I’m going to declare myself right up front. Audio books do not count as reading.

I know, I know; many audio fans want to argue otherwise, primarily because it’s the same content. While J.K. Rowling might be looney toons in many areas, she was right on for the idea that she hates abridged versions. She insisted that the audio version be identical to the reading version, so people could read along. So, if it’s the same text, why isn’t it the same as reading? Because if you went to a play, and they did the exact same version as the text, would you argue that the people in the audience had “read the book” too? No, of course not.

Others want to argue that you’re still processing language (decoding in particular), but so does going to a play. You can still build vocabulary, think critically about the concepts, build emotional attachment, use your imagination, and gain the same knowledge. None of that suggests the same “thing” as reading it. Doing a spelling test might tick some of those boxes too; it doesn’t mean you’ve read a book. One of the funniest sets of arguments I see online is how audio is better — more accessible, builds listening skills, lets you do it while doing chores, builds in multiple types of learning (audio, visual), and teaches pronunciation. Okay, so if I accept that, I ask “how/why” is it better and they say because it’s different. Umm…wasn’t your argument that it was the same as reading?

I like the more holistic arguments that talk about how the written form of storytelling derived itself from the original oral form, and thus, just as written works transformed the oral tradition, an audio version just embraces the original form. In so doing, the narrators bring the text to life like that of the ancient storytellers, with the bards of each era, taking complex works and making them more understandable. And, in the end, they achieve the same goal. Entertaining, building connections and enabling growth.

Yet these arguments cannot get around a simple truth. If you have a kid who cannot read, and you read a book to them, they did not “read” the book. They may have consumed it, sure. But it’s no more “reading” than to say “I read Lord of the Rings” because I’ve watched the movies. Or that you read Romeo and Juliet because you went to a play. Similar, not the same.

Except I really don’t care much about that distinction

If you want to say you read an “audiobook”, I don’t really care. There’s no formal international association of book readers who will take away your headphones and library card. If I want to discuss a book, say The Da Vinci Code, I might care if you watched the movie to the extent that it is very different in content, but if you listened to the same version that I read, we have something to discuss. A common basis. The argument above is that it is the same content. I will not agree that you “read” it, but if you consumed it, we can discuss.

My real aversions to audiobooks, though, are twofold. One is technical and can be easily resolved; the other is lifestyle-related and is more challenging.

From a technical perspective, I usually hate someone else reading aloud. They talk WAY slower than I read. Averages would put it about 30-40% faster to read than listen. But I’m a high-speed reader. I don’t keep track per se, but I do remember one time when I read a novelization of Spider-Man 2, in normal pocket book size, and I read the longer, more in-depth character descriptions faster than the movie would have played out in the theatre. I finished the longer text in 90-100 minutes, and the movie clocked in at 120 minutes. Overall, I estimate I read about 50% faster than the average speaker or narrator of an audiobook, so long as it’s fiction. If it’s a textbook, I bog down. But, as I said, there’s a technical fix for that speed differential…just increase the speed of the audiobook. Most software allows you to increase the speed of the narration to 1.2x or 1.5x, etc.

The lifestyle challenge is the same for audiobooks as it is for music and podcasts. I am rarely sitting doing nothing where I’m able to just “listen”, although that’s only partly true, I confess. I love old-time radio shows, with Arsenic and Old Lace being one of my favourites. But if I’m vegging out, I’m more likely to reach for the TV remote and watch visuals than make the time to listen to an old show, music or a podcast. I also don’t take the bus where I’m sitting for long periods of time, nor am I doing long drives. I cannot listen to much while I’m working. Music is okay in the background, but I can’t have a radio announcer jabbering away. I really have to stop other things if there are lyrics or someone talking. Or I need to stop the background noise altogether and focus on work. There are a lot of podcasts with really great content, and I simply cannot find a lifestyle configuration to facilitate listening to them. I fall asleep too quickly at night, and I don’t engage in many activities during the day that would allow me to catch up. I like the idea of walking and listening, or working out and listening, but I would normally prefer music to pump me up, not narration to engage my brain.

But I listened to my first full audiobook recently

I’m doing some work on reviewing music, and it made sense to pull Spotify into the mix. And right off the bat, it said, “Hey, congrats, you get a free audiobook this month.” Yawn. Cue all my thoughts above. Plus one other one. It went something like this…

Hey, wait a minute. It is showing me a picture of Tom Selleck in the menu options. Why is Tom Selleck in the audiobook options?

Oh, interesting. Tom Selleck has a book out called “You Never Know”, an autobiography he wrote with Ellis Henican. Well, that could be an interesting read. I am fascinated by the narrators online who share content about making audiobooks, I wonder who the narrator is. Let’s see, doesn’t really say, I’ll click start and see what they sound like.

Wait … that’s TOM SELLECK’S VOICE. Narrating his own autobiography? Well, now THAT’S interesting

I can add a second confession. I like Tom Selleck. I loved him as Magnum, didn’t mind him in the Sackett stories, enjoyed most of Quigley Down Under, enjoyed him in the Jesse Stone series, and have really enjoyed him as the head of the Reagan clan on Blue Bloods. I do not, however, generally enjoy him in comedies. He feels like he’s acting to me, almost breaking the fourth wall as a result. But in Westerns, Magnum and Blue Bloods? Almost letter perfect. Any quibbles I have about Quigley Down Under or Jesse Stone are more about the way the character is written than how he plays him.

So I was IN for listening to him talk about his life. As long as I could do the technical fix. I plan to retire in a few years and do a lot of writing. I do not have time to listen to Tom Selleck tell his life story at Tom Selleck speed. I jacked it up 20%, probably could have gone faster but it seemed a little too Mickey Mouse-like.

I made time to listen. Mostly I listened in the car while driving errands or waiting for people, or later at night for a half-hour in my office before getting ready for bed. I got it for free, so picking up the Kindle version for cheap didn’t seem like double-dipping. At some point, I’ll read through, but I’m really wondering if I’ll hate it. There is a lot of verbiage in the stories, and it works on the audio version because it is Tom talking. Like an extended podcast perhaps. But I don’t know if I’d enjoy reading his cadence.

For content, I don’t know anything about the tabloid news about his first wife and their lives together. But at one point, Tom pointedly says that if listeners came for more crap to feed internet fodder, they would be sorely disappointed. I think there are about 10 passing references to his first wife, another 10 to his adopted son, and only one story that actively involves his son. I don’t care, but it was a bit interesting to see him gloss over some major emotional stuff. I confess, though, that I was MOSTLY interested in hearing the behind-the-scenes stories of how things got made, like Magnum.

Well, Magnum is about 50% of the book. The other 50% is Tom’s early life, high school and college, military service, and getting involved in acting. There is a chapter about each season of Magnum, with examples thrown in. But after about the first 30% of the book, you realize something. Generally speaking, Tom appears to love everyone. They’re all great, highly professional, fabulous people, a delight to work with, he’s so grateful, blah blah blah. He has a few harder words to say about Glen Larson and Don Bellisario, but none that either one would have trouble reading. It feels like a whitewash, unfortunately. Not enought grit.

I enjoyed the stories, to be sure. And I learned a lot about Magnum, and how it was managed, etc. I also learned about Lucas wanting him for Indiana Jones, but it didn’t fit the shooting schedule. No offence, but Raiders of the Lost Ark with TS would have been about as big and sustainable as High Road to China or In and Out. Or even Quigley Down Under. Watchable, sure, but not particularly newsworthy. He owned the TV screen, but I don’t think he had the presence for big movie productions.

I was heavily disappointed, though, that the book ends with the end of Magnum. I don’t know if there’s a sequel planned that will talk about other developments, the Quigley movie, or Blue Bloods. I was amazed how much of the character of Frank Reagan — his pattern of speech, his mannerisms, some of his phrases — are really just Tom. Which I would NOT have realized from the book. Only hearing Tom SAY the phrases in the narration, with the same pattern as in the show, is it clear that Tom invested himself in the character’s mannerisms, as much as he invested in some of his earlier roles.

One audiobook “completed, not read”

Despite my reservations, I really enjoyed the audiobook. Would I have tried it if it WASN’T Tom reading Tom? I doubt it.

I still feel like I’m more interested in podcasts than audiobooks, though. I’ve started listening to the Smallville podcast, Talkville, although I tried Inside of You with Michael Rosenbaum earlier and couldn’t sustain it. I like the snippets I’ve seen of Katee Sackhoff’s video cast, as well as my wife enjoying the West Wing podcast.

I find one thing interesting, though. I won’t “review” the audiobook as an audiobook, no more than this post itself. I feel that I’m talking more about the experience of an audiobook, not the specific recording.

Yet I was just writing a book review, and I have a template that I use for layout, tracking, etc. And right in the middle of it, I tick the box for format for my book reviews. Ebook is an option; hardcover is an option; paperback is an option; and, hey, I put audio as an option even though I never read them. So on SOME level, I put it down as an option. Except I don’t do audiobook reviews. Partly by volume, but partly I don’t feel it’s the same thing.

As I said at the beginning. I’m a reader, not a listener.