An English Professor Explains What Reading Is (Audiobooks are reading)

[Anonymous]

So not thinking audiobooks is the same as text reading is upholding the patriarchy? Please.

[Anonymous]

In another video, this woman says that telling people they read too fast is "rooted in white patriarchy." Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So not thinking audiobooks is the same as text reading is upholding the patriarchy? Please.

I can guess why. The people who don't have the time to sit down at the end of the day and read because they are tending to the home and children are women.

[Anonymous]

Is there any evidence that women are more drawn to audiobooks than men? Seems to be the opposite.

https://www.sciencenorway.no/books-gender-literature/men-read-as-much-as-women-at-least-when-it-comes-to-audiobooks/1671533

[Anonymous]

I am a literature professor. And not on social media enough to realize that people DON'T consider audiobooks reading. What??? I had no idea this was a thing. Both counting books and debating what counts are new topics to me.

Just throwing in my question: why on earth does anyone find listening inferior?!

As an academic, I find listening to be as much of a lost (or disappearing) skill as reading! One that needs to be actively worked on and nourished.

I listen to a lot of audiobooks on walks and long drives, but if I am tasked with something dense or challenging, I always pick up a paper copy. It is much easier for me to focus on something complex in print. Am I the only one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a literature professor. And not on social media enough to realize that people DON'T consider audiobooks reading. What??? I had no idea this was a thing. Both counting books and debating what counts are new topics to me.

Just throwing in my question: why on earth does anyone find listening inferior?!

As an academic, I find listening to be as much of a lost (or disappearing) skill as reading! One that needs to be actively worked on and nourished.

I listen to a lot of audiobooks on walks and long drives, but if I am tasked with something dense or challenging, I always pick up a paper copy. It is much easier for me to focus on something complex in print. Am I the only one?

I'm with you and especially with bolded. It's easier to go back a couple of pages and reread to confirm something, checking exact wording etc. rather than rewinding the audio version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a literature professor. And not on social media enough to realize that people DON'T consider audiobooks reading. What??? I had no idea this was a thing. Both counting books and debating what counts are new topics to me.

Just throwing in my question: why on earth does anyone find listening inferior?!

As an academic, I find listening to be as much of a lost (or disappearing) skill as reading! One that needs to be actively worked on and nourished.

I listen to a lot of audiobooks on walks and long drives, but if I am tasked with something dense or challenging, I always pick up a paper copy. It is much easier for me to focus on something complex in print. Am I the only one?

You're not wrong at all, but some refuse to admit that comprehension is less when you multitask. Dunning-Kruger effect?

Not all "reading" is the same. If you're listening to genre fiction for entertainment while cleaning or driving, sure. But if you're reading The Nicomachean Ethics or The Critique of Pure Reason, you can't truly understand just by having it on in the background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I listen to audiobooks, but I don’t consider it the same as reading. To me, reading, is using my eyes and decoding the words.
I don’t think listening to audiobooks is bad. I love it!

If listening to audiobooks is reading, then my infants know how to read! They listen to me read to them, but they are not reading. I love reading to them, and there is incredible value in that. But, IMO, listening is not the same as reading. But there is no shame in listening to books.

Then you think blind people don't read because their eyes don't decode words?

Of course they read. But, to my point, it's a different skill than reading print or listening to an audiobook. They are all valid ways of reading a book, but they require different training and a different skill set. My point was, let's not lose, as a society, the ability to read in long form.

Reading on a device is different from reading a hard copy document. Reading from a scroll is different from reading from a document in codex form.

What, exactly, are you afraid we as a society will lose?

This is a separate discussion from the "audiobook worth" discussion, but there have been several studies about about how the rise of social media, chat room boards, video reporting, etc. have affected the ability of adults (I assume the studies were done on English speakers/readers) to read and comprehend long form writing, like detailed news articles, novels, etc. It's a skill that you lose without practice. Does it matter? That's a different discussion.

Imagine if those arguing about listening to audio books knew that 100 years ago many people couldn’t read. 🤯

The world evolves.

[Anonymous]

lol then using tik tok for a reference. I can't.

[Anonymous]

What I find strange is the claim that audiobooks are better for those with little time. A 20 hour audiobook would take me maybe 7 or 8 hours to read. Yes you can double the speed but listening to that is unbearable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I find strange is the claim that audiobooks are better for those with little time. A 20 hour audiobook would take me maybe 7 or 8 hours to read. Yes you can double the speed but listening to that is unbearable.

Most people don’t listen at 1.0 speed.

I’m a 2.0-2.5 person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find strange is the claim that audiobooks are better for those with little time. A 20 hour audiobook would take me maybe 7 or 8 hours to read. Yes you can double the speed but listening to that is unbearable.

Most people don’t listen at 1.0 speed.

I’m a 2.0-2.5 person.

Maybe I am a slow processor, but why? It is one thing to speed up a product manual or some informational video but with literature, I am not just trying to hear what happens next and get through it. For me, it would take so much away from the pleasure and appreciation of the language.

Re: audiobooks being slower, definitely. But if I am driving I can listen and not read. Overall, I prefer print but don't always have my eyes free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find strange is the claim that audiobooks are better for those with little time. A 20 hour audiobook would take me maybe 7 or 8 hours to read. Yes you can double the speed but listening to that is unbearable.

Most people don’t listen at 1.0 speed.

I’m a 2.0-2.5 person.

Maybe I am a slow processor, but why? It is one thing to speed up a product manual or some informational video but with literature, I am not just trying to hear what happens next and get through it. For me, it would take so much away from the pleasure and appreciation of the language.

Re: audiobooks being slower, definitely. But if I am driving I can listen and not read. Overall, I prefer print but don't always have my eyes free.

1.0 is actually slower than normal speech for most audiobooks. 1.25 or 1.5 gets you to normal speech. It's not like 2.0 is listening to chipmunks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find strange is the claim that audiobooks are better for those with little time. A 20 hour audiobook would take me maybe 7 or 8 hours to read. Yes you can double the speed but listening to that is unbearable.

Most people don’t listen at 1.0 speed.

I’m a 2.0-2.5 person.

Maybe I am a slow processor, but why? It is one thing to speed up a product manual or some informational video but with literature, I am not just trying to hear what happens next and get through it. For me, it would take so much away from the pleasure and appreciation of the language.

Re: audiobooks being slower, definitely. But if I am driving I can listen and not read. Overall, I prefer print but don't always have my eyes free.

1.0 is actually slower than normal speech for most audiobooks. 1.25 or 1.5 gets you to normal speech. It's not like 2.0 is listening to chipmunks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1.0 is actually slower than normal speech for most audiobooks. 1.25 or 1.5 gets you to normal speech. It's not like 2.0 is listening to chipmunks.

Sound like the filling the empty vessel approach to literature. What's the point? Might as well just be reading Sparknotes or Wikipedia.