'm just not interested.

[MWB]

I’m just going to chalk it up as a win for me.

[willeyeam]

I have this as 10-9 MWB

[dodint]

You're always a winner in my book.

[faftorial]

Didn't the original post have to do with someone saying "they read" a bunch of books but when more was said they admitted they hadn't actually read them but listened instead? If you didn't read them then don't say that you did.

[count2infinity]

Didn't the original post have to do with someone saying "they read" a bunch of books but when more was said they admitted they hadn't actually read them but listened instead? If you didn't read them then don't say that you did.

I think it depends on the discussion... someone is talking about a book and asks you if you read it, then yeah. Go for it, "oh yeah... that's a great book." From what I understand someone was bragging about "reading" 100 books. Let me just stop them there. Doesn't matter if you read them or listened... stfu.

[tifosi77]

I think audio books and books books are entirely separate things, for the most part. An audio book, especially a good audio book, entirely changes the way you experience the story. Listening to Harry Potter is completely different than reading it. I've already mentioned this, but World War Z is really the ultimate way to experience that book. It's a much more fleshed out world, the author was intimately involved in the production, and actually recommends it over simply reading the book. So no, I don't see the phone screen vs IMAX analogy since in the end, the medium is exactly the same, just the screen size/audio is different. The medium of audio books is entirely separate from the medium of paperback.

Jim Dale is amazing with the HP books.

I've listened to the audiobook of The Silmarilion once every 18 months or so for like 20 years. I couldn't finish the book book once. I have it, and occasionally refer to it or read short passages. But the material is just sooooo dense. LOTR is similar; I have actually read that whole book a few times, but I much prefer the Rob Inglis-narrated audiobook, and that's the one I go back to every year.

[PFiDC]

John Slattery's reading of Duma Key made it one of the most enjoyable book experiences of my life.

[Shyster]

The concept of an audio book just doesn't appeal to me. I'm fortunate to be a very fast reader, and I can read a book much more quickly than I can have it read to me. That especially goes if it's not all that important of a book. I'm going to disagree that all books are intended to be educational and inspiring. I will admit that I use my Kindle Unlimited subscription to read quite a few "gamelit" fantasy or scrifi novels that usually have the hero accumulating a harem of women and boinking all of them while, say, fighting dragons, taming dinosaurs, or saving the Earth from an alien invasion. Those books are not profound. They're basically the male equivalent of romance novels. I can breeze through one in a couple of hours.

[shmenguin]

The discussion of “are audiobooks ok” might need 1 or 2 qualifiers.

Obviously information intake can be identical. And obviously the experience is different. I’m not sure where else to go.

[willeyeam]

Sometimes you just don't have to go anywhere actually