It was cool to hear about the many, many ways immersive reading has (and hasn’t) improved your relationship to reading. And based on your emails, there’s a pretty even split between those who prefer silence vs. ambient sound. Here’s what you all had to say:
Emily S. wrote: “Last summer, I participated in an online group that was dedicated to reading James Joyce’s Ulysses in 80 days (great experience!). I read the book and simultaneously listened to an audio reading of it performed by actors from the National Theatre of Ireland. In hindsight, I never would have been able to finish or understand that book without the audio, particularly as a way to follow the changes of narrative voice!”
Elaine T. wrote: “Personally, I need total silence. Noise and chatter is much too distracting. My idea for immersive reading would be to go to the place where the book is set, eat the local food, walk the streets, and meet the locals. I wouldn’t be able to do that while I was reading … but I would do it during the reading breaks.”
Stephen E. wrote: “I teach seventh and eighth grade English. We read five novels a year in each grade, and I always use immersive reading. All of the reading takes place during class time (I want to be sure they are actually reading the books) and they always read along while listening to the Audible version. Sometimes they don't like the pacing and sometimes they don't like the narrator, but generally when given the option to read silently or read and listen, the great majority choose the immersive experience.” JoEllen M. wrote: “In the early 1950s we had stories that came with LPs (remember 33 1/3 rpm) You would play the record and read out loud. It probably wasn't called [immersive reading] then, but it was fun for me.”
See you next week!
P.S., if a friend sent you this newsletter and you want to sign up, the place to do it is npr.org/newsletter/books. :) | 
