Counts listening to audio books as reading

[Monday question] Is reading a book or listening to a book the same thing?

When I started blogging about a year ago, the Monday question helped me a lot to develop a routine for me. She taught me to write the first shorter articles and with her always new questions about reading or other areas of the book gave me a lot of ideas, which I could deal with on my blog. At some point I had so many ideas for articles and books that I wanted to present that the Monday question became too much for me and I had no more energy for it for a long time. Now my blog has moved, after three months of internship I am lacking a lot of routine because posts came more irregularly, and somewhere I am just not sure which direction my blog will develop in the next few weeks. It seems like a sign to me that the Monday question is now from Book eater to the blog Louder and quieter moved and there have been new questions since last week. Because the Monday question has already given me a lot of suggestions, both through my own thoughts and through the exchange and input with the other participants.

The question this week is:


Do you equate listening to audiobooks with ’classic’ reading? Or are both fundamentally different for you?

A super exciting question that recently even led to a small dispute on Twitter! But more on that later. Basically, the answer depends a little on what the question is aimed at. I really enjoy reading books. I hear audiobooks less often, especially when I'm traveling by train or need my hands for other purposes. However, I can only listen to certain audio books really well, otherwise my concentration will wander. Then I have great difficulties understanding, because parts of the plot are missing or I cannot imagine things because the narrator is simply further with his fantasy than I am.

In rare cases I hear an audio book that I have already read as a book before. That's when I notice the difference the most, because you read a book at your own pace. With a speaker you are very dependent on the voice. So does that mean audiobooks are worse? A few days ago the discussion about books and audiobooks flared up on Twitter because someone had claimed that you would hear audiobooks and not read them (she meant it on a very semantic level, i.e. from the point of view of the meaning of the words hearing vs. reading) . This led to the reading that audio books are not literature and are more or less the worse form. This was violently contradicted immediately. In essence, the discussion quickly revolved around whether one might not still “know” the story after having only heard the audio book. And of course that's absolutely true! History is known well enough to get an impression of it. Even if many audio books are shortened (due to their length). The discussion leader, however, aimed at the fact that one had to concentrate less for audio books, forgot to read and in general the consequences were very bad. I would vehemently disagree with that. Of course, the form of concentration in the audio book is completely different. But I doubt that you will listen to an audio book on the side when you are actually doing something completely different. I have to concentrate directly on the action, often jumping back because something was distracting me and I missed a few sentences. And I don't think that's because of a lack of concentration on my part. The best place to listen to audio books is in an absolutely quiet, distraction-free environment. I ask myself whether just listening to concentration trains concentration more than reading a book (sometimes I can give my friend an absent answer without interrupting the sentence).

By the way, Antonia von Lauter and Leiser related the question primarily to the preference for the speaker's voice. There are also interesting considerations there!


how do you see it? Do you listen to audio books and if so, only certain or all of them?

Does book or audio book make a difference for you?

From Jennifer6 comments