If find yourself having arguments about reading regarding what does or doesn't "count," you're doing it wrong.
I took my first tentative steps into the world of audio books in 2013. I had recently started a new job, and though large chunks of it involved reading, writing, and interacting with people in some way, I also spent a lot of time doing graphic design, data management and analysis, and assembling and mailing packages--ie, tasks that keep your eyes and hands busy but that don't involve much verbal or auditory processing.
At the time I also had a massive to-read list, precious little time for *actual* reading, and a two-hour commute that was starting to make me twitchy. I'd heard of services like Audible, and the whole concept of audio books seemed like it had been custom-made to fit my lifestyle; after a bit more research into the landscape, I dove in and started tearing through my TBR with glee.
While there are things I like about Audible, I soon discovered there are a ton of other options out there as well; many libraries participate in free services like OverDrive/Libby and Hoopla, and LibriVox, Internet Archive, and Open Culture offer many audio books for free. There are also other paid or subscription services you can use such as Apple Books, Audiobooks.com, and Scribd.
Suddenly I soon went from dreading my two hours a day in the car to looking forward to it; listening to books made the drive go by in no time. I was also training for a marathon at the time and found that I could take advantage of the hours I spent pounding the pavement each week and get through even MORE of my TBR list. (Though if you run with headphones, whether it's to listen to audio books, music, podcasts, or whatever, I highly recommend a set like Trekz or similar that don't actually go inside your ears, so that you're still able to hear for safety reasons.) For the first time in ages, my to-read list was actually getting shorter (or at least staying about the same!) rather than growing exponentially.
And then, not too much later I found myself having a conversation with someone about a book I'd read (well, listened to) recently, and he asked if I'd loan it to him.
"I absolutely would," I replied, "except that I only have it on audio book."
"Audio book?" He raised his eyebrows. "Oh, well, that doesn't count."
Which, honestly, kind of stunned me. "Counted" toward what?
Some informal polling revealed that my friend was hardly alone in his opinion regarding the legitimacy of audio books; a number of friends and casual acquaintances agreed that they too felt that it didn't really "count" if you took in the information using your ears instead of your eyes, that it wasn't "really" reading if you were capable doing something else at the same time (such as running or driving or graphic design), that someone else (i.e. the narrator) was doing all the "work" for you.
"What if we let kids just listen to audio books instead of learning to read?" fretted one person. "What then?"
To which I just rolled my eyes, because we do not just let kids listen to audio books instead of learning to read, and it's really quite a leap from my working-in-academia, three-degrees-having-ass listening to them on my daily commutes and jogs to The Children never learning to read. Relax, my dude.
It took me a while to fully articulate just why this attitude bothered me so much, but after giving it some thought, I'm pretty sure I know.
1) The language processing is virtually the same in both cases. The brain doesn't discriminate between information gained through reading written text and information processed via the auditory system. As cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham puts it, "For most books [including the ones that tend to get turned into audio books], for most purposes [including consuming books for pleasure], listening and reading are more or less the same thing." True, for young readers, there is some sense in which listening is less "work" for the brain than reading, but--as Willingham also points out--only up until about fifth grade.
“For most books, for most purposes, listening and reading are more or less the same thing." -Cognitive Scientist Daniel Willingham
2) It's an ableist attitude. Not all of us are capable of reading with our sense of sight. Some people read with their sense of touch, and we don't look down our noses at them and say they're "not really reading" (or, at least, if you do, you're a dick). What difference does it make which sensory modality the information enters our minds through, as long as we're able to process it well (which, in general, the vast majority of us are)? Audio books play an important role in making literature and other books accessible to those who are not able to read efficiently or at all with their eyes. Surely we wouldn't claim that a blind or severely dyslexic student who listened to an audio book of The Grapes of Wrath hasn't really read it?
3) It puts reading into a category of things we do for work or recognition, rather than for enjoyment. I.e., there is a part of the "audio books don't really count" argument that sounds suspiciously like "you didn't suffer enough." Which....is kind of bizarre? I mean, if you consider reading a book some kind of unpleasant trial you have to endure, then, maybe...stop reading books? Or find better books that don't feel like a chore? If the purpose of reading is pleasure or recreation, or to learn something that can be communicating verbally, you should consume that information in whatever way is easiest and most enjoyable to you, and stop worrying about what does or doesn't "count."
What do you think? Do you listen to audio books? Do you prefer one format on the other? Do you have any weird holdovers about what "counts" from those elementary book clubs where they gave you a gold star every time you finished a book? (I kid, I kid. No but stay tuned for my TED talk re: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for educational purposes.)
Comments