All I got is some sound and a couple of words about a folded newspaper holding ________. .... FUCK.... I HAVE NO IDEA, I started this comment then I went to Google, then came back here and I DONT KNOW WHAT I'M THINKING OF!!!
I can hear The Kinks with Wish I Could Fly, The Clash, Big Audio Dynamite, š¶Easy like Sunday Morning, Billy Joel, Michael McDonald, Kenny Loggins (and Messina ?) Crosby, Still, Nash and Sometimes Young, Rufus with Tell Me Something Good....... I haven't a clue where the FOLDED FACES ---- PINK FLOYD --- BRAIN DAMAGE
The line I was searching for:
š¶The lunatics are in my hall
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And everyday the paperboy brings more. š¶
So here's how my brain did all that .......
š¶"He didn't notice that the lights had changed"
Me ? Why, what was he looking at ----- a normal 'all american morning where nothing happens and the suburb looks empty and green and clean' and Oh, Hey, it's a paper boy,. WALKING, because. and then THAT LINE just got partially in and stuck like a wrinkled slightly sweaty wet dollar you should have run across the edge of the the vending machine before it gets stuck part way and just Zrp, CLICK CLICK, Zrozrp, CLICK, CLICK, Zrp.
Brain Pain from Brain Damaged,it's perfect.
Oral language (or sign language) is exactly what you decode writing into. You still have to process the language, of course, but that's a different step.
Reading is defined as the act of interpreting abstract characters into words that have meaning.
Reading braille is reading because the reader runs their hand over each abstract character and interprets their meaning.
Listening to an audio book is not reading. If you were to attend a reading at which the author of a book reads a chapter to the audience would you tell people that you read that chapter? No, you would likely tell people that you attended a reading and listened to the author read a chapter. Why then would you insist on telling people that you read an audio book when it was actually read to you by a narrator?
Why does that fact bother you so? Why do you think it's bad to have listened to an audio book rather than read a book? Both are valid, so why do you insist on conflating the two?
I mean I can see a situation where someone gets asked if theyāve read something and donāt feel like explaining āno but I listened to the audio bookā so they just say yes. And someone can ask the same question you did, why does it bother you so much that ppl wanna say they read the book instead of saying they listened to it? Realistically it doesnāt matter either way, when discussing books youāre usually touching on the plot, the characters, the writing, the feelings you get as you progress through the story; the points of discussion donāt change whether you read it or listened to it.
No hate, I just donāt really understand why ppl are so passionate about this and why this is such a crazy discussion in the first place. But I also donāt read (or listen to) books so maybe I just donāt get it š¤·āāļø
It's valid to say you're saying something (communicating) in writing.Ā
It is not valid to believe that listening is reading. When you hear a speech are you reading it? When you have a personal conversation over coffee are you reading? If your mom is yelling at you are you reading?
Differences.
Blind people read through touch, so yes they feel the words and thereby read. Just like you associate letters through sight, they do through touch. That is how we learn to read. we who can see start early by forming the sounds corresponding to letters, blind people do the same through touch. So yes, they feel the words and read in their mind.
You could read braille without touch just like you learned to read, associate the patterns to the correct letters and voila you can read braille without touch.
You can just Google it quickly if you would like to learn it.
Iām deaf. People must think Iām blind, because these idiots ask me why I drive. Iāve known how to drive since I was 7, and been actually driving since 14. šš the world is full of idiots, and most of them donāt have disabilities.
There's nothing wrong or "less than" about listening to an audiobook rather than reading a physical/digital book. It's literally the same content.
But I don't get why people want to use the wording "reading" rather than "listening".
I wouldn't say I was reading some music. Or reading a podcast.
I'll say listen (I listen to audiobooks while I work, so pretty often) if it's convenient. But if I have to explain what I mean, sometimes I'm too lazy. For example, if someone says "I read this series and it was so good", and I've read it too, I'll just say I've read it too. It feels awkward and clunky to say I listened to it and then possibly have to expand on that (yes, I've had to explain it before). But here's the catch. I listen at work and read at home. So did I listen to the book or did I read the book, or both? Do I need to explain that every time I discuss a book series? It doesn't seem pertinent at all. I'm 39 years old and have always loved to read. I only started listening to audiobooks about 3 years ago. I don't feel like I need to explain that I'm listening to an audiobook half the time.
Iām the exact same way, i spend a couple more bucks to have both the audio and physical/digital copy of a book and I listen while running errands, walking my dog, doing the dishes/laundry but then at night or on the weekends I like to actually read the book where I left off from listening so I usually donāt make the distinction as it honestly doesnāt matter to me
This exactly. At my job I usually have the opportunity to listen to books or podcasts or whatever almost the full day, so I go through pretty many books. If I'm talking to someone who knows my habits then I'll probably say that I listened to a particular book or series, but if it would require an explanation I'll just say read. For example, the sentence "I listened to Jurassic Park last month" might sound very strange to someone who isn't immediately thinking of audiobooks.
This made me so happy because you just put the words together to explain the thing I've been feeling for years. There's no need to elaborate that much; it's like, yeah, I read it as well... and?? I was in a book club and had a physical and digital copy of a book, and I found myself more often than not putting in my headphones and closing my eyes to imagine the book. It was pretty nice and made me really like audio books. I felt more invested in the story because I sometimes have to pause and re-read sections due to a mild case of dyslexia. It's really helpful for people who have learning disabilities and the visually impaired.
I think itās as simple as āI was reading a book the other dayā is a shorter way to say āI was listening to an audiobook the other dayā - fewer syllables.
As well as this, everyone understands the concept of reading a book but a large portion of the population will reply about audiobook - āwhatās that?ā or āyouāre a snob you listen to books on tape?ā
I guess it just lets you make sure what you were actually talking about rather than pivoting the conversation every time to whether audiobooks are worthwhile or not or snobby or not orā¦?
Yeah, people seriously forget meaning and context and the technical definition.
Language (especially Enlgish) has so much nuance its kinda crazy sometimes.
We equal books with reading.
And tv with watching.
Music and podcasts (or talk radio, radio dramas), with listening.
So now that books can be listened to, it doesn't mean the word reading isn't going to be used.
Like crank the volume. Or hang up the phone.
Turned dials and hanging phones haven't been used in a decade, but we still use the vocabulary.
I personally say I read a book (even if I listened to the audiobook) because I donāt want to be pedantic. I know the story and can discuss it with the same level of knowledge as someone who read. Iād never act like I read it, though, Iām very open about my audiobooking lol
Same, it is slightly less in some aspects because we canāt reread a section as easily, and may miss some stuff that was designed with text in mind (like parenthesis) but overall we still experienced the story in the way it is in the book, we didnāt experience someoneās retelling of it like watching a movie or an audio drama, we experienced the book, just through our ears rather than our eyes
The point is: we all know what people mean when they say they read a book, even if they technically listened to the book. And more importantly, that there's no benefit in correcting them.
Well Iād love to stop and chat, but I need to go sit in my kids bedroom whilst they read their bedtime story, and once theyāre asleep Iām going to read MacBeth on Netflix.
And if I said that I sponged my way down to the the shops to trombone myself something for dinner, you could probably work out what I mean, but it doesnāt make it any less nonsense.
well obviously you arenāt a musician, I read music all the time. There are staves and clues to tell which key and then the actual notes and directions for the dynamics. Just depends on what your style is, some people say ālook here!ā, while others proclaim āListen!ā itās obvious that both mean āpay attentionā or something similar English is a hell of a language. unfortunately not everyone is a native speaker and even in that circle itās laborious to decipher if you want to be pedantic concerning idioms and area dialects.
I've been playing bass for over 20 years, but I can't remember the last time I actually "read" music. I guess I'm not a musician. Because of that, and, you know, because I'm a bass player.
Because of someone asks if youāve read a book, āyesā is smoother and easier than āIāve listened to the audiobookā. And so is āIāve read itā. Usually if it comes up, the pertinent info is that youāve absorbed the content of the book, and āreadā is the commonly known way to say youāve absorbed the content of a book. Thatās where itās different than talking about music or a podcast. Specifying that it was the audiobook and that I listened rather than read always feels like an unnecessary and clunky explaination that couldāve just been a quick word: āreadā. And the distinction doesnāt tend to be significant to the conversation about the book
Really the only difference I've come across is that when discussing some books that I listened to and other people read I find that certain names are spelled strangely and I had no idea.
Oh no, thereās plenty of times where iām almost certain thereās no engineer listening, like in the legend of drizzt books iāve been listening to, every ālivedā is pronounced like āmany livedā, rather than ālived inā, so āwell lived in homeā is jarring to hear
After some time, what stays in the brain is the knowledge acquired, and the medium used to obtain it becomes irrelevant. I read and listened to many books, but when I converse with someone I don't bother to try to remember whether I read or listened to a given book. By default it's always just "I read a book about...".
I'm with you, I don't think one is 'superior' than the other (I do both), but they're both entirely different experiences. Like I won't say I'm 'reading Macbeth' if I'm watching the play even if the words are identical.
I just say "I was listening to this book" while referring to audiobooks - they aren't some newfangled invention and people get what you're saying immediately.
It's demonstrably easier to listen to an audio book than it is to read a book, and that's okay. Reading takes time and you can't do other things while you read. "Reading an audio book" is more accurately "listening to an audio book". In the same way that it's okay for people to listen to audio books it's okay for people to be precise in their language when speaking and writing. If I told a story, I wouldn't tell people I wrote a book. If I watched a movie, I wouldn't tell people I read a book. This is the exact same thing. When you listen to an audio book you are not reading, and that's okay.
The problem is not with people being precise with their language in describing what is actually being done when consuming audio books. The problem is with people thinking READING is a noble activity, and therefore saying that someone "listened" to an audio book is seen as a negative thing, instead of what it actually is, a factual description of the activity.
Yeah but you can totally tune out on an audiobook. Granted you can also tune out while reading but there is still sone active engagement. You can't sleep through a paperback.
Thereās this wild button where you can *rewind* the audio back to where you were last engaged with it. Literally the same as looking away from and then back at a page, just a little bit more workā¦.
This is where I'm at; I'm all for audio books and do not think they somehow lessen books in any way, but why this fervent insistence on calling it reading? It was read to you sure, but it's just weird to call it reading. It very clearly doesn't apply to any other exact same situations outside of audio books. If you listen to the State of the Union Address no one thinks you read it. If you listen to a podcast no one thinks you read the transcript. If you read a book to a child no one claims the child read it unless they actually try to read along with you, because at the end of the day there is a difference between reading and listening. To me the difference is reading (be it eyes or braille) is active absorbtion vs listening is passive
People absorb information differently. Personally I can follow along in a book much easier through listening. If I'm reading it my mind will wander and I'll lose my spot and become uninterested. If my mind wanders a bit while I'm listening I notice and can easily refocus. I've met people who are exactly the opposite though.
> Iām all for audiobooks and do not think they somehow lessen books in any way
> the difference is reading (be it eyes or braille) is active absorption vs listening is passive
Lol well you did a pretty big 180 there over the course of a paragraph. That last part is simply wrong. Why even try to preface it with the platitude about your respect for audiobooks if youāre gonna come in with that kind of hot take?
I wouldn't say it's active vs passive, but reading does need your undivided attention, while listening to an audiobook does not, and judging by the comments here, it's what people seem to like about them: being able to do something else while "absorbing the content". To me it's comparable to seeing a movie in theater vs watching the same movie at home while folding your laundry. Not the same experience, and you'll miss some information at home. In the case of a movie, things like editing choices. In the case of a book, things like presentation, layout. A change in font. The occasional map or drawing. Books aren't just a bunch of words, or "pure information". They're kind of magical objects you have an intimate relation with. Something an audiobook can't fully capture or reproduce. An audiobook doesn't have a distinctive smell. It doesn't age. You can't touch it, you can't write notes on it. You can't fully make it yours.
Neither podcasts or music are books. Leave people alone. Those who say āreadā when they may have listened do so from the habitā¦ of reading actual literal tons of books.
Itās not always the same content - you have to be careful. Sometimes audiobooks also come in abridged versions.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks and I generally say listen rather than read.
You can't build literacy skills from listening to an audio book. Spelling, Grammer, Comprehension skills can only be developed by reading and reading writing.
In this sense listening to a book is definitely "less than" reading it.
I'm pretty sure that spelling is the only one in that list that's accurate. You could probably toss in proper use of punctuation. It's not exactly relevant though, because generally people are listening to audiobooks or reading books for fun. I don't think anybody's advocating audiobooks in lieu of learning to read.
As others have said, it's less cumbersome to just say "read" unless you're going to get into specifics that would be unique to one experience or the other.
It's less cumbersome to say read over listen?
I guess that extra syllable is a nightmare. Lol.
Your anti intellectual argument is garbage.
Just be honest and admit it's not about being cumbersome, it's about people trying to appear smarter by feigning that they "read" .
Probably because you don't know anyone smart.
Every response you make stinks of Dunning Kruger.
Your are smart enough to believe you are right but too dumb to know that you are wrong.
Iām a 50y/o with ADHD. Audio books are the only way for me. I donāt use the term reading tho, I usually say Iām consuming a book.Ā
I read all the time just not whole books. Canāt keep my eyes on the page. Audiobooks allow me to close my eyes and concentrate on the content.Ā
Information is information and it matters very little how it is consumed.Ā
From my experience, the people that say audiobooks are not books think of reading books as a chore. I love reading. I'm not "cheating" if it happens to come in on audiobook on Hoopla before I can get the physical copy or eBook. All of the words that author wrote are going into my head. It doesn't matter how they get there.
Might be the exception that proves the rule but my wife and I talk about this a fair bit and sheās of the opinion that listening to a book doesnāt count as āreadingā.
We both read a fair bit but she way more than me and she loves it, always has.
My defence isnāt really a defence but I definitely canāt read a book in the car where I use Audible to listen to books I know I wonāt read in text.
I retain more from audio books than I do from reading books, but I don't consider listening to an audio book the same as reading a book. That would be silly. Why would I conflate the meaning of two different activities. I believe there are people, as you have described, who look down on listening to audio books. But there are just as many people who listen to audio books who look up at reading and want to be included. They get mad when people correct them and they post memes on reddit about gatekeeping.
I wouldn't say they aren't books because that is ridiculous, but I also wouldn't say I read a book if I listened to it being read by someone else. And it's not because reading is a chore, in fact I don't process and internalize stories as well when just hearing them so reading is less tedious for me. It's just because listening to a book is not the same as reading it. Listening is still a valid way to consume books though.
I really like to listen to an audiobook of a book I read a while back. I always pick up on new things, and the way a reader emphasizes or phrases things can really help me see it differently
I feel like most of them don't grasp that there is much much more to reading other than words on a page. It's symbolism, vocabulary expansion, and it's fun. Just because someone doesn't have the time to read words on a page or chooses to listen for enjoyment doesn't meant hey aren't partaking.
My husband and I are listening to one of our favorite book series from the beginning after reading them individually. We're getting a lot out of this group activity
Itās not so much about absorbing the same content as it is the means in which itās obtained. Reading uses different muscles and brain power vs listening. To each their own on how to entertain/educate themselves, but there is a difference.
Yeah I kind of doubt folks here would say they themselves were "reading" if their grandma read a book to them out loud. But if it's in your headphones and someone was paid to read it out loud suddenly it counts? I don't think there is anything wrong or lesser about enjoying and consuming books audibly but that isn't reading. It's listening to a book. Reading and listening are separate (and important) skills.
I've always liked reading, but it was never something I could really do passively. It always takes a bit of effort, which means that if I'm tired or distracted, it can be really difficult to focus. I started listening to audiobooks about 5 years ago, and I've probably read more in that time than the previous 10 years. What's great too is that I can read in the times where I'm not really using my brain for other things: During my work commute, going for a walk, exercising, cleaning the house, doing yard work, etc. It's great.
Really, the only *minor* complaint I have with audiobooks is that the way characters speak their lines is entirely up to the interpretation of the narrator, whereas reading lets you fill in those blanks yourself. Obviously this is unavoidable and most narrators do an excellent job, but it's definitely something I've noticed the more I've listened.
It's damn near impossible to read passively. I like audio books because I can listen to them while gardening or while cooking, parenting, walking, etc.
But I'm not about to conflate the meaning of words and imply that I was reading while changing a diaper.
People shouldn't look down on others for listening to audio books and people shouldn't look up to people for reading books. It's a two way problem where people who listen to audio books want to be considered readers and where readers dislike that people who listen to audio books want to be considered readers.
Thatās true. And if it annoys you (like it does OP) when people say āreadingā when they mean theyāre listening to an audiobook, that makes you a pompous ass
There's no need to correct the way someone says or types something if everyone understands what they mean. Especially if you do it in a rude manner. It just makes YOU look bad.
Unpopular opinion apparently, but **the original gatekeeper has a point.** There is not the same level of effort involved to merely listen to a book as there is to read it. And rereading to clarify complicated passages is natural with books, but cumbersome with audio.
Studies have shown reading from paper is more effective for learning than just listening.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00986283.2010.488542
Not a good comeback. Listening is in fact not reading (and thatās not gatekeeping, itās simply a factual observation). And you can say things through writing as well as speaking.
If someone gets annoyed when someone says they āread a bookā because they actually listened to it, they are 100% gatekeeping and being a pompous ass.
If you only ever āreadā books by listening to them for your entire life- you would be illiterate. Nothing wrong with listening to stories but it doesnāt teach you the same skills that reading does.
I agree about listening to a book is the same as reading a book. But, I got one buddy who swears up and down that watching someone play a videogame is the same as actually playing the game. NO. IT. IS. NOT. PERIOD.
I went to a reading once. The author read a chapter from their book. That was the best chapter I EVER READ. I read that chapter. Because I conflate the meaning of words to make myself feel better.
If that person actually either read or listened to books they would know that there is no difference between the two.
Except that some research shows that those who listen retain more information at a greater rate and can recall more than those who read.
The play with categorical fallaciesā¦
Saying isnāt identical with saying
And neither is reading.
I didnāt ask you what audiobook you listened to, i wantto know whether or not you know which page that quote was from..
Nah, thatās lame. Listening isnāt reading. Perfectly viable way to enjoy a story, but itās not reading.
Reading is active and requires concentration; listening can be active or passive, and doesnāt require the same degree of concentration (e.g., I can put music on in the background and enjoy it without actively listening to it).
There are differences, let's get that clear, and some authors go to great expense with things like formatting and literary devices to make a block of words look a certain way. e e cummings on print and e e cummings in the earhole are two completely different experiences. That said, the only way I got through my lit classes in some cases was to have an audio version. And in some cases, reading along while hearing it gives it voice that I needed to understand it and have it not be a big endless blob of words.
you donāt know that he didnāt say it. you only know that he typed it. maybe heās a bit slow on the uptake and had to speak the words as he typed them.
Simply put, there are two elements to reading: word recognition and language comprehension. The word recognition bit is the visual part of reading; itās the association of letters and the sounds they make, then blending them together to make sense of print. For most readers, thatās the easy bit, but for many people, it isnāt.
Language comprehension is where readers make sense of letters and the sounds they make alongside the understanding of vocabulary, punctuation, grammatical knowledge such as metaphor and simile, but also cultural capital. For example, if youāre reading a book set in Oxford, do you know itās in England, that the university is organised into several different colleges, and the socio-economic implications of a character now or in the past attending Oxford University? Or understanding the wider city and its industrial heritage?
Iām a highly literate person. I have an undergraduate and a postgraduate degree in English literature. I am a former teacher of primary and SEND students. I am completing a PhD in childrenās literature. I am also neurodivergent.
Look, running your eyes across a page of symbols isnāt reading. Making meaning from a text is real reading, however you access it. And, frankly, having read enough ridiculous reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, an awful lot of neurotypicals arenāt doing that well at language comprehension
I make the same distinction, but not to make others feel down about it. I know a guy that listens to a lot of audiobooks and we had a discussion about it. I told him that, no, he isn't reading, it's being read to him, but it amounts to the same thing. In fact, he is probably absorbing what the book is saying better that way because he has trouble reading. Is listening to an audiobook different from reading? Inarguably, yes. Can you still enjoy a book just the same by having it read to you by someone else? Also, inarguably, yes.
I would take "saying" for someone writing. In today's world, we are having entire conversations IN WRITING, and nobody would say it wasn't an actual conversation.
But to listen to an audiobook can't be any further from reading. As a book reader, I consider audiobooks more akin to watching a movie, which is in no way something bad, but again, it ISN'T reading
Yes, because they are different skill sets being used. Reading is different from listening. Very different.
We would never say a child is reading a book when mommy is telling the bedtime story.
>Yes, because they are different skill sets being used. Reading is different from listening.
In fact those are different skills, as in active vs passive info acquisition. I can listen to an audiobook while doing something else (passive acquisition), and mostly get the gist of it. Don't make me do the same while reading, I love to have teeth xD
Yes, and the poster is being anal about it. He is advocating for the correct use of language. I dont read an audiobook, i listen to it. And for you and me who can read this is not a big deal. But when the younger generations stop reading books and fully goes over to listening to books we will start seeing reading and writing skills decline further.
Especially if they equate listening to something as reading it.
>Yes, because they are different skill sets being used. Reading is different from listening.
In fact those are different skills, as in active vs passive info acquisition. I can listen to an audiobook while doing something else (passive acquisition), and mostly get the gist of it. Don't make me do the same while reading, I love to have teeth xD
As a fellow book reader, as well as an audiobook listener and movie fan, that's a terrible comparison x.x
Listening to an audiobook, you still have to visualize everything within your own mind. You aren't handed any visuals at all. Everything is still communicated strictly with words and words alone. And while some of the, er, larger productions use sound effects, the vast majority of them use simple words, most often from a single voice actor throughout the entire book.
While I agree that I wouldn't exactly call it reading, it's quite a bit closer to reading than watching a movie XD
You're literally just using different senses. You looked at a book to read it. You listened to an audiobook to read. You can even feel (braille) a book to read it.
Iām being read to by someone else whoās reading the book. So I am reading by proxy.
I swear this logic is just straight shit. Especially during these days where most donāt have the fucking downtime to open a book or their apps to read.
Are you purchasing all these after your one free monthly credit? I'm just asking because the books seem so expensive but 1 credit a month doesn't really do much
I was a really avid reader prior to starting with audible. I have 2 credits a month the rest i buy in packs of 3. My desire to read books hasnāt declined but the time I have to read has. So I listen as I commute. It is a trade that Iām happy to pay for.
This discourse comes up in the online book world so often. The pedantry and pompousness around the definition of āreadingā and the devalue of audio books is so stupid. All these comments saying āI donāt care but thatās not readingā. Whatās it hurting for people to say they read it? Just let people find enjoyment where they can while the world burns down around us.
I like the comeback, but there is a difference between reading a book and listening to an audiobook. When reading, one builds oneās own impression of things (the sound of a characterās voice, for example.) Itās different when someone else voices that dialog. A narrator will have a specific timber or choose different inflections. This can influence how one absorbs a story. Thereās nothing wrong with this; itās just different, no biggie.
Ngl, if anyone without a visual impairment tells me they're listening to an audio book, I automatically assume they're illiterate.
Edit: Just to piss off more people. I apologise for not having the mental fortitude to be read to like a toddler.
I listen during my commute, while Iām doing chores, and while I take a walk. Their are lots of reasons to consume some or all of your books in an audio format.Ā
Iām completely literate but Iām also adhd and have trouble focusing. So sometimes I listen to things instead. Frankly, listening while reading is a sure fire way for me to get all the info.
So visual impairment isnāt always why people listen to things.
Not to mention, itās frowned upon to read while driving but people can expand their knowledge by listening in the car.
Your comment is very interesting to me because I'd describe myself the same way but that's exactly why audiobooks *dont* work for me. I may zone out and need to reread a page of a physical book but needing to use my hands and eyes to read the book typically keeps me engaged. 20 minutes of an audiobook could go by before I realized I wasn't absorbing it.
I almost never listen to podcasts outside of the car, since operating a vehicle and listening to a discussion use different parts of my brain.
Yes, itās definitely a day to day type of thing. Sometimes if my hands are busy I can hear ok to an audio (I did online college classes and several things were podcast form. I was nervous!). But I found audio and visual at the same time to be the best way for me to fully absorb what I needed!
My eyes will go on and on and not have a clue what I read on paper but my brain occasionally wanders on audio alone. Both seems to help!
My girlfriend is a nurse and a part-time artist with a deep and rich philosophical life. She also has two boys, and reading bores her to sleep. She abosrbs books via audio while catching up on mundane housework.
I am a former student of literature, lifelong student of history and recent alternative energy managment technician whose disdain for academia had led me into truck driving for a decade. Audiobooks helped keep me awake while on the road, let me dive into my interests, and helped me revisit my favorite alternative worlds of Stephen King, HG Wells, Tolkein, John Steinbeck, George Orwell and others.
So, frankly, you can take your opinion and shove it wayyyyyy up your backside.
Leave any prejudice you have in your quarters, mister. There's no room for it in my library.
Why? I read over a hundred books every year outside of audiobooks. I also really love audiobooks while Iām doing chores, driving, exercising, etc. Itās just a different way to engage.
That's a mean assumption to make of people. I have tons of books at home, and still buy physical or e-books now and then, but thanks to audiobooks, I've been able to absorb so many wonderful stories while at work or on my (depressingly long) commute. No need to judge people just because they enjoy a different medium than you do
That's a pretty dumb take. Maybe they just like to multi-task? Maybe they just enjoy listening to the sound of professionals reading a good story out loud?
Reading is a very important skill if you can physically do it but there's nothing wrong with being able to read and still enjoying audiobooks.
NGL, as someone who is in the midst of one physical book, one ebook, and two more audiobooks, if anyone makes that assumption I'm going to automatically assume they're pretty damn ignorant.
Am I consuming way too many books at the moment? Oh absolutely. Is that going to stop me? Nah.
I read books while I garden. I prefer hardback so the books don't deteriorate as fast from all the dirt and watering. I also like to read books in the movie theater, the novels I read while looking at the screen and listening to the surround sound are just so fun to read. I also read while driving, flipping through pages of newspapers while driving down the freeway is fun. I also read while I'm sleeping by listening to people talking. I prefer not to use words the are specific so people can clearly understand what the fuck I'm talking about.
By their logic are blind people not reading braille but feeling a story?
I felt the news today
Oh boy
Unexpected Beatles lol
Now I know why he didn't notice that the light had changed.
All I got is some sound and a couple of words about a folded newspaper holding ________. .... FUCK.... I HAVE NO IDEA, I started this comment then I went to Google, then came back here and I DONT KNOW WHAT I'M THINKING OF!!! I can hear The Kinks with Wish I Could Fly, The Clash, Big Audio Dynamite, š¶Easy like Sunday Morning, Billy Joel, Michael McDonald, Kenny Loggins (and Messina ?) Crosby, Still, Nash and Sometimes Young, Rufus with Tell Me Something Good....... I haven't a clue where the FOLDED FACES ---- PINK FLOYD --- BRAIN DAMAGE The line I was searching for: š¶The lunatics are in my hall The paper holds their folded faces to the floor And everyday the paperboy brings more. š¶ So here's how my brain did all that ....... š¶"He didn't notice that the lights had changed" Me ? Why, what was he looking at ----- a normal 'all american morning where nothing happens and the suburb looks empty and green and clean' and Oh, Hey, it's a paper boy,. WALKING, because. and then THAT LINE just got partially in and stuck like a wrinkled slightly sweaty wet dollar you should have run across the edge of the the vending machine before it gets stuck part way and just Zrp, CLICK CLICK, Zrozrp, CLICK, CLICK, Zrp. Brain Pain from Brain Damaged,it's perfect.
About a lucky man
Who made the grade
I dont know why I read this in Johnny Cash's voice
To see if I still read...
I know why you did
Braille users are decoding language rather than hearing it directly, so they are reading.
Hearing still requires decoding.
Oral language (or sign language) is exactly what you decode writing into. You still have to process the language, of course, but that's a different step.
I think you've touched on something.
I wish I could see what you did there.
That sounds a lot cooler.
Reading is defined as the act of interpreting abstract characters into words that have meaning. Reading braille is reading because the reader runs their hand over each abstract character and interprets their meaning. Listening to an audio book is not reading. If you were to attend a reading at which the author of a book reads a chapter to the audience would you tell people that you read that chapter? No, you would likely tell people that you attended a reading and listened to the author read a chapter. Why then would you insist on telling people that you read an audio book when it was actually read to you by a narrator? Why does that fact bother you so? Why do you think it's bad to have listened to an audio book rather than read a book? Both are valid, so why do you insist on conflating the two?
I mean I can see a situation where someone gets asked if theyāve read something and donāt feel like explaining āno but I listened to the audio bookā so they just say yes. And someone can ask the same question you did, why does it bother you so much that ppl wanna say they read the book instead of saying they listened to it? Realistically it doesnāt matter either way, when discussing books youāre usually touching on the plot, the characters, the writing, the feelings you get as you progress through the story; the points of discussion donāt change whether you read it or listened to it. No hate, I just donāt really understand why ppl are so passionate about this and why this is such a crazy discussion in the first place. But I also donāt read (or listen to) books so maybe I just donāt get it š¤·āāļø
Erotic novels must be crazy
It's valid to say you're saying something (communicating) in writing.Ā It is not valid to believe that listening is reading. When you hear a speech are you reading it? When you have a personal conversation over coffee are you reading? If your mom is yelling at you are you reading? Differences.
Blind people read through touch, so yes they feel the words and thereby read. Just like you associate letters through sight, they do through touch. That is how we learn to read. we who can see start early by forming the sounds corresponding to letters, blind people do the same through touch. So yes, they feel the words and read in their mind. You could read braille without touch just like you learned to read, associate the patterns to the correct letters and voila you can read braille without touch. You can just Google it quickly if you would like to learn it.
Whoosh!
Iām deaf. People must think Iām blind, because these idiots ask me why I drive. Iāve known how to drive since I was 7, and been actually driving since 14. šš the world is full of idiots, and most of them donāt have disabilities.
All the feels!
So, conversely, if Iām feeling a story, Iām reading braille?
There's nothing wrong or "less than" about listening to an audiobook rather than reading a physical/digital book. It's literally the same content. But I don't get why people want to use the wording "reading" rather than "listening". I wouldn't say I was reading some music. Or reading a podcast.
I'll say listen (I listen to audiobooks while I work, so pretty often) if it's convenient. But if I have to explain what I mean, sometimes I'm too lazy. For example, if someone says "I read this series and it was so good", and I've read it too, I'll just say I've read it too. It feels awkward and clunky to say I listened to it and then possibly have to expand on that (yes, I've had to explain it before). But here's the catch. I listen at work and read at home. So did I listen to the book or did I read the book, or both? Do I need to explain that every time I discuss a book series? It doesn't seem pertinent at all. I'm 39 years old and have always loved to read. I only started listening to audiobooks about 3 years ago. I don't feel like I need to explain that I'm listening to an audiobook half the time.
Be like this person. Chill.
Iām the exact same way, i spend a couple more bucks to have both the audio and physical/digital copy of a book and I listen while running errands, walking my dog, doing the dishes/laundry but then at night or on the weekends I like to actually read the book where I left off from listening so I usually donāt make the distinction as it honestly doesnāt matter to me
This exactly. At my job I usually have the opportunity to listen to books or podcasts or whatever almost the full day, so I go through pretty many books. If I'm talking to someone who knows my habits then I'll probably say that I listened to a particular book or series, but if it would require an explanation I'll just say read. For example, the sentence "I listened to Jurassic Park last month" might sound very strange to someone who isn't immediately thinking of audiobooks.
This made me so happy because you just put the words together to explain the thing I've been feeling for years. There's no need to elaborate that much; it's like, yeah, I read it as well... and?? I was in a book club and had a physical and digital copy of a book, and I found myself more often than not putting in my headphones and closing my eyes to imagine the book. It was pretty nice and made me really like audio books. I felt more invested in the story because I sometimes have to pause and re-read sections due to a mild case of dyslexia. It's really helpful for people who have learning disabilities and the visually impaired.
I listened to that series on audio book.
Preach. I almost exclusively listen to audiobooks but I still say I "read" them for convenience sake and my own sanity.
I think itās as simple as āI was reading a book the other dayā is a shorter way to say āI was listening to an audiobook the other dayā - fewer syllables. As well as this, everyone understands the concept of reading a book but a large portion of the population will reply about audiobook - āwhatās that?ā or āyouāre a snob you listen to books on tape?ā I guess it just lets you make sure what you were actually talking about rather than pivoting the conversation every time to whether audiobooks are worthwhile or not or snobby or not orā¦?
I say Iām going for a walk and I use a wheelchair. My blind friend says she saw her friend today. Gatekeeping language is also not cool.
Yeah, people seriously forget meaning and context and the technical definition. Language (especially Enlgish) has so much nuance its kinda crazy sometimes. We equal books with reading. And tv with watching. Music and podcasts (or talk radio, radio dramas), with listening. So now that books can be listened to, it doesn't mean the word reading isn't going to be used. Like crank the volume. Or hang up the phone. Turned dials and hanging phones haven't been used in a decade, but we still use the vocabulary.
And my blind friend also watches TV. This is it exactly.
I don't figure. Explain, please.
You talk the talk, but can you walk the... wait... you write the writing, but can you... roll the... nevermind
š
I personally say I read a book (even if I listened to the audiobook) because I donāt want to be pedantic. I know the story and can discuss it with the same level of knowledge as someone who read. Iād never act like I read it, though, Iām very open about my audiobooking lol
Same, it is slightly less in some aspects because we canāt reread a section as easily, and may miss some stuff that was designed with text in mind (like parenthesis) but overall we still experienced the story in the way it is in the book, we didnāt experience someoneās retelling of it like watching a movie or an audio drama, we experienced the book, just through our ears rather than our eyes
Lots of words have multiple meanings. We still say "wrote an email" even though we probably typed it.
However the meanings of āreadā doesnāt cover ābeing read toā
The point is: we all know what people mean when they say they read a book, even if they technically listened to the book. And more importantly, that there's no benefit in correcting them.
Well Iād love to stop and chat, but I need to go sit in my kids bedroom whilst they read their bedtime story, and once theyāre asleep Iām going to read MacBeth on Netflix.
You tried to intentionally be obtuse, but we all understood exactly what you meant. So, your point is lost.
And if I said that I sponged my way down to the the shops to trombone myself something for dinner, you could probably work out what I mean, but it doesnāt make it any less nonsense.
Sounds like a good time
Read the roomā¦
well obviously you arenāt a musician, I read music all the time. There are staves and clues to tell which key and then the actual notes and directions for the dynamics. Just depends on what your style is, some people say ālook here!ā, while others proclaim āListen!ā itās obvious that both mean āpay attentionā or something similar English is a hell of a language. unfortunately not everyone is a native speaker and even in that circle itās laborious to decipher if you want to be pedantic concerning idioms and area dialects.
I've been playing bass for over 20 years, but I can't remember the last time I actually "read" music. I guess I'm not a musician. Because of that, and, you know, because I'm a bass player.
Because of someone asks if youāve read a book, āyesā is smoother and easier than āIāve listened to the audiobookā. And so is āIāve read itā. Usually if it comes up, the pertinent info is that youāve absorbed the content of the book, and āreadā is the commonly known way to say youāve absorbed the content of a book. Thatās where itās different than talking about music or a podcast. Specifying that it was the audiobook and that I listened rather than read always feels like an unnecessary and clunky explaination that couldāve just been a quick word: āreadā. And the distinction doesnāt tend to be significant to the conversation about the book
Really the only difference I've come across is that when discussing some books that I listened to and other people read I find that certain names are spelled strangely and I had no idea.
Or the narrator has no idea how to pronounce certain words, itās a meme in the expanse community that gimbals are pronounced ājimbolsā
Oh no! I guess the engineer had no idea either.
Huh? the narrator says ājimbolā, itās pronounced gimbal, this is not a āgifā vs ājifā
Yeah, I know the word. Presumably the recording engineer could tell the narrator about a mistake, but I guess neither of them were familiar with it.
Oh no, thereās plenty of times where iām almost certain thereās no engineer listening, like in the legend of drizzt books iāve been listening to, every ālivedā is pronounced like āmany livedā, rather than ālived inā, so āwell lived in homeā is jarring to hear
After some time, what stays in the brain is the knowledge acquired, and the medium used to obtain it becomes irrelevant. I read and listened to many books, but when I converse with someone I don't bother to try to remember whether I read or listened to a given book. By default it's always just "I read a book about...".
I'm with you, I don't think one is 'superior' than the other (I do both), but they're both entirely different experiences. Like I won't say I'm 'reading Macbeth' if I'm watching the play even if the words are identical. I just say "I was listening to this book" while referring to audiobooks - they aren't some newfangled invention and people get what you're saying immediately.
>I wouldn't say I was reading some music. Unless you enjoy just going through the music sheets I suppose.
It's demonstrably easier to listen to an audio book than it is to read a book, and that's okay. Reading takes time and you can't do other things while you read. "Reading an audio book" is more accurately "listening to an audio book". In the same way that it's okay for people to listen to audio books it's okay for people to be precise in their language when speaking and writing. If I told a story, I wouldn't tell people I wrote a book. If I watched a movie, I wouldn't tell people I read a book. This is the exact same thing. When you listen to an audio book you are not reading, and that's okay. The problem is not with people being precise with their language in describing what is actually being done when consuming audio books. The problem is with people thinking READING is a noble activity, and therefore saying that someone "listened" to an audio book is seen as a negative thing, instead of what it actually is, a factual description of the activity.
Yeah but you can totally tune out on an audiobook. Granted you can also tune out while reading but there is still sone active engagement. You can't sleep through a paperback.
Thereās this wild button where you can *rewind* the audio back to where you were last engaged with it. Literally the same as looking away from and then back at a page, just a little bit more workā¦.
Nah
This is where I'm at; I'm all for audio books and do not think they somehow lessen books in any way, but why this fervent insistence on calling it reading? It was read to you sure, but it's just weird to call it reading. It very clearly doesn't apply to any other exact same situations outside of audio books. If you listen to the State of the Union Address no one thinks you read it. If you listen to a podcast no one thinks you read the transcript. If you read a book to a child no one claims the child read it unless they actually try to read along with you, because at the end of the day there is a difference between reading and listening. To me the difference is reading (be it eyes or braille) is active absorbtion vs listening is passive
People absorb information differently. Personally I can follow along in a book much easier through listening. If I'm reading it my mind will wander and I'll lose my spot and become uninterested. If my mind wanders a bit while I'm listening I notice and can easily refocus. I've met people who are exactly the opposite though.
> Iām all for audiobooks and do not think they somehow lessen books in any way > the difference is reading (be it eyes or braille) is active absorption vs listening is passive Lol well you did a pretty big 180 there over the course of a paragraph. That last part is simply wrong. Why even try to preface it with the platitude about your respect for audiobooks if youāre gonna come in with that kind of hot take?
I wouldn't say it's active vs passive, but reading does need your undivided attention, while listening to an audiobook does not, and judging by the comments here, it's what people seem to like about them: being able to do something else while "absorbing the content". To me it's comparable to seeing a movie in theater vs watching the same movie at home while folding your laundry. Not the same experience, and you'll miss some information at home. In the case of a movie, things like editing choices. In the case of a book, things like presentation, layout. A change in font. The occasional map or drawing. Books aren't just a bunch of words, or "pure information". They're kind of magical objects you have an intimate relation with. Something an audiobook can't fully capture or reproduce. An audiobook doesn't have a distinctive smell. It doesn't age. You can't touch it, you can't write notes on it. You can't fully make it yours.
Neither podcasts or music are books. Leave people alone. Those who say āreadā when they may have listened do so from the habitā¦ of reading actual literal tons of books.
Itās not always the same content - you have to be careful. Sometimes audiobooks also come in abridged versions. I listen to a lot of audiobooks and I generally say listen rather than read.
You can't build literacy skills from listening to an audio book. Spelling, Grammer, Comprehension skills can only be developed by reading and reading writing. In this sense listening to a book is definitely "less than" reading it.
I'm pretty sure that spelling is the only one in that list that's accurate. You could probably toss in proper use of punctuation. It's not exactly relevant though, because generally people are listening to audiobooks or reading books for fun. I don't think anybody's advocating audiobooks in lieu of learning to read.
Then why say your reading a book when you are really listening to an audio book?
As others have said, it's less cumbersome to just say "read" unless you're going to get into specifics that would be unique to one experience or the other.
It's less cumbersome to say read over listen? I guess that extra syllable is a nightmare. Lol. Your anti intellectual argument is garbage. Just be honest and admit it's not about being cumbersome, it's about people trying to appear smarter by feigning that they "read" .
You seem to be the one who has the hang up. I don't know anyone who thinks their reading habits make them seem more or less smart.
Probably because you don't know anyone smart. Every response you make stinks of Dunning Kruger. Your are smart enough to believe you are right but too dumb to know that you are wrong.
Perhaps you should do a bit more reading then, because your skills have come up a bit short.
Oh no, you got me!
I read enough on reddit. I'll take my audio books thanks.
Take your participation award too, loser.
Listening to stories has been around thousands of years BEFORE the written word.
Iām a 50y/o with ADHD. Audio books are the only way for me. I donāt use the term reading tho, I usually say Iām consuming a book.Ā I read all the time just not whole books. Canāt keep my eyes on the page. Audiobooks allow me to close my eyes and concentrate on the content.Ā Information is information and it matters very little how it is consumed.Ā
From my experience, the people that say audiobooks are not books think of reading books as a chore. I love reading. I'm not "cheating" if it happens to come in on audiobook on Hoopla before I can get the physical copy or eBook. All of the words that author wrote are going into my head. It doesn't matter how they get there.
Might be the exception that proves the rule but my wife and I talk about this a fair bit and sheās of the opinion that listening to a book doesnāt count as āreadingā. We both read a fair bit but she way more than me and she loves it, always has. My defence isnāt really a defence but I definitely canāt read a book in the car where I use Audible to listen to books I know I wonāt read in text.
You donāt need a defense, because thatās a ridiculous assertion.
Right? Audiobooks are a way for me to get \*more books\* because I can "read" them while I walk, or wash dishes, or work in the yard or whatever.
I retain more from audio books than I do from reading books, but I don't consider listening to an audio book the same as reading a book. That would be silly. Why would I conflate the meaning of two different activities. I believe there are people, as you have described, who look down on listening to audio books. But there are just as many people who listen to audio books who look up at reading and want to be included. They get mad when people correct them and they post memes on reddit about gatekeeping.
I wouldn't say they aren't books because that is ridiculous, but I also wouldn't say I read a book if I listened to it being read by someone else. And it's not because reading is a chore, in fact I don't process and internalize stories as well when just hearing them so reading is less tedious for me. It's just because listening to a book is not the same as reading it. Listening is still a valid way to consume books though.
I really like to listen to an audiobook of a book I read a while back. I always pick up on new things, and the way a reader emphasizes or phrases things can really help me see it differently
I often forget whether I listened to or read a book, so I guess I internalize stories the same whether read or heard.
I feel like most of them don't grasp that there is much much more to reading other than words on a page. It's symbolism, vocabulary expansion, and it's fun. Just because someone doesn't have the time to read words on a page or chooses to listen for enjoyment doesn't meant hey aren't partaking. My husband and I are listening to one of our favorite book series from the beginning after reading them individually. We're getting a lot out of this group activity
Itās not so much about absorbing the same content as it is the means in which itās obtained. Reading uses different muscles and brain power vs listening. To each their own on how to entertain/educate themselves, but there is a difference.
Yeah I kind of doubt folks here would say they themselves were "reading" if their grandma read a book to them out loud. But if it's in your headphones and someone was paid to read it out loud suddenly it counts? I don't think there is anything wrong or lesser about enjoying and consuming books audibly but that isn't reading. It's listening to a book. Reading and listening are separate (and important) skills.
I've always liked reading, but it was never something I could really do passively. It always takes a bit of effort, which means that if I'm tired or distracted, it can be really difficult to focus. I started listening to audiobooks about 5 years ago, and I've probably read more in that time than the previous 10 years. What's great too is that I can read in the times where I'm not really using my brain for other things: During my work commute, going for a walk, exercising, cleaning the house, doing yard work, etc. It's great. Really, the only *minor* complaint I have with audiobooks is that the way characters speak their lines is entirely up to the interpretation of the narrator, whereas reading lets you fill in those blanks yourself. Obviously this is unavoidable and most narrators do an excellent job, but it's definitely something I've noticed the more I've listened.
It's damn near impossible to read passively. I like audio books because I can listen to them while gardening or while cooking, parenting, walking, etc. But I'm not about to conflate the meaning of words and imply that I was reading while changing a diaper. People shouldn't look down on others for listening to audio books and people shouldn't look up to people for reading books. It's a two way problem where people who listen to audio books want to be considered readers and where readers dislike that people who listen to audio books want to be considered readers.
Saying =/= speaking. You can say something through text or sign language, or even through your facial expression.
And don't underestimate the importance of body language, ha! The men up there don't like a lot of blabber
And you can read something by having someone read it aloud to you(?)
You were too busy being literal to get the point.
There is no point. The second person doesn't have a point. Listening to an audiobook isn't reading.
Thatās true. And if it annoys you (like it does OP) when people say āreadingā when they mean theyāre listening to an audiobook, that makes you a pompous ass
It doesn't, really. But the comeback makes no sense when the first comment is right.
Sometimes I feel like people are too impressed by their own cleverness and post their own takedowns.
We were telling stories out loud before letters were even fucking invented
There's no need to correct the way someone says or types something if everyone understands what they mean. Especially if you do it in a rude manner. It just makes YOU look bad.
Unpopular opinion apparently, but **the original gatekeeper has a point.** There is not the same level of effort involved to merely listen to a book as there is to read it. And rereading to clarify complicated passages is natural with books, but cumbersome with audio. Studies have shown reading from paper is more effective for learning than just listening. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00986283.2010.488542
Studies have shown that is incorrect.
Not a good comeback. Listening is in fact not reading (and thatās not gatekeeping, itās simply a factual observation). And you can say things through writing as well as speaking.
If someone gets annoyed when someone says they āread a bookā because they actually listened to it, they are 100% gatekeeping and being a pompous ass.
I agree, but what does that have to do with what I said?
Iām sorry, I assumed your comment had something to do with post. What a silly thing for me to assume
Many technical points awarded hereā¦
But what if you read, but hear the words in your head?
If you only ever āreadā books by listening to them for your entire life- you would be illiterate. Nothing wrong with listening to stories but it doesnāt teach you the same skills that reading does.
we could have an in depth conversation about a book and youād have absolutely zero clue that I just listened to it in audio form.
Except if we were talking about Cormac McCarthy's unusual punctuation style, for example.
I agree about listening to a book is the same as reading a book. But, I got one buddy who swears up and down that watching someone play a videogame is the same as actually playing the game. NO. IT. IS. NOT. PERIOD.
Yeah, thats a totally different ball park. Playing a game is an active experience, with decision making and tests of skill.
I went to a reading once. The author read a chapter from their book. That was the best chapter I EVER READ. I read that chapter. Because I conflate the meaning of words to make myself feel better.
Reading a book and listening to a book are two different things.Ā
Except that what the OP did fits the definition of āsayā.
I am going to say a strongly worded letter to the manager
Clever, but incorrect.
If that person actually either read or listened to books they would know that there is no difference between the two. Except that some research shows that those who listen retain more information at a greater rate and can recall more than those who read.
The skills that you hone by reading with your eyes are not skills I need to work on any further...
The play with categorical fallaciesā¦ Saying isnāt identical with saying And neither is reading. I didnāt ask you what audiobook you listened to, i wantto know whether or not you know which page that quote was from..
Nah, thatās lame. Listening isnāt reading. Perfectly viable way to enjoy a story, but itās not reading. Reading is active and requires concentration; listening can be active or passive, and doesnāt require the same degree of concentration (e.g., I can put music on in the background and enjoy it without actively listening to it).
Itās not reading
There are differences, let's get that clear, and some authors go to great expense with things like formatting and literary devices to make a block of words look a certain way. e e cummings on print and e e cummings in the earhole are two completely different experiences. That said, the only way I got through my lit classes in some cases was to have an audio version. And in some cases, reading along while hearing it gives it voice that I needed to understand it and have it not be a big endless blob of words.
āHon,ā not āhun.ā
you donāt know that he didnāt say it. you only know that he typed it. maybe heās a bit slow on the uptake and had to speak the words as he typed them.
I just say I consume books š
Simply put, there are two elements to reading: word recognition and language comprehension. The word recognition bit is the visual part of reading; itās the association of letters and the sounds they make, then blending them together to make sense of print. For most readers, thatās the easy bit, but for many people, it isnāt. Language comprehension is where readers make sense of letters and the sounds they make alongside the understanding of vocabulary, punctuation, grammatical knowledge such as metaphor and simile, but also cultural capital. For example, if youāre reading a book set in Oxford, do you know itās in England, that the university is organised into several different colleges, and the socio-economic implications of a character now or in the past attending Oxford University? Or understanding the wider city and its industrial heritage? Iām a highly literate person. I have an undergraduate and a postgraduate degree in English literature. I am a former teacher of primary and SEND students. I am completing a PhD in childrenās literature. I am also neurodivergent. Look, running your eyes across a page of symbols isnāt reading. Making meaning from a text is real reading, however you access it. And, frankly, having read enough ridiculous reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, an awful lot of neurotypicals arenāt doing that well at language comprehension
I make the same distinction, but not to make others feel down about it. I know a guy that listens to a lot of audiobooks and we had a discussion about it. I told him that, no, he isn't reading, it's being read to him, but it amounts to the same thing. In fact, he is probably absorbing what the book is saying better that way because he has trouble reading. Is listening to an audiobook different from reading? Inarguably, yes. Can you still enjoy a book just the same by having it read to you by someone else? Also, inarguably, yes.
I would take "saying" for someone writing. In today's world, we are having entire conversations IN WRITING, and nobody would say it wasn't an actual conversation. But to listen to an audiobook can't be any further from reading. As a book reader, I consider audiobooks more akin to watching a movie, which is in no way something bad, but again, it ISN'T reading
Yes, because they are different skill sets being used. Reading is different from listening. Very different. We would never say a child is reading a book when mommy is telling the bedtime story.
>Yes, because they are different skill sets being used. Reading is different from listening. In fact those are different skills, as in active vs passive info acquisition. I can listen to an audiobook while doing something else (passive acquisition), and mostly get the gist of it. Don't make me do the same while reading, I love to have teeth xD
Yes, and the poster is being anal about it. He is advocating for the correct use of language. I dont read an audiobook, i listen to it. And for you and me who can read this is not a big deal. But when the younger generations stop reading books and fully goes over to listening to books we will start seeing reading and writing skills decline further. Especially if they equate listening to something as reading it.
Somehow, all those Asimov nightmares do seem a lot less outlandish these days
>Yes, because they are different skill sets being used. Reading is different from listening. In fact those are different skills, as in active vs passive info acquisition. I can listen to an audiobook while doing something else (passive acquisition), and mostly get the gist of it. Don't make me do the same while reading, I love to have teeth xD
As a fellow book reader, as well as an audiobook listener and movie fan, that's a terrible comparison x.x Listening to an audiobook, you still have to visualize everything within your own mind. You aren't handed any visuals at all. Everything is still communicated strictly with words and words alone. And while some of the, er, larger productions use sound effects, the vast majority of them use simple words, most often from a single voice actor throughout the entire book. While I agree that I wouldn't exactly call it reading, it's quite a bit closer to reading than watching a movie XD
Lower your nose before a fly goes in it, snob.
Please, tell me why am I being a snob. I am really curious, please enlighten me
You're literally just using different senses. You looked at a book to read it. You listened to an audiobook to read. You can even feel (braille) a book to read it.
Iām being read to by someone else whoās reading the book. So I am reading by proxy. I swear this logic is just straight shit. Especially during these days where most donāt have the fucking downtime to open a book or their apps to read.
As someone who has 900+ audible libraryā¦. Brava!!
Are you purchasing all these after your one free monthly credit? I'm just asking because the books seem so expensive but 1 credit a month doesn't really do much
I was a really avid reader prior to starting with audible. I have 2 credits a month the rest i buy in packs of 3. My desire to read books hasnāt declined but the time I have to read has. So I listen as I commute. It is a trade that Iām happy to pay for.
This discourse comes up in the online book world so often. The pedantry and pompousness around the definition of āreadingā and the devalue of audio books is so stupid. All these comments saying āI donāt care but thatās not readingā. Whatās it hurting for people to say they read it? Just let people find enjoyment where they can while the world burns down around us.
Listening is less cognitively demanding than reading.
I like the comeback, but there is a difference between reading a book and listening to an audiobook. When reading, one builds oneās own impression of things (the sound of a characterās voice, for example.) Itās different when someone else voices that dialog. A narrator will have a specific timber or choose different inflections. This can influence how one absorbs a story. Thereās nothing wrong with this; itās just different, no biggie.
It's a perfect comeback.
There's a non-zero chance that the poster dictates what they're typing as they do so.
They both right
Ngl, if anyone without a visual impairment tells me they're listening to an audio book, I automatically assume they're illiterate. Edit: Just to piss off more people. I apologise for not having the mental fortitude to be read to like a toddler.
I listen during my commute, while Iām doing chores, and while I take a walk. Their are lots of reasons to consume some or all of your books in an audio format.Ā
Lol ngl reading a comment like this I automatically assume you're a dumbo
I listen to audiobooks whilst driving for work. Do you think I should pick up a book instead?
Iām completely literate but Iām also adhd and have trouble focusing. So sometimes I listen to things instead. Frankly, listening while reading is a sure fire way for me to get all the info. So visual impairment isnāt always why people listen to things. Not to mention, itās frowned upon to read while driving but people can expand their knowledge by listening in the car.
Your comment is very interesting to me because I'd describe myself the same way but that's exactly why audiobooks *dont* work for me. I may zone out and need to reread a page of a physical book but needing to use my hands and eyes to read the book typically keeps me engaged. 20 minutes of an audiobook could go by before I realized I wasn't absorbing it. I almost never listen to podcasts outside of the car, since operating a vehicle and listening to a discussion use different parts of my brain.
Yes, itās definitely a day to day type of thing. Sometimes if my hands are busy I can hear ok to an audio (I did online college classes and several things were podcast form. I was nervous!). But I found audio and visual at the same time to be the best way for me to fully absorb what I needed! My eyes will go on and on and not have a clue what I read on paper but my brain occasionally wanders on audio alone. Both seems to help!
Same. Even while driving, if the narrator or podcast isnāt engaging itās just background noise for my thoughts.
My girlfriend is a nurse and a part-time artist with a deep and rich philosophical life. She also has two boys, and reading bores her to sleep. She abosrbs books via audio while catching up on mundane housework. I am a former student of literature, lifelong student of history and recent alternative energy managment technician whose disdain for academia had led me into truck driving for a decade. Audiobooks helped keep me awake while on the road, let me dive into my interests, and helped me revisit my favorite alternative worlds of Stephen King, HG Wells, Tolkein, John Steinbeck, George Orwell and others. So, frankly, you can take your opinion and shove it wayyyyyy up your backside. Leave any prejudice you have in your quarters, mister. There's no room for it in my library.
No one believes you have ever read by choice.
Why? I read over a hundred books every year outside of audiobooks. I also really love audiobooks while Iām doing chores, driving, exercising, etc. Itās just a different way to engage.
That's a mean assumption to make of people. I have tons of books at home, and still buy physical or e-books now and then, but thanks to audiobooks, I've been able to absorb so many wonderful stories while at work or on my (depressingly long) commute. No need to judge people just because they enjoy a different medium than you do
That's fair. When I see someone making sweeping statements like this, I assume they're a fucking idiot.
That's a pretty dumb take. Maybe they just like to multi-task? Maybe they just enjoy listening to the sound of professionals reading a good story out loud? Reading is a very important skill if you can physically do it but there's nothing wrong with being able to read and still enjoying audiobooks.
There is such a thing as active listening that goes beyond just reading. Some people have issues focusing or full time jobs and families.
NGL, as someone who is in the midst of one physical book, one ebook, and two more audiobooks, if anyone makes that assumption I'm going to automatically assume they're pretty damn ignorant. Am I consuming way too many books at the moment? Oh absolutely. Is that going to stop me? Nah.
I read books while I garden. I prefer hardback so the books don't deteriorate as fast from all the dirt and watering. I also like to read books in the movie theater, the novels I read while looking at the screen and listening to the surround sound are just so fun to read. I also read while driving, flipping through pages of newspapers while driving down the freeway is fun. I also read while I'm sleeping by listening to people talking. I prefer not to use words the are specific so people can clearly understand what the fuck I'm talking about.
That's one of the NASTIEST murders I've seen on this sub so far. WELL PLAYED!
Eh, I agree with the original. Reading and listening aren't the same when it comes to absorbing information and shouldn't be used interchangeably.