Reading vs Listening

[Audrey]

I'm so happy to see American Library in Paris members joining the challenge. I had a conversation with a reader today about whether or not audiobooks "count" in such a challenge. I say they do. Personally I love the complementarity of listening and reading: recently, I read Greenblatt's Tyrant alongside the audio of Robert Caro's The Power Broker, which are two studies of perversions of power. I highly recommend both.

[Kirsty]

I agree! Audiobooks count as a book and towards the challenge! I just signed up for Audible and looking forward to listening on busy commutes when holding a book is impossible!

[Earp_wyatt]

Reading v. Listening is a great topic for any & all kind of literate subjects. But I think we have to be very careful about smudging Reading & Listening together.

Thus two points, if I may please.

Cultural History shows that early reading was mainly aural, listening; otherwise silent -- and of a different, deeper quality.

The immensely literate St. Augustine in his Confessions notes about a colleague that he read to himself -- rather than listened or read out loud -- because he was thus "free from the din of others' business". He could better concentrate his own understanding -- specially on matters obscure or perplexing.
When he read out loud of listened, people interrupted, broke the chain of deeper comprehension.

Second, there is undoubtedly a great pleasure to listening to a story. But isn't the sensation more like movies? Or one that's immensely more social? Because it takes at least two to tango (even while listening to a recording).

This doesn't mean it's wrong, stupid, or less. But does suggest, like a movie, that listening to a story is a much more passive and social experience.

Thank you.

[Earp_wyatt]

Reading v. Listening is a great topic for any & all kinds of literate subjects. But I think we have to be very careful about smudging Reading & Listening together.

Thus two points, if I may please.

Cultural History shows that early reading was mainly aural, listening; yet gradually became silent, to one's self -- and accordingly of a different, deeper quality.

The immensely literate St. Augustine in his "Confessions" notes about a colleague that he read to himself -- rather than listened or read out loud -- because he was thus "free from the din of others' business". He could better concentrate his own understanding -- specially on matters obscure or perplexing.

When he read out loud of listened, people interrupted, broke the chain of deeper comprehension.

Second, there is undoubtedly a great pleasure to listening to a story. But isn't the sensation more like movies? Or one that's immensely more public? Because it takes at least two to tango (even while listening to a recording).

This doesn't mean it's wrong, stupid, or less. But it does suggest, like a movie, that listening to a story is a much more passive, social experience.

Thank you. -- John