3 ms·

So many (snooty) people treat audiobooks like a cheap substitute for reading, when in reality, reading is the cheap substitute for oral storytelling. Sure, you'

So many (snooty) people treat audiobooks like a cheap substitute for reading, when in reality, reading is the cheap substitute for oral storytelling. Sure, you've got Infinite Jest where page structure and end notes are part of the aesthetic design, but I think more people would consume more literature if audiobooks were more normalized.

sourcepluck 2y ago
Audiobooks are a cheap excuse for oral storytelling. People listen to audiobooks as they sculpt their muscles in the gym, as they walk to the shop to get groceries averting the eyes of all strangers who pass by, as they fold laundry, alone. Oral storytelling used to happen in small intimate groups around fires with a couple of lamps lit, total silence, wind howling, drinks and sometimes other delights, with no conceivable distractions. Even saying "no distractions" isn't accurate, as it was moreso the case that they'd a completely different conception of time. The stories would be told live by another human, with their voice and body and eyes looking at you. Reading is different than oral storytelling - it doesn't pretend to be the same thing, at least not anymore. Creating a hierarchy between the three is, I find, a bit odd, in general.
complaintdept 2y ago
Most literature we have today was written with a reader in mind, not a listener. I don't even think audiobooks are necessarily bad, it's people consuming them like a hamburger while they multitask so they aren't even really engaging with the text. Let alone not really having the ability to stop, think and relisten very easily. With a text you do it basically automatically if necessary, with an audiobook you've got to fumble around for your device and hope you get back to the right spot and not break your train of thought in the process.

3 ms·

So many (snooty) people treat audiobooks like a cheap substitute for reading, when in reality, reading is the cheap substitute for oral storytelling. Sure, you'

by dataphyte 2y ago

sourcepluck 2y ago
Audiobooks are a cheap excuse for oral storytelling. People listen to audiobooks as they sculpt their muscles in the gym, as they walk to the shop to get groceries averting the eyes of all strangers who pass by, as they fold laundry, alone. Oral storytelling used to happen in small intimate groups around fires with a couple of lamps lit, total silence, wind howling, drinks and sometimes other delights, with no conceivable distractions. Even saying "no distractions" isn't accurate, as it was moreso the case that they'd a completely different conception of time. The stories would be told live by another human, with their voice and body and eyes looking at you. Reading is different than oral storytelling - it doesn't pretend to be the same thing, at least not anymore. Creating a hierarchy between the three is, I find, a bit odd, in general.
complaintdept 2y ago
Most literature we have today was written with a reader in mind, not a listener. I don't even think audiobooks are necessarily bad, it's people consuming them like a hamburger while they multitask so they aren't even really engaging with the text. Let alone not really having the ability to stop, think and relisten very easily. With a text you do it basically automatically if necessary, with an audiobook you've got to fumble around for your device and hope you get back to the right spot and not break your train of thought in the process.