I want to be clear from the jump that this isn’t a post about how audiobooks are bad or less than regular books. Audiobooks are great! I believe with 100% certainty that audiobooks have led to way more people learning and expanding their minds. Listening to an audiobook, however, is not nearly the same as reading a book. Let me explain.

The first difference between the two is what is involved in decoding the information contained within the medium. When an author encodes information into a book, it is done in a specific way: written words. In order to decode that data, a person has to read it. By using an intermediary to do the reading for you (as is the case with audiobooks) the recipient ends up missing out on some critical information. Instead of directly decoding the text straight from the author, they are actually getting retransmitted data from whoever is narrating the audiobooks. In some ways, this is akin to getting a copy of something as opposed to the original.

One of the critical aspects of understanding art is how a specific person decodes the information contained within the work of art. It’s the difference between someone describing to you what the Sistine Chapel looks like as opposed to standing in its midst. Our personal experiences and perspectives impact so much of that interaction. A Catholic would have a totally different feeling than a devout Muslim. Or maybe they would be very close to the same. But differences exist. Yes, at the end of the auditory description you will have attained some idea of what it looks like. But art is something that is better enjoyed directly. By using an intermediary, you are being given someone else’s impression of what is going on.

Audiobooks are reliant upon narrators. They bring their own biases and perspectives into everything they read. Some are really great at it and weave interesting and exciting yarns. Others, not so much. But in any case, someone else is deciding for you what words to emphasize and what pace the story should progress at. If you were the one reading, you’d be able to dictate that.

When I am writing something, especially when it comes to fiction or poetry, I am always thinking about how the words literally look on the page. A paragraph break here or there can drastically alter the pacing and suspense in a story. It's actually something we’re trained in. Pointed dialogue can be impacted by spacing and appearance as well. There is so much information encoded in the actual, physical text of a book that leaving it out will undeniably alter the work of art. Consider the first page of this poem by e.e. cummings, “seven poems”:

How would that even work as an audiobook? Of course, I have chosen an extreme example to make my point. I realize not everything written relies upon the physical placement of the letters. But I do hope my point has been made.

There is also a difference in the actual activity itself when comparing audiobooks to reading books. Listening to something is a passive activity, meaning the information comes to you without effort. Reading requires you to be actively engaged in what you are doing. You have to focus on what is in front of your eyes in order to decode the text. Think of it like this. Imagine you’re reading a book and listening to music in your headphones. While you read, you can tell what song is playing and who the artist is without ever having to break concentration from the book. However, if you focus only on what music is playing, you will never receive the information from the book. It is something you have to seek out with intent.

Another thing lost in the translation from text to audiobook is your own active imagination. Though it is not entirely gone, there is a difference between reading a description and hearing one. In one case, the information is being handed to you and you must process it as quickly as the narration goes. When reading, you can take your own pace and re-read sections as necessary. Obviously, you can rewind an audiobook but that’s a bit more of an involved and cumbersome process when compared to simply moving your eyes up and down. That isn’t to say people don’t concentrate on audiobooks or focus on them. I’m sure they do. But there is a difference between the two.

One of the biggest differences between audiobooks and their written counterparts is that many audiobooks are abridged, meaning you aren’t actually getting the entire story. This has changed in recent years. In the past, the audio was confined by the limitations of the cassette tape or CD they were imprinted on. With streaming and digital storage, audiobooks can be almost any length. That doesn’t mean every book is completely translated though. There are still plenty of abridged books out there. Also, audiobooks cannot contain drawings, pictures, or anything else that’s a visual helper to the narrative.

Audiobooks have a number of advantages over traditional books. That they are passive means you can listen to one while driving to work or cross country. You can ride public transit and “read” without having to devote your attention away from the space you’re occupying. Obviously, they also help blind and other vision-impaired people experience literature if they don’t know braille.

Some authors have even begun to embrace everything that audiobooks can offer their readers, er, listeners. By adding sound effects, music, and using different voice actors, an audiobook can turn the written word into something more akin to a radio play. Theatre of the mind, as it were. There are some really cool ones out there.

For publishers and content providers, being able to track not just what audiobook streams are popular but also how far listeners get into the books and how often they engage with them can be useful. This can later help publishers decide what books to publish and what kind of books should be written and translated into audiobooks. I cringe at the thought of using such cold marketing standards to make editorial decisions but it’s not like that isn’t happening now. Publishers will always want to make money (duh) and so will authors. Having a better idea of what is popular can be helpful in that.

One exception to all of this might be non-fiction books. An audiobook that’s non-fiction is almost closer to being a news report or a podcast. With non-fiction, it is often a lot more important to take in information than it is to “experience” it. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of very engaging and well-written non-fiction books. There are. But I do think something “factual” lends itself to being translated into audio than fiction.

Again, none of this is to say that audiobooks are lesser than regular books or that people who listen to audiobooks are doing something bad or wrong. But if you listen to an audiobook, don’t say you’ve read it. You haven’t. You listened to it. That would be the same as if I said I was at a baseball game when I watched it at home on TV. Did I see all the plays and know the final score? Yep. But it’s a totally different thing to experience it. It’s the same with books.

If you want to make the argument that there is very little difference between the two, that’s fine. You might say “well, I got the same information out of it — the hero died, the city was saved, the boys fell in love, etc. — as everyone else” then you can. But consider this. Movies don’t necessarily need to have color in them. Or audio tracks. Why not watch a movie in black and white, on silent, and read the captions? You’re getting all the same information, right? See, it’s a different animal. Not better or worse, just different. And that’s OK!

Maybe this is all a little too pedantic. I accept that. But as a writer, these things matter to me. It matters that someone invests time in reading my words. It matters that someone would appreciate and experience my art in the way I intend them to. A lot of times with audiobooks the author has no say. The one place we have control is on the written page. That’s our domain, our canvas, our sandbox of creativity.

Meet us there.

Audiobooks Aren't Books