Research finds 40% drop over two decades
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-pleasure-freefall-decades.html
I note that the article doesn't mention audio books.
If someone surveyed me I'd have to reply that my reading is way down compared to younger days. But I consume as many books as ever via listening to audio books. Should that count?
My grandkids are all avid readers and that pleases me.
>listening to audio books. Should that count?
My guess is that the authors -when looking at digital royalties- would say no.
One of my great pleasures lately is that the 11yo boy up the street comes over to read with me. We've made it through The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring so far.
He has so many hobbies though it can be hard to schedule!
But one thing that is really fun about reading with him, is there is a lot he doesn't understand - archaic English words for example. Sometimes I don't either and we have to stop and pull out the dictionary. I also stop and ask him if he understands why this passage is funny or if he understand this or that. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. But it adds enough to his reading that he prefers to read with me, though we couldn't quite finish the Fellowship together before a trip he was taking so he forged ahead without me. He's perfectly capable, but he gets that I can add a layer of understanding.
All of this because...
>listening to audio books. Should that count?
Royalties aside, I would say yes, but with reservations (and BTW, if royalties are what counts, then reading Montaigne and Shakespeare wouldn't count either).
To me the biggest difference is not between audio and text but between long form and short form. Getting people to engage with long-form literature, fiction or non-fiction, is a Good Thing™
That said, I wonder if they are equivalent to a young reader without a long apprenticeship in text. If I'm reading a book I love, I will often pause, maybe for many minutes, to ponder a passage, look up a word, et cetera. I like to think I'm modeling that and teaching that to the boy.
I have met a couple of truly great readers in my life - one a theologian and one a scholar of poetry. They are slow and deliberate readers who tease more out of a text and understand it better than anyone else I have met (and many of my friends are essentially professional readers).
So for easy, breezy books, I think audio and text are roughly equivalent, but as books get meatier, I think they start to diverge a lot and, at a certain point, it isn't even possible to digest some books in audio form and understand them.
I think there are things you learn, patterns of thought, approaches to the world that are hard to get from the kinds of books that are good as audio.
>> the kinds of books that are good as audio
A skilled narrator can make almost any book "good as audio". Almost.
>> hard to get from the kinds of books that are good as audio
In my experience, I've had numerous instances of listening to titles that I had earlier read in print, ranging from 1984 to the Bible, and gaining significant new understanding from hearing it delivered as a narrative that flows.
It's all good.
Decades ago, I was pilloried for commenting(gist) "If the magazine industry depends on people needing something to read while in the bathroom, it's dead."
Debbie says the same now applies to the printed book industry.
Quote from: buckworks on August 21, 2025, 10:48:11 PMA skilled narrator can make almost any book "good as audio". Almost.
I would say anything with that has strong narrative, fiction or non-fiction, is good as audio. So I would agree that 1984 definitely fits my "good as audio" category. I would put it on the upper end actually. I listened to Desmond Morris' three volume bio of Theodore Roosevelt. Volume I was great as audio, but once he became president, the narrative was less direct, lots of jumping around and lots of names. It started to lose me, whereas I think I would have been able to keep track better in text, especially all the names.
I love Rob Inglis' narration of Lord of the Rings. It's not superior to the text version, but it's not inferior either. It's just a different experience. Sometimes I just put on a random section in the car. Now when I read the book to myself, I sometimes hear Inglis' voice. In a strange way, it has deepened my experience of the text version.
The kinds of books that I would not consume as audio are books that are not driven by narrative - most philosophy, theology, highly technical books, things with very intricate arguments, things like that. That's not to say that some philosophy books wouldn't be good as audio, but most that I can think of wouldn't or, at least for me, they would be too hard to follow.
I don't doubt that there are people who are truly superior listeners who could digest anything in audio. I'm sure there has been at least one blind philosopher in history who knew Aristotle's entire corpus inside and out by having it read aloud, but I don't have that ability.
I do love audiobooks though... just finished one this morning. Wasn't great, but I could listen while cleaning the rental, which I just can't do with text.
>> which I just can't do with text
The ability to listen while doing something else is a <major> advantage of audiobooks. Also good radio, etc.
I once read someplace about textile factories which hired readers to read while embroiderers worked at their hand stitching. Apparently it made them more productive. That would need a relatively quiet environment, though.
sorta related
Denmark ending letter deliveries is a sign of the digital times
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v37plv2edo
>hired readers
The cigar industry in Cuba used to have readers that would read to the (primarily) women as they hand rolled cigars. They were highly regarded.