Audiobooks are a complement, not the main thing
I’m a heavy Spotify user and I read a lot (well, more than the average person).
So I was intrigued when Spotify introduced their audiobooks feature.
And I’ve used it.
But mostly, I’ve used it for non-fiction and “off-brand” books, i.e. not literature or fiction.
The one area I’ve found I will use it with fiction is after I’m already deep into a novel and then I’m walking and want to continue it.
Otherwise, most novels start off too slow for my transactional, Google Map-distracted mind, trying to traverse Manhattan and points beyond. I can follow the bits of information, not the nuances of the story and the prose I generally appreciate from literary-minded stylists.
Non-fiction works a lot better for that travel.
I recently read/listened to a book about the New York Knicks that way, a book about cryptocurrency, part of an emo oral history, and a book about crime in southern fraternities.
I would say all of these books were for “fun” though I mostly read for fun. In other words these books were truly a distraction — if I missed something or a key point it didn’t matter as much.
In that case, audiobooks are better as a complement or a supplement to my real reading.
I would much rather have a hard copy or the Kindle version, because I can read faster. I can also underline or highlight or write something down, much easier than I can with an audiobook.
But my audio-walking-mind has been trained mostly on information not stories—because I’m a heavy podcast listener of analysis and interviews. And when I say analysis, I primarily mean basketball analysis and talk.
In fact, I don’t like listening to podcasts related to my day job, because it feels too much like work. My brain isn’t in work mode.
Y/N on audiobooks?
Keep going-
Josh Spilker
Ann Banfield wrote a literary / linguistics essay in the 80s called, "Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction."
She studied works of fiction that use free indirect speech narration and stream of consciousness narration.
Woolf, Joyce, Faulkner, Dos Passos, etc.
Among other things, she concluded that the linguistic impact (their greatness) of many writers from the Modern cannon was the result of their use of free indirect speech as text... not as speech itself.
Just as closet dramas are not meant to be staged but read, I think some texts should only be read as text. (The science of reading btw involves lots of fine motor movements in the eyes. Reading on the page uses a different area of the brain for comprehension than does listening and auditory experiences)
And some texts are just fine when read aloud like a radio play. But some arent. Some books are ergodic. They require active participation with the page and text. Can you imagine House of Leaves on audiobook? Yeah, sounds terrible.
Spicy take. I’m exclusively an audiobook listener, only picking up a hard copy when there’s enough of the book I “bookmarked” in audio that I want to go back and underline/note on an actual page. BUT I rarely return to those underlines/notes.
Interestingly to your point, I also listen to ZERO fiction. I try. I have tried. I keep trying. I never make it through. Maybe the hard copy would be my friend. I see your point about my listening being conditioned for non-fiction/info.
For me, I also listen anywhere from 1.25-1.5x speed so it’s faster than my own reading. 🤷🏻♀️
I’ll let you know if I ever succeed with fiction!