Thinking, Fast and Slow
It explains. Hardcover files this book as non-fiction. A fact, not a factor: it plays no part in our call.
Read it
The recording is the weak half here, not the book. Patrick Egan’s reading sits in the bottom 8% of our shelf of books for how far a reading beats the book it is reading, and −1.18 against what the book’s own readers made of it (two different crowds, each measured against its own crowd’s middle before we compare them), on 2,703 ratings of the narration. A different reading would change our answer; until there is one, give the first encounter to the page.
Length does not decide this
20h 04m to listen, at 1×16h 03m to listen, at 1.25×13h 23m to listen, at 1.5×11h 28m to listen, at 1.75×10h 02m to listen, at 2×about 17 hours to readabout 12 hours to readabout 10 hours to readabout 8 hours to readabout 6 hours to read
The runtime is Audible’s own, shown at the speed beside it. The reading time is our estimate: 499 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: 499 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: 499 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: 499 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: 499 pages at 80 pages an hour, the pace you told us. Ours is 50, about 300 words a page, read at 250 a minute.
If you must listen → dedicated listening only
Harder work in audio than The Handmaid's Tale.
Harder work in audio than 97% of the books we hold.
Harder work in audio than 96% of the non-fiction we hold.
Harder work in audio than 96% of the long books we hold.
Reading load against listening load
Where that puts this one among the books we hold: in the top 2% of our shelf of books for effort on the page and in the top 2% 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
- −3.33It sits in the bottom 1% of our shelf of books for how far the recording outruns the page. Past the line where we start backing the page. It is not what decided this one, though: the recording sits far enough behind its book to reach Read it on its own, which is the line drawn on the row below. When the narration is that far behind, the call is about the recording rather than about the format, and a different one would change the answer.
- Narration payoff
- −1.03Patrick Egan’s reading is less well received than the book it came from: in the bottom 6% of our shelf of books, on 2,703 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. That is measured on standardised figures rather than on the stars in the charts below, and here the two disagree: listeners mark a performance higher than a story as a rule, 4.62 against 4.54 across our shelf, so this recording’s 4.33 for the performance beside 4.31 for the story is not the level pair it looks. Against their own crowds they are −1.28 and −0.90, which is the same sum the toggle over those charts does. 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 −1.18. 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
- −0.04It 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 616,874 Goodreads ratings and 997 on Hardcover, each scored inside its own population first, and never added together.
For the page
- The voice lets the book down
- A hard text to follow by ear
- The crowds’ regard did not reach the line where we protect a first read, this reason did not apply
For the recording
- 2,703 listeners behind it
So the case for the page won it, on this recording and not on the book itself.
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
- 1.00How 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 reading2,703 people have rated this reading: as good as it getsThe second sourceHardcover knows this book, with 997 readers there: as good as it getsThe 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
In the reviews we read, how often readers brought it up and how often listeners did, each against what is usual for that same crowd across our whole shelf, which is the grey tick. The track stops at 4×. Listeners are only ever compared with listeners.
Listeners of this book bring up how hard it is to follow about 1.8 times as often as listeners usually do, while readers of it bring it up about two and a half times as often as readers usually do.
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
3,436 ratings · performance and story, as the shop pools them
the performanceAudible
the performance, against Audible’s own crowd
How often this goes badly6.7% of the people who rated the performance gave it one or two stars. More than most recordings here. The middle of our shelf is 2.0%, and half of it falls between 1.0% and 3.1%.
182 of 2,732 listeners gave the performance one or two stars
The shape of the room
- United
- Warm, this one
- Split
- Lukewarm
A warm room: most listeners are happy with the performance, and a small group are not.
2,732 ratings
the story, as heardAudible
the story, as heard, against Audible’s own crowd
2,703 ratings
the book itselfGoodreads
the book itself, against Goodreads’ own crowd
616,874 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.
- Patrick Eganour pick20h 04m16h 03m13h 23m11h 28m10h 02m · One voice · Audible UK and US
Performance 4.33 · Story 4.31 · 2,703 rated the reading · 6.7% 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
- 20h 04m at 1×
- Read by
- Patrick Egan
- Kind
- One voice
- ASIN
- B006QNPQFY · Audible UK
- Rated in
- Audible UK and US · 2,302 + 430 ratings of the performance
- Judged on
- 2,703 ratings of the narration
- Published
- Penguin · 2011
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 20h 04m, 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.