Are audiobooks or ebooks “reading?” Are they really “books?”
What does it mean to read a book?
This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. It used to be, you sat down with a book and you read it, one page after another. Now you can experience a book through your earbuds while walking in the woods or sitting on a bus, on look at it on a tablet while sitting on an airplane or rocking in a hammock. Are those “reading” experiences?
I have an emotional reaction to this question. I certainly want to believe that if you listen to the audiobook that it took me 14 hours to narrate, you’re having an experience that’s just as valid as the person next to you that went to the local indie bookstore, bought the book, took it home, curled up in their reading nook, and read it page after page.
Conversely, I somehow know that watching a Harry Potter movie is not the same as reading the Harry Potter book.
I read Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup — or more precisely, I listened to it — and was amazed not only at the shocking way that the startup Theranos was run, but at the incredible reporting and storytelling of author John Carreyrou. The words and the way there were assembled was amazing. The Hulu miniseries “The Dropout” was based on the same facts. But watching the miniseries is not the same experience as reading the book.
What happens when you read
In her amazing book Proust and the Squid, Maryann Wolf explains what happens when a person reads. The most interesting insight from that book is that there is no “reading center” in the brain. In retrospect, this makes sense, because writing is only about 5400 years old. That is too short a time for evolution to make changes in how the brain works. Instead, when we read, a collection of different centers are at work. One recognizes letter shapes; another connects those shapes with sounds, another connects the sounds to meaning, and yet another combines those meanings into ideas that make sense. Reading feels automatic, but it’s actually quite complex. (As Wolf explains, in dyslexic individuals, some of those brain regions don’t function the same way as they do in people who are fluid readers, and as a result, they must draft other brain centers to do the work — which is why dyslexic people not only read more slowly, but often have a very different way of understanding ideas from others.)
With this in mind, I can translate some of my intuitions about reading into a more concrete theory. What makes reading unique is some combination of the following:
- It’s made up of words and sentences strung together into stories. (Here, I interpret the word “stories” broadly, as it can includes a series of connected ideas, not just a traditional narrative.)
- Those words and sentences combine in the mind’s ear to tell the story in a linear fashion.
- Those stories create ideas in the mind’s eye that stimulate the brain.
- The reader has the opportunity to consume the content, varying the pace and stopping and starting at will.
The “mind’s ear” concept seems crucial. Unless it’s happening in the mind’s ear and being translated into images in the brain, it’s not reading. (I’d be really interested in how this might be different in people who were deaf since birth — what is their “mind’s ear”?)
Dramatic audiovisual presentations are different. Videogames are different. You can read a book with pictures, provided it also has text; I’m not sure you can “read” a book consisting only of pictures.
If you accept my definition, audiobooks and ebooks certainly qualify as reading.
What makes something a book?
My friend and reader Paul S. sent me an interesting multi-century dialogue about which books are really books.
(1380)
“Non-parchment-paged books are real books.”(1450)
Printing-pressed books aren’t real books.
“That’s what they said about non-parchment books.”
“This time is different.”(1935) “Paperback books aren’t real books.”
“That’s what they said about non-parchment and printing-pressed books.”
“This time is different.”(1950)
“Photo-typeset books aren’t real books.”
“That’s what they said about non-parchment books, printing-pressed books, and photo-typeset books.”
“This time is different.”(1965)
“Books on tape aren’t real books.”
“That’s what they said about non-parchment and printing-pressed books.”
“This time is different.”(1997)
“Self-published hardback books aren’t real books.”
“That’s what they said about non-parchment books, printing-pressed books, photo-typeset books, and books on tape.”
“This time is different.”(2000)
“Ebooks aren’t real books.”
“That’s what they said about non-parchment books, printing-pressed books, photo-typeset books, and self-published hardbacks.”
“This time is different.”
Is the existence of a publisher what makes something a “real” book? Not any more. We have bestselling books that are self-published or published by hybrid publishers — they’re just as “real” as books that say HarperCollins or Random House on the spine.
For something to be a book, you need to be able to acquire it as as discrete piece of content. And somehow, in my mind, its worth as a book is related to its influence. A book that no one reads isn’t a book. A book that a million people read in the form of an audiobook is definitely a book. And a book that one person reads, but it changes the life of that person, is also a book.
I’m unsatisfied with this ill-formed definition — it’s like Potter Stewart’s definition of “pornography”: “I know it when I see it.”
And yet, I know that crafting a block of content into a book — no matter how it is consumed — is a craft worth working on. Authoring a book is more than writing. Reading a book is somehow more than reading an article or a social media post. Books are blocks of content that, when consumed in the mind’s ear, have the potential to move the reader.
Imagine spending my life on something I can’t define. And yet, that is what I want more than anything else to do.
I still enjoy reading a book page by page. I also enjoy listening to audiobooks on road trips. My Kindle is on my nightstand and I read almost every night that way because I don’t need the light on and just his the power button and put it down when I’m sleepy. They’re all books to me.
E-books are clearly as much books as paper versions. I’d call both books. I love audiobooks, at least when the narrator is good. However, I think a main difference is that audiobooks go at the narrator’s pace, whereas you can pause to reflect or back up to check something in a book. I could do that in an audiobook, but I’m less likely to do it. Also, the audiobook is in the narrator’s voice. I think a virtue of books is that the reader has the ability to personify the voices in their own way. That makes the experience different and unique for each reader. That said, I’ve loved a few audiobooks because I thought the narrator interpreted the text better than I would have done.
Movie versions of books are at best comparable to abridged books or audiobooks. They’re different from the original book. If movie versions of books are books, then so are movies that were never books. This doesn’t especially bother me. I’m glad that movies and books both exist because I like stories. But if those stories are books, then maybe we should also add stories that are only told verbally. Indeed some famous books started as stories passed on from generation to generation. And I think I recall that some books were recited orally and thus preserved when it became dangerous for people to possess the written version. (For example, Jewish prayer books during the Spanish Inquisition.)
If we think of movies, audiobooks, and books, the level of specificity decreases as we move from left to right. In a movie the scenes/scenery and the person (dialectic, mannerisms, look, etc.) are fixed by the actors and director and staff. In audiobooks, the dialectic, the voice, is fixed by the folks voicing the characters. In books (without pictures), only the words (describing the scenes, the plot, the characters, and the written record of conversations) are set. Imagination increases as specificity decreases.
There are exceptions and items that fit in between the three categories, but the theme is there. And of course for movies, at least, and translations of books, there are opportunities where the fixed items can be reset, rather drastically.
I was just reading Dylan’s latest audiobook (excellent) and he brought up the infamous first line of one of my favorite books L’Étranger “Aujourd’hui, maman est morte” and how it has been translated into English. I highly recommend both books (I plan to read the Dylan book and do not remember seeing the 1967 movie, made after Camus died).
Excellent points.
I remember reading John Grisham’s The Firm and the whole time thinking it was the perfect movie script, if one had 400 hours of time. The internet says it takes folks about 9 hours to read the 432 pages. I have heard a page of script is about a minute of final film.
Thought-provoking topic, Josh. If you haven’t yet listened to this replay of a Seth Godin Akimbo podcast about the evolution of books throughout history, you’ll enjoy it: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/distribution-and-cultural-destiny-e/id1345042626?i=1000603254607
I’m an avid reader, and an avid listener. I sometimes listen to informational audiobooks and watch informational YouTube videos at 2X. I stop/pause/review when I want to take notes on something. I read several newspapers, magazines and a lot of short-form news and commentary online. As I get older, I’m less drawn to reading books or newspapers/magazines on the printed page. (Also, after moving a couple of times, I’m less drawn to having books on a bookshelf.) I listen to a lot of news/science podcasts.
I adore fiction in audiobook form. I may speed it to 1.25X depending on the narrator, but never faster. I think my mind needs time to paint the scenes and feel the emotions. I love listening to a story read by someone who has an Irish or British accent (I listened to the entire Harry Potter series years ago with all the characters skillfully expressed by one narrator Jim Drake — phenomenal.) I like to do crafts while listening — not something you can do with a printed book.
I think books, and movies based on books, are two separate things. A book gets you into the protagonist’s head and thoughts in a way that is rare in movies. I always prefer reading the book first, so I’m not stuck with the casting director’s choices.
Having worked with people who are blind who use screen-reading computer software, many learn to understand speech at speeds that are unintelligible to the untrained ear. That said, they have to plow through a lot of information that has nothing to do with the content.
Have you ever tried reading something using the Spritz App? It’s a useful way to train yourself to read faster, and can be helpful for people with dyslexia. It’s now been made into a Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/readfast-powered-by-sprit/blbpafkooanpdcdcndkcckblghjddpke
Finally, a few years ago, I came across an ebook format that was going to change the way we read (can’t remember the title, but it was about history – 50 or 100 years – by Time Magazine, I believe.) Each page included text and photos, link to audio/video of people/events in the text, as well as photos of original letters and documents. Having lived through some of it, I was impressed by how immersive it was, and I hoped it would become the norm, at least for teaching history in school. It was a way to add more context.
Interesting topic, Josh. I sometimes listen to informational audiobooks and YouTube videos at 2X. I stop/pause/review when I want to take notes on something. I also read a lot of short-form news and commentary, but as I get older, I’m less drawn to books on the printed page. (Also, after moving a couple of times, I’m less drawn to having books on a bookshelf.)
Fiction, however, I adore in audiobook form. I may speed it to 1.25 depending on the narrator. I love listening to a story read with an accent, especially Irish or British. I like to do crafts while listening.
If you haven’t heard the replay of the Seth Godin Akimbo podcast about book distribution and cultural destiny, you’ll enjoy it.
I think books and movies based on books are two separate things. A book gets you into the protagonist’s head and thoughts in a way that is rare in movies. I always prefer reading the book first, so I’m not stuck with the casting director’s choices.
Having worked with people who are blind who use screen-reading computer software, many learn to understand speech at speeds that are unintelligible to the untrained ear. That said, they have to plow through a lot of information that has nothing to do with the content.
Have you ever tried reading something using the Spritz App? Useful way to train yourself to read faster, and can be helpful for people with dyslexia. It’s now been made into a Chrome extension called ReadFast.
Finally, a few years ago, I came across an ebook format that was going to change the way we read (can’t remember the title, but it was about history – 50 or 100 years – by Time Magazine, I believe.) Each page included text and photos, link to audio/video of people/events in the text, as well as photos of original letters and documents. Having lived through some of it, I was impressed by how immersive it was, and I hoped it would become the norm, at least for teaching history in school. It was a way to add more context.
I’ve tried to listen to recorded books when I’m driving on a lengthy trip, which seems to be the most convenient time for such a thing, One of the major problems I notice that with highway and mental distractions, I’m consistently forced to rewind some distance back and give a second listen. Should I want to compare something the author said in Chapter 3 to what was mentioned in Chapter 1, it’s near impossible to do so. I’ve got to keep my eyes on the road. For me audio books lend themselves best to multi-tasking and in that form, they’re a disaster. If I’m going to sit without distractions and listen to a book, give me the real thing.
I am curious as to why this discussion matters. Are we looking for the narrowest definition of the word “book” or the word “reading”? My mother was a voracious reader of print books until macular degeneration robbed her of her ability to see. However, she would often discuss with me the “books” she was “reading” by listening to them on tape. Across time, people have put their thoughts and ideas into a format that can be shared with others. The fact that the format changes pretty much tells me that the definitions of those two words should be broad and versatile. The point is sharing the ideas, the story. The format is merely the vehicle. Maybe I don’t appreciate the nuance of this conversation (which would be somewhat ironic since I’m a librarian by profession).
Donna,
Josh agrees with you. He has articulated an expansive definition to rebut a friend of mine who insists that only hardcopy books are books.