Is there any diference between an audiobook and reading a book?

is there any diference between an audiobook and reading a book?

Other urls found in this thread:

nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/08/listening-to-a-book-instead-of-reading-isnt-cheating.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/08/listening-to-a-book-instead-of-reading-isnt-cheating.html

One will make you go blind faster the other deaf.

is there a difference between watching an apple and eating an apple?

"Is there any difference between an audiobook and reading a book?"

First off, the sentence structure is wrong.
I don't think there is anything I can tell you that you shouldn't already know, the difference is that you listen to one, and read the other. What are you even trying to ask here?

reading.

That is some pretty extreme synesthesia you got going on there.

i hope not

i listen to books all day at work and consider them read

In the case of audiobooks you have no time to stop for a moment to reflect on what you are reading and this may depend on the person but you can easier lose concentration and going back can be can be inconvenient since most of the time you are doing something else while listening.
It's fine for fantasy, scifi and other genre fiction trash but it can't be a substitute in the case of serious literature.

>millennial webpage
>into the trash it goes

pseudo

It's two different sections of the brain, so I would imagine so.

>you have no time to stop for a moment to reflect on what you are reading
Yeah, once they start playing there's just no way to stop them.
When you read you just convert it into meaning the same way you do with hearing.

Audiobooks should be structured differently, they should be more like podcasts, although I wouldn't listen to an audiobook of actual fancy literature, only for more Technical books like history books.

You're asking a science question on the literature board. Probs have a better chance on Veeky Forums, my dude.

...

Depends on the book. Sometimes the medium of writing itself is employed as a literary device (think about alternative spelling, wordplay based on homographs or punctuation marks). So yeah, in case of fiction audiobooks something may be lost. When it comes to non-fiction, you may think about such audiobooks as just about fancy radio programmes.

>listening to audiobook of book you've read before
>narrator does all the different voices to the characters
>tfw they sound nothing like you imagined

Is there a difference between listening to music, and playing it?

why pseudo?

in discussing a book, no one would know you didn't literally read it unless you told them

also blind people (yes, braille)

i listen the same way i read. pause and think, relisten to parts that i didn't get the first time or got distracted during etc.

garbage comparison

the difference between playing music and reading it is closer, but still not very good

There's no popeye's audiobooks, user

What is serious literature to you?
I'm asking because you sound like a huge faggot.

Yes. Because someone has to read it to you, and their voice infects the prose.

>alternative spelling, wordplay based on homographs or punctuation marks
Very good point. I think of a writer like John Barth and know there's no way some of his work could be comprehensively consumed via audiobooks.
Another important point. Having a narrator adds at least some level of interpretation. My biggest fear is that the narrator doesn't fully understand the author's intent, and some subtlety gets lost in their performance. Just think of how many times Shakespeare's words have been botched, even by top notch actors.

author read audio books are goat tier

I couldn't do Dante on audiobook because I couldn't follow all of the references but most novels are ok.