Narcissus and Goldmund
Listen to it
Both halves point the same way: only 4% of the reviews we read called it demanding, and Simon Vance’s reading is better received than the book it came from (in the top 20% of our shelf of books, on 1,147 ratings of the narration). About as clear as this gets.
Length does not decide this
10h 37m to listen, at 1×8h 30m to listen, at 1.25×7h 05m to listen, at 1.5×6h 04m to listen, at 1.75×5h 19m to listen, at 2×about 11 hours to readabout 8 hours to readabout 6 hours to readabout 5 hours to readabout 4 hours to read
The runtime is Audible’s own, shown at the speed beside it. The reading time is our estimate: 315 pages at 30 pages an hour, the pace you told us. Ours is 50, about 300 words a page, read at 250 a minute.The runtime is Audible’s own, shown at the speed beside it. The reading time is our estimate: 315 pages at 40 pages an hour, the pace you told us. Ours is 50, about 300 words a page, read at 250 a minute.The runtime is Audible’s own, shown at the speed beside it. The reading time is our estimate: 315 pages at 50 pages an hour, which is about 300 words a page, read at 250 a minute.The runtime is Audible’s own, shown at the speed beside it. The reading time is our estimate: 315 pages at 65 pages an hour, the pace you told us. Ours is 50, about 300 words a page, read at 250 a minute.The runtime is Audible’s own, shown at the speed beside it. The reading time is our estimate: 315 pages at 80 pages an hour, the pace you told us. Ours is 50, about 300 words a page, read at 250 a minute.
Slot → commute-safe
About as demanding in audio as Slaughterhouse-Five.
About as much work in audio as most of the books we hold.
About as much work in audio as most of the middling-length books we hold.
Reading load against listening load
Where that puts this one among the books we hold: in the bottom 17% of our shelf of books for effort on the page and in the bottom 23% of our shelf of books for effort in your ears. The middle of the scale is not the middle of the shelf (most books sit below the average on both), so a book at 0.00 is already in the top 43% for effort on the page. Each of the three is measured against the whole shelf separately, so the bottom figure is not the top two subtracted. It is this book’s own distance from the middle.
What the audio disadvantage is made of. Two things and no others: how fast readers say this one moves, and how demanding the reviews we read found it. There is no third: the structural one has no data source, so it contributes nothing rather than being guessed at. Both directions are declared priors we have never fitted against a real verdict, which is the weakest-evidenced part of the whole model.
How the call was made
Where a bar carries ticks, the grey one is the middle of our shelf and a coloured one is a line we publish, cool where we start backing the page, warm where we start backing the recording. The evidence squares at the foot are a different thing: how far each of our four sources went, hatched where there was nothing to measure at all.
- The audio case
- 1.10It sits in the top 15% of our shelf of books for how far the recording outruns the page. Past the line where we start backing the recording.
- Narration payoff
- 0.61Simon Vance’s reading is better received than the book it came from: in the top 20% of our shelf of books, on 1,147 ratings of the narration. This is a difference, not a score: it sets the reading against its own book, so a much-loved book with a merely good reading sits low on this shelf even where nobody disliked either. Before we allowed for how many people rated it, the reading stood in the top 20% of our shelf of books. The gap between the two places is us declining to let a handful of ratings move a verdict. That is the second mark on the bar, and it is the one our line is applied to: a rule tested on the damped number would pass the same recording at 25 ratings and fail it at 5,000. Asked the other way (how the reading stands against what the book’s own readers made of it, which is a different crowd rating a different thing), it comes out 0.48. We report that one and never score it: two crowds that do not overlap are held together by nothing but the standardising, which is a cost the figure above does not pay.
- What is at stake
- 0.20It sits between the bottom 27% and the top 33% of our shelf of books for how well the print crowds think of a book: middling regard, so this barely moves the call either way. Blended across 76,465 Goodreads ratings and 131 on Hardcover, each scored inside its own population first, and never added together.
For the page
- The crowds’ regard did not reach the line where we protect a first read, this reason did not apply
For the recording
- The voice beats the book
- Audio is neither helping nor fighting this one
- 1,147 listeners behind it
So the case for the recording won it.
A bigger dot counted for more: the voice and the ear are sized by their share of the sum above, the other two by how much stands behind them. A hatched square is a reason that did not apply here, which is not the same as one that counted for little.
- Evidence
- 0.96How much of the picture we actually have, out of 1.00: four questions, each answered as far as the source could answer it, less anything taken off for reading fewer reviews than we aim to.The reading1,147 people have rated this reading: as good as it getsThe second sourceHardcover knows this book, with 131 readers there: enough to lean onThe matchHow sure we are that the recording we scored is this book: as good as it getsThe reviewsWe read 300 reviews to judge how demanding it is: as good as it gets
What each crowd complains about
We would need 40 reviews from each crowd before setting the two side by side, and only 9 of the reviews we read said they listened to it. So we are not drawing this one.
What the two crowds said
Showing the stars as each shop prints them. The two crowds are not measured from the same place: on our shelf Audible’s listeners average 0.35 of a star above Goodreads’ readers, so a recording that is ordinary for Audible can still out-star a book that is genuinely well liked for Goodreads. Switch the toggle to take that difference off.Showing each figure as its distance from its own crowd’s middle on our shelf, in standard deviations, so 0 is a typical book for that crowd. Listeners start 0.35 of a star up, partly because anyone who finishes a twenty-five-hour recording chose it deliberately, and this takes that off. It is not a claim that audio is better, the story figure is still Audible’s own (people rating a story they heard), and none of it moves the verdict above.
overallAudible
overall, pooled by the shop, so we hold no ruler for it
1,351 ratings · performance and story, as the shop pools them
the performanceAudible
the performance, against Audible’s own crowd
How often this goes badly0.9% of the people who rated the performance gave it one or two stars. Fewer than most recordings here. The middle of our shelf is 2.0%, and half of it falls between 1.0% and 3.1%.
10 of 1,147 listeners gave the performance one or two stars
The shape of the room
- United, this one
- Warm
- Split
- Lukewarm
A united room: 82% of the listeners gave the performance five stars. A room that agrees this far leaves little to gamble on.
1,147 ratings
the story, as heardAudible
the story, as heard, against Audible’s own crowd
1,148 ratings
the book itselfGoodreads
the book itself, against Goodreads’ own crowd
76,465 ratings
Every reading we hold
One complete reading of this book, and it is the reading every audio figure above is measured on. If there is another, we have not found it. The shelf grows in reviewed batches, never because somebody searched for a book.
- Simon Vanceour pick10h 37m8h 30m7h 05m6h 04m5h 19m · One voice · Audible UK and US
Performance 4.77 · Story 4.62 · 1,147 rated the reading · 0.9% of the people who rated the performance gave it one or two stars
Hear it · Audible’s clip, its length read from them on load
The recording we mean
- Runtime
- 10h 37m at 1×
- Read by
- Simon Vance
- Kind
- One voice
- ASIN
- B004FTEXK0 · Audible UK
- Rated in
- Audible UK and US · 204 + 943 ratings of the performance
- Judged on
- 1,147 ratings of the narration
- Published
- Blackstone Audio, Inc. · 2009
Audible sorts a search by newest, so ours may not be the first one you are offered. The runtime is the check: if the one in front of you says 10h 37m, that is the reading these numbers describe. “Judged on” is the crowd behind every judgement we make about this reading: the smaller of the performance and story counts, which is why it is a little under the two shop counts added. We do not link out to a shop, and we take nothing if you buy there.