Among book worms and other voracious readers of literature there is a significant subset of paper fascists. The paper fascist is an individual so dedicated to the book, so proud of their literacy prowess, that when one dares to reveal they are an audiobook consumer a tirade is unleashed about the inferiority of that medium. I encounter these arguments far too often, and always face the same boring tropes. Let’s set the record straight and defend the much-maligned audiobook.

By far the most common myth you encounter from the paper fascist when coming out as an audiobook consumer is the perception that “you didn’t really read it.” This is true, I did not read it, I listened to it, but the insinuation here is always that the information contained within the work is not absorbed or understood properly if it is consumed via ear. This is plainly ludicrous; should one only read Shakespeare rather than hear it performed? So long as you are paying attention to the spoken or written word it is hard to believe there will be any difference in the understating of the stories or concepts contained within.

Personally, I think the work in question is better understood by the listener than the reader. Why? Because the paper fascist has an addiction to boasting about the skill with which they scythe through vast tomes of literature exclaiming “I read two books today”. This begs the question, did you really read it? Or, by chance, did you skim through, pulling out the major points without taking the time to fully ponder the arguments raised or become enamoured with the finer subtleties of the story? I am not saying that audiobook listeners are somehow more patient than readers, it is probably the opposite, many audiobook listeners do so out of convenience, listening on the train or while doing tasks in circumstances where reading or watching videos is not possible. But the audiobook does have the convenient advantage of forcing you to take the work at a slower pace. You can, on certain apps, increase the pace but, unless you want a sonorous rendition ofParadise Lost by Anton Lesser to sound more akin to tweety bird, this is best avoided.

One of the most plainly stupid arguments that has been put forward, and I may say is only done so by the most zealous and blinkered of the paper crusaders, is that by listening rather than reading the work you may misinterpret what was written. I believe this arises out of an argument surrounding homophones. Context is a brilliant thing, and, when listening to the Odyssey or Illiad, as it was initially presented round the hearths of ancient Greece, you instantly know when the colour of the rising sun is being referred to and not the sexual proclivities of Rosie and Dawne.

Then comes the argument that having someone else’s interpretation of the flow, characters voices etc, is inferior to your own. I can agree with this at times but this is an argument only valid on a case by case basis. I cannot deny that occasionally you will find a voice that grates but over a couple of hours listening, familiarity will breed content not contempt. The main issue here, however, is that in many instances the performer adds to the work rather than detracts from it. Would you deny the right to a conductor to make subtle changes to another’s composition if you preferred the variation? As with many others I would much rather have the Harry Potter audibly told by Stephen Fry rather than read it. Indeed, as a child I was once so engaged in that world as told by Mr Fry, on my beloved cassette player, that I managed to wander off from my family down the streets of Dalian in Turkey. I soon realized my predicament and having spent about a minute screaming “help” I was rescued by a charming Canadian lady.

One area where I do have to concede the superiority of paper is in matters scientific and mathematical; an audibly described diagram is not at all practical. I once tried to listen to a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking and upon enquiring about where to find the PDF companion containing the referenced diagrams, I was informed that they didn’t have it. Customer support assured me they would try to access it, but I am not sure anyone had bothered to ask before.

It is the convenience of the audiobook that is its great strength. We live in a world where literature is falling at the wayside in the face of more immediately engaging mediums. I can tell you that being in my twenties the sad truth is that the number of people I know that have not read or listened to a book in years far outweighs those who do. I have friends who boast of having only read one book in their life, at school, and depressingly this is among the university educated. There are many whose only consumption of literature is by listening to an audiobook on the train, in the face of the ever-present cultural onslaught of YouTube and Netflix we should not fault anything that may engage the modern reader. Particularly one that does so by beautifully bringing together our oldest tradition; the crucible of language with modernity and the technology.