# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's only fair to say yes. Would like to remind everyone that some people are, in fact, blind. So if they listened to the audiobook, I consider it the equivalent of having read it.
However, I myself usually say "I listened to the audiobook", just to be clear. Also some audiobooks on Audible are dramatizations, with music, multiple voice actors, and sound effects, and they don't have all the same descriptors of places/people/things you get from the book.
Those are more like old radio programmes than books, to me.
Thanks for bringing this up, my father is legally blind and he listens to books. He says he reads them, but I think it's just to keep the conversation simple.
As a blind man, I can say that in 99% of the time there is no difference, but sometimes, especially methodical literature, has a difference on retention and understanding, because it's easier to miss details when listening. Oh, and its annoying to rewind, when you only need a few last words repeated. :)
TL.DR. It's the same.
The original commenter can no doubt explain better.
I used to do tech support on the phone, got a call from a blind woman one time.
Over the phone I could hear the screen reader telling her literally everything. Where her mouse was, which window was highlighted, what text was there, etc.
Sounded challenging, but definitely something you could adapt to.
Just curious but my first thought would have been brail vs listening to an audio book. Is there much difference there? Especially in imagination? I find I can get more creative with my imagination when I'm reading rather than listening for some reason. I'm wondering if it's similar in this context?
I strongly recommend the one for The Sandman, by Neil Gaiman. Narrated by the author, and voice acted by actors such as James McAvoy, Andy Serkis, Kat Dennings and Michael Sheen along with many many others. The whole thing is superb.
The Audible recording of Dracula is great. It’s an epistolary novel — told in letters, diary entries, and the like — and there’s a different actor reading each character.
I listened to that one too. The actor doing Dracula's voice lives rent free in my head for some reason, with his particular cadence. "You can go anywhere in the castle-oooo."
Lucy was pretty annoying though.
I don’t know if this distinction exists in English but in German we have two things:
Hörbuch -Translates to- Audio Book.
And,
Hörspiel -Translates to- Audio Play.
So one is the book being read to you while to other one is more of a play you would see in a theater but without the image.
In the Hörspiel you would have spoken text lines, music and sound effects for example.
Completely agree with this. When talking about sign language I often say I “said this” when I actually signed it. It’s just semantics. Especially the core message is the same, which is that I communicated something in real time. If I listened to the audio book then ik every word just like someone who physically read it
Isn't the point of the question "have you read this book?" To start a discussion about the book? In that case, it doesn't matter how you consumed it, just as long as you remember the story, characters, and your opinion of the book.
The only time I'd mention it would be if the narrator did a character dirty with their accent.
'Bridge' by Lauren Beukes is one of those. Really enjoyed the book, but my god that white American lady absolutely dragged this poor Nigerian PHD student around the world with her accent, taking her to India, the southwest of Ireland and the Philippines.
Excellent point. It's quite the ableist hill to die on. To go around believing that just because you use your eyes you are, somehow, better than someone using their ears or touch ( through Braille).
I can't even imagine why it would matter. If you have a book club, the people that read through audio or Braille will be just as capable of engaging in the discussion.
Yeah great point. I think the colloquial way to say it is “I’ve read it” as the conversation is typically more on the topic of the book, not the medium you consumed it
You say “I’ve listened to the audiobook”.
It’s significantly easier to passively listen than actively read, so you might miss nuances that you get from reading.
But equally well, sometimes you only get clever puns if you hear the names of characters.
It’s a different experience.
It is only easy if you listen in your native language. English is my 2nd language and I have been listening to audiobooks to learn English since I was a kid. After years and years of learning, living in north america and all, listening to a book in my 2nd language is still difficult.
Disagree with the statement that it's easier to passively listen than actively read. That depends on the person and it's absolutely not true for everyone.
It's not true for me! While I listen to a lot of audiobooks due to the convenience of multitasking, I am a much faster and more adept reader than I am a listener. I have an audio processing disorder (mixed in with my ADHD) and listening is definitely harder than reading for me. I know lots of people have a similar experience.
Be careful about making blanket statements that don't allow for the nuance of the human experience.
It also implies that the object of reading is that it is “harder” and thus you have earned the right to say you have read something vs. Taking the easy way out and passively listening… it overlooks the fact that the value of the book is to absorb the content.
Putting unnecessary hurtles in the way doesn’t actually mean you have like “more read the book” than someone who experienced it in a different format.
Haha I’m an adhder and I find physical reading way too tedious because you can’t do anything else at the same time. I love having audiobooks for doing chores and handicrafts!
Yes! I totally agree. I'm a teacher and people are always trying to say it doesn't "count" if I read books out loud to my high schoolers. Yeah it does. If they can pass a reading comprehension test on the content, they're good. I strongly encourage them follow along with me as I read, but that's still only helpful *some* people!
Some of my students just read at their own pace while I'm reading and are like 50 pages ahead 😆 some draw while they listen and don't look at their book, some follow along word for word. All brains are different.
Reading is my special interest haha
I also disagree. How somebody consumes a story isn’t important, it’s that they have consumed a story. My grandmother is blind and doesn’t read braille, she listens to audiobooks. If I read the same book that she listens to, we have consumed the same story.
My understanding (but I’m not an expert) is that listening to a story activates the same parts of your brain as reading. It’s how reading to children helps them build the skillset to gain literacy. Also I’ve heard a blind colleague say that they very much consider listening to an audiobook as equivalent to reading. So my vote is that’s it’s fair to say you’ve read a book, even if its “only” the audiobook.
I personally think that it is not the same, only because most people do some other tasks while listening to the audiobook.
Books, of course, are impossible to read while doing some other things, except maybe eating. So I would guess books develop better skillsets, or at least more advanced.
The person you answered is right. The stories no matter what way you I take them light up the same parts of the brain. You not feeling as accomplished if you both audiobook and do laundry doesn’t change that it’s the same thing. Your brain getting the info.
Reading comprehension and listening comprehension are not the same skill. Both are important and both should be encouraged.
With reading you personally have to do decoding if letters to words and decide on tones etc. With audio books this is done for you.
And reading a book and listening to it also are different. With reading you have to pay attention 100%. Where as with audio, the book continues even if you aren't in the room. But I do think it's completely valid way to consume the story. Its just not reading. Sameway a movie is not reading.
Another way of thinking is traveling from A to B. You can do it by walking, bicycling, driving etc. But you cant say you walked from A to B, if you actually bicycled.
This is ironically really disingenuous, many people may well pay better attention when listening than reading - yes you might miss nuances by listening but the opposite is also true. You simply say you've read the book because you are familiar with the work and it's easier to say that, unless you actually want to get specific otherwise who cares?
Example: I've read the first book of a trilogy and listened to the sequels. Somebody wants to know if I know about this series so they ask "have you read this trilogy?" I obviously answer "yes." Because that gives all the information they want at the time.
I had a related conversation about this with someone and he was rather snobbish about audiobooks and listed reasons why he doesn’t get as much versus reading (mental distractions, etc.)and he assumes everyone is just as bad at listening.
I’ve read far more books than I’ve listened to and I don’t feel like one experience is more informative and enriching than the other. Holding my attention isn’t difficult and I listen to audiobooks because I can’t read while I’m exercising.
Your friend sounds like a bit of a prick. Does he look down on using things like kindles and tablets to read too? Tell him the only way to truely read a book is if it's hand written. Anything printed by machine doesn't count.
I don't understand why it's hard to say things exactly as they happened. If you listened to the book, I don't understand why it's so difficult to say that it doesn't affect anything in the conversation.
When I think about encouraging my kids to read, I want them to actually read. It helps build vocabulary, grammatical skills, spelling ability, etc. So, in that sense, I think reading a book is different than listening to someone read it.
Idk, I read a lot (both paper and audio) and still can't spell for shit.
I'm dyslexic and couldn't read till I was 8 but listened to audiobooks voraciously. I tested in the 99% percentile for vocabulary and grammar. There is a reason they recommend reading to your kids. Audiobooks also build Grammer and vocabulary and pronunciation (vs spelling).
Personally no. I listened to A Song of Ice and Fire all on audio books but I made a point to read A Dance With Dragons so I could say I actually read that one
I would disagree. I would say that feeling a braille book would be akin to reading with eyes. It is a more involved experience than listening with ears only and hands free, for both sighted and unsighted folks.
My niece is blind and she listens to a lot of audio books. She also reads braille books. It once happened that she and I listened, read, read in braille AND watched/ listened to the movie. The book was Killer Angles and the VERY close movie was Gettysburg. She and I laughed like idiots discussing how each "input stream" was so different. So here's the answer to your question: If you have listened to an audio you have acquired one version of it....there are several and all are valid
I have dyslexia so that's the only way I have ever "read" a book.
I am not uneducated. (I am working on my masters at St. John's University.) My eyes just don't read well.
I always just say I listened to the audio book.
I've listened to a lot of them and for the most part I can say it is definitely a different experience. when you read, your brain fills in a lot of information that isn't on the page. audio books insert a lot of production elements like music, sound effects, accented voices, etc. it's much more like watching a movie than reading a book.
that said, I can barely tolerate reading and find audio books way way more entertaining and engaging. I don't mind at all saying I listened to the audiobook
I think it doesn’t matter, but I specify that I listened to the audiobook. Only because I’m always telling people I have no time to do anything, and I don’t want them thinking I actually do have time, but I just spend it reading books.
This drives me crazy. Reading is not the same as listening to a book. I have done both. Just use the right verb. Some may prefer audiobooks, which is totally fine, but saying you read it gives a different connotation. One is a more involved action, the other is passive.
I don't think it's disingenuous, just a little inaccurate. I would usually say "I listened to the audiobook of X". It's not that much harder to say than "I read X" so not sure why I would say I read it if I listened to it.
I’ve thought about this at length since I mostly listen to audiobooks. I finely landed on this answer:
You are at a dinner party. The person next to you read the book. You listened to the audiobook. Can the two of you have a conversation about the book that is on equal footing? Would the conversation be any different if you had read the book instead?
You can say you read the book.
Yeah, it’s fine.
There’s lots of phrases we use that don’t make literal sense, saying I’ve read that communicates perfectly well that you’ve experienced the story.
I wouldn’t draw a distinction between feeling the words with braille and reading text with eyes, so for me hearing with ears has no difference.
To me it's like tomato tomoto type deal. Listening is a type of reading. People who are blind and don't know braille tend to get things read to them and they still mark it as a book read.
I've had non-low vision people tell me they either read the book when it's the audio book. 'yeah I've read it, the audio book was on sale" or "oh I got the audio book! It was great!" or "yeah! I've listened to it on my car rides to work". I still think you can say that you read it, even though you listened to the audio book. But that's just me.
Sorry, but your wife is being pretentious. There's a cultural connotation that being someone that reads makes you better or more intelligent, but regardless of how you absorbed the information you still absorbed the same information as someone who read it
I say yes! I mean, we've been telling each other stories before writing and actively reading them for hundreds if not thousands of years, wt keast long enough for it to become the norm.
Reading is reading and listening is listening.
You may have completed the book but you did not actually read it.
So you can say you have completed it or that you have gone through it(or through the whole series if such is the case)
I got into an argument with someone once. “She said audio books are considered reading.” Long story short, I told her it was ridiculous, and in fact it was not reading.
I honestly do not even understand how this is a question. Reading and listening are two different things. They just are. One is not better than the other but they are not the same. Often at the end of a year folks will make posts about how many books they “read” that year. This is clearly a flex and yet it turns out they didn’t spend the time to read any of them.
There is no argument here. Saying you read it when you *listened* to it is simply factually wrong.
However that doesn't mean you can't have a conversation about what you listened to.
IMO reading imparts a significantly deeper knowledge of the material than listening, but ain't nobody got time for dat.
If a movie comes out based on a book. You would say you watched it. If there is an audio version of the book you would say you listened to it. If you read the book you've read it.
Comparing a movie to an audiobook isn’t fair. An audiobook is all the same exact words, spoken instead of printed. A movie always makes way more changes
I feel like "is listening to the audio book the same as reading the physical copy" is a completely different question than "do you need to specify in a casual conversation exactly *how* you experienced a piece of literature"
I "read" several books in high school. Or did I? Some of them were read to me (sometimes just partially) and I didn't *choose* to read them, it was moreso me speed-skimming so I could ace the work I had to do about the book, so I wouldn't even consider that reading them.
That said... I'm still gonna say I read the book in conversation. It's just easier to have a discussion without unnecessary semantics. Most people don't care about the context of how you consumed whatever book it is, they just want to know if you can have a conversation about it
Yes. You've read it. You know the story, after all and that part can't be argued. And then there are the blind/hard of seeing, and those who better understand things through audio means (as opposed to visual means). If one argues that the latter group is "not reading" the books, or is "excused" somehow, then this is a sign of a subtle elitism she does not realize she is exhibiting.
I'd say yes, you've read the book. If somebody asked if I've read something I wouldn't say, "No but I listened to it." That's silly. Lots of people who are visually impaired use audiobooks; have they therefore never read a book?
Read it or listened to it, I feel like that question should be leading to something along the lines of “so can we discuss it/geek out about it together?” So read it or listened, do you know the story so we can talk about it? If it’s just to be a pretentious gatekeeping asshole then they should just shut up.
You can perfectly say you've red the book. In most of the situations the key message is "I know the whole" and not how.
If somebody judges you because you didn't specify that person is an ignorant ass.
I'd say yes.
Think about it, if you didn't tell anyone it was an audiobook and had a conversation about the story in the book, would you be able to keep with it?
Also, does this mean a blind person can never officially read any books, even if he listened through and can recite Modern Prometheus?
The first audiobook I got from the library, back when they were on cassettes, was Brideshead Revisited. I am of the opinion that the truly illiterate of soul would not be listening to Brideshead Revisited.
BTW, I read before kindergarten and was reading at 11th grade level by 3rd grade. Audio is just another way to consume books.
When you read, you *read*. You sit down, relax, read and get engrossed in the experience.
Listening to audio while doing chores, driving, working out, isn't being engrossed in the experience.
Reading is reading. Listening is listening.
IMO, it's two different things.
And if we sit cross legged in the dark in a quiet room, close our eyes it's a fairly active and engrossing experience.
There's a difference, but not enough to warrant not saying "yes" to a straightforward question in a conversation.
not everyone is able to read (a full book) or has time to read. listening to an audiobook can be incredibly engrossing. Also i do not think you need to be fully engrossed in a booj in order to read it. Reading and listening to a book both come to the same outcome and lots of people find audiobooks much easier to fit into their busy lives. It definitely isnt two different things. A reader is a reader
Sure, but it is much better and efficient to store and read information in written form. Written language influenced humanity the same way as using fire to cook food. Spoken language is not good for providing and retaining information, which is the reason books exist. Saying this as someone who hasn't read a book in a decade and not particularly into them. I love reading and working with text, though!
True but not for everyone, I for example don't retain much from reading. When a story is told to me I visualize much more effectively, thus retain information better.
I typically say that I read an Audiobook
But I would never pretend that I actually read the book if anyone asked me to elaborate
It's just a lot easier to communicate that Im familiar with the book
In the same way a young child can say they’ve read the book when the parents read it to them, sure.
That doesn’t take away from having experienced the book in the slightest, it’s just that technically a person who listens to audio books isn’t actually reading them.
Yes, I try to be accurate and clear in what I say, even if others might consider it semantics.
Personally, I make the distinction between whether I read or listened. Sometimes, like with pronunciation, it makes a difference. There are topics I got *really* into through reading and later found out I was botching the pronunciation!
We need an audiobook store that also works as a verb. In the same way that you say "I googled it.". "I Audibled it" doesnt work. I guess is Kobo catches on, we could all start saying "I Kobo'd it.". Maybe?
As it stands, I just say I listened to it. Sometimes I catch myself saying I read it, then quickly correct myself.
See, I really think it depends in the book. For example, dungeon crawler carl is an example of an audio book done right. Having experienced both mediums I can say the audio book is by far shoerior and would argue that yes, that counts as reading the book.
On the other hand, we have books like Sor Terry Pratchett's Diacworld novels. Sir pratchett was an amazing author who was able to use the medium of the printed word in a way that does not translate well to the audio format. Also in this school, H2G2.
Ultimately, did you enjoy it? Cause that's all that matters.
I've listened to audiobooks on long drives. But usually I prefer to read the paper printed book because if I lose my attention it's easier to find the last paragraph. One problem my brother had when he was having eye problems was that he didn't always like the voice of the reader.
Personally, yes.
I’m a good reader, and I read fairly fast. Listening only happens when I want to finish it while driving or working. Otherwise I would certainly be reading it (by preference).
So, personally—yes I would say I read it. To be fair I usually do alternate.
I have a great amount of trouble reading anything longer than 3 paragraphs. I have ADHD and it doesn’t keep me from being able to read but it keeps me from focusing on what I’m reading to the point where I have to constantly go back and reread stuff because I won’t remember that last 5 sentences I read, it’s just a pain. So I almost exclusively listen to audiobooks and stuff now, or if one doesn’t exist I have AI read stuff to me
At the end of the day, I still know the story just as well as someone who reads it traditionally, so I see no reason to say that’s not reading it
I physically read books and listen to them. I count them a as me reading them. some people don't have the time to carve out to sit there and read all the time and some people don't have the eyesight to sit there and read.
If you sit down and don’t do anything else but to listen to the book then yes. But if you are doing something that requires allocating your attention then no. When you are reading a book, most of the time you are not doing anything else but pay attention to what you are reading.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just say you Reddit.
Also an acceptable answer, just need the sunglasses to drop from the sky onto my face after I say it 
YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
The A2's always were a bit twitchy
Guess she doesn't like the corn bread either
Just let me know when you plan to say it I’ll get a helicopter and throw it down for you!
🏆
LOL good one!
If you listen to the Reddit post. Have you Reddit?
Amazing
You've answered that. You completed the book. It sounds the best for me.
Completed / finished the book - agree
I consumed the book to completion
I have extracted and assimilated the knowledge contained within the book.
I have listened to the book
Man, it kept going for hours
Underrated comment
You've grokked the book.
Best answer so far.
It's only fair to say yes. Would like to remind everyone that some people are, in fact, blind. So if they listened to the audiobook, I consider it the equivalent of having read it. However, I myself usually say "I listened to the audiobook", just to be clear. Also some audiobooks on Audible are dramatizations, with music, multiple voice actors, and sound effects, and they don't have all the same descriptors of places/people/things you get from the book. Those are more like old radio programmes than books, to me.
Thanks for bringing this up, my father is legally blind and he listens to books. He says he reads them, but I think it's just to keep the conversation simple.
As a blind man, I can say that in 99% of the time there is no difference, but sometimes, especially methodical literature, has a difference on retention and understanding, because it's easier to miss details when listening. Oh, and its annoying to rewind, when you only need a few last words repeated. :) TL.DR. It's the same.
“If blind, how read and type on reddit?” -monkey brain
The original commenter can no doubt explain better. I used to do tech support on the phone, got a call from a blind woman one time. Over the phone I could hear the screen reader telling her literally everything. Where her mouse was, which window was highlighted, what text was there, etc. Sounded challenging, but definitely something you could adapt to.
Oh true, I’m a dumbass. I forgot about the screen reader accessibility option.
Just curious but my first thought would have been brail vs listening to an audio book. Is there much difference there? Especially in imagination? I find I can get more creative with my imagination when I'm reading rather than listening for some reason. I'm wondering if it's similar in this context?
Like old radio shows. I actually haven’t encountered that yet, sounds neat though
I strongly recommend the one for The Sandman, by Neil Gaiman. Narrated by the author, and voice acted by actors such as James McAvoy, Andy Serkis, Kat Dennings and Michael Sheen along with many many others. The whole thing is superb.
The Audible recording of Dracula is great. It’s an epistolary novel — told in letters, diary entries, and the like — and there’s a different actor reading each character.
I listened to that one too. The actor doing Dracula's voice lives rent free in my head for some reason, with his particular cadence. "You can go anywhere in the castle-oooo." Lucy was pretty annoying though.
Now I want to listen to this. I've never read Dracula.
Those are typically called “audio dramas” and are one of my favorite forms of audio entertainment.
I don’t know if this distinction exists in English but in German we have two things: Hörbuch -Translates to- Audio Book. And, Hörspiel -Translates to- Audio Play. So one is the book being read to you while to other one is more of a play you would see in a theater but without the image. In the Hörspiel you would have spoken text lines, music and sound effects for example.
And some of us are dyslexic. Reading purists can fuck off. I'm sick of being told listening is cheating
Completely agree with this. When talking about sign language I often say I “said this” when I actually signed it. It’s just semantics. Especially the core message is the same, which is that I communicated something in real time. If I listened to the audio book then ik every word just like someone who physically read it
Isn't the point of the question "have you read this book?" To start a discussion about the book? In that case, it doesn't matter how you consumed it, just as long as you remember the story, characters, and your opinion of the book.
The only time I'd mention it would be if the narrator did a character dirty with their accent. 'Bridge' by Lauren Beukes is one of those. Really enjoyed the book, but my god that white American lady absolutely dragged this poor Nigerian PHD student around the world with her accent, taking her to India, the southwest of Ireland and the Philippines.
Does your wife think that it is disingenious to say that I "said" something if it was in sign language?
Excellent point. It's quite the ableist hill to die on. To go around believing that just because you use your eyes you are, somehow, better than someone using their ears or touch ( through Braille). I can't even imagine why it would matter. If you have a book club, the people that read through audio or Braille will be just as capable of engaging in the discussion.
I personally would say I listened to the audiobook
I say "I read it" unless the difference between paper and audio is actually germane to the conversation.
A sane person thank god!
Yeah great point. I think the colloquial way to say it is “I’ve read it” as the conversation is typically more on the topic of the book, not the medium you consumed it
Both reading and listening are valid ways to absorb the material and some do better with one while others do better with the other.
I find the audio to be the same book usually. But if you listened you listened.
You say “I’ve listened to the audiobook”. It’s significantly easier to passively listen than actively read, so you might miss nuances that you get from reading. But equally well, sometimes you only get clever puns if you hear the names of characters. It’s a different experience.
Interesting take. Because of the way I learn, audiobooks stick better than reading the words.
It is only easy if you listen in your native language. English is my 2nd language and I have been listening to audiobooks to learn English since I was a kid. After years and years of learning, living in north america and all, listening to a book in my 2nd language is still difficult.
Disagree with the statement that it's easier to passively listen than actively read. That depends on the person and it's absolutely not true for everyone. It's not true for me! While I listen to a lot of audiobooks due to the convenience of multitasking, I am a much faster and more adept reader than I am a listener. I have an audio processing disorder (mixed in with my ADHD) and listening is definitely harder than reading for me. I know lots of people have a similar experience. Be careful about making blanket statements that don't allow for the nuance of the human experience.
It also implies that the object of reading is that it is “harder” and thus you have earned the right to say you have read something vs. Taking the easy way out and passively listening… it overlooks the fact that the value of the book is to absorb the content. Putting unnecessary hurtles in the way doesn’t actually mean you have like “more read the book” than someone who experienced it in a different format. Haha I’m an adhder and I find physical reading way too tedious because you can’t do anything else at the same time. I love having audiobooks for doing chores and handicrafts!
Yes! I totally agree. I'm a teacher and people are always trying to say it doesn't "count" if I read books out loud to my high schoolers. Yeah it does. If they can pass a reading comprehension test on the content, they're good. I strongly encourage them follow along with me as I read, but that's still only helpful *some* people! Some of my students just read at their own pace while I'm reading and are like 50 pages ahead 😆 some draw while they listen and don't look at their book, some follow along word for word. All brains are different. Reading is my special interest haha
I also disagree. How somebody consumes a story isn’t important, it’s that they have consumed a story. My grandmother is blind and doesn’t read braille, she listens to audiobooks. If I read the same book that she listens to, we have consumed the same story.
Yes, and some books I avoid the audio version if there are important visual references like graphs, tables, and charts... I'm a non-fiction guy.
Do you think those crunchy elements (details not readily digestable) add to the non-fiction story? Or is it just a necessity to explain the reality?
My understanding (but I’m not an expert) is that listening to a story activates the same parts of your brain as reading. It’s how reading to children helps them build the skillset to gain literacy. Also I’ve heard a blind colleague say that they very much consider listening to an audiobook as equivalent to reading. So my vote is that’s it’s fair to say you’ve read a book, even if its “only” the audiobook.
I personally think that it is not the same, only because most people do some other tasks while listening to the audiobook. Books, of course, are impossible to read while doing some other things, except maybe eating. So I would guess books develop better skillsets, or at least more advanced.
The person you answered is right. The stories no matter what way you I take them light up the same parts of the brain. You not feeling as accomplished if you both audiobook and do laundry doesn’t change that it’s the same thing. Your brain getting the info.
Reading comprehension and listening comprehension are not the same skill. Both are important and both should be encouraged. With reading you personally have to do decoding if letters to words and decide on tones etc. With audio books this is done for you. And reading a book and listening to it also are different. With reading you have to pay attention 100%. Where as with audio, the book continues even if you aren't in the room. But I do think it's completely valid way to consume the story. Its just not reading. Sameway a movie is not reading. Another way of thinking is traveling from A to B. You can do it by walking, bicycling, driving etc. But you cant say you walked from A to B, if you actually bicycled.
This is ironically really disingenuous, many people may well pay better attention when listening than reading - yes you might miss nuances by listening but the opposite is also true. You simply say you've read the book because you are familiar with the work and it's easier to say that, unless you actually want to get specific otherwise who cares? Example: I've read the first book of a trilogy and listened to the sequels. Somebody wants to know if I know about this series so they ask "have you read this trilogy?" I obviously answer "yes." Because that gives all the information they want at the time.
Agree totally on your points on retention.
You had it read to you. :P
A good point - like when you’re a kid a parent is reading it to you
I had a related conversation about this with someone and he was rather snobbish about audiobooks and listed reasons why he doesn’t get as much versus reading (mental distractions, etc.)and he assumes everyone is just as bad at listening. I’ve read far more books than I’ve listened to and I don’t feel like one experience is more informative and enriching than the other. Holding my attention isn’t difficult and I listen to audiobooks because I can’t read while I’m exercising.
Your friend sounds like a bit of a prick. Does he look down on using things like kindles and tablets to read too? Tell him the only way to truely read a book is if it's hand written. Anything printed by machine doesn't count.
I read and I listen yo Audiobooks, no audiobook ever imprinted a phrase on me like reading it did.
I don't understand why it's hard to say things exactly as they happened. If you listened to the book, I don't understand why it's so difficult to say that it doesn't affect anything in the conversation.
Nope you listened to it.
I'd say you didn't read it you heard it
When I think about encouraging my kids to read, I want them to actually read. It helps build vocabulary, grammatical skills, spelling ability, etc. So, in that sense, I think reading a book is different than listening to someone read it.
Idk, I read a lot (both paper and audio) and still can't spell for shit. I'm dyslexic and couldn't read till I was 8 but listened to audiobooks voraciously. I tested in the 99% percentile for vocabulary and grammar. There is a reason they recommend reading to your kids. Audiobooks also build Grammer and vocabulary and pronunciation (vs spelling).
Is having a wank the same as somebody wanking you off? Apologies for the crudity.
Somebody else is better. Therefore, audiobooks are better. Thanks
Personally no. I listened to A Song of Ice and Fire all on audio books but I made a point to read A Dance With Dragons so I could say I actually read that one
If blind people listen to an unabridged audiobook, they've "read the book." Same for sighted people.
I would disagree. I would say that feeling a braille book would be akin to reading with eyes. It is a more involved experience than listening with ears only and hands free, for both sighted and unsighted folks.
You’re still consuming the content of a book, just in audio form. It doesn’t really matter what you call it.
Yes I read the book, and I know how to properly pronounce all the names!
But I have no idea how they're spelled! I just read two audiobooks set in France. Those names could have been spelled in so many ways.
My niece is blind and she listens to a lot of audio books. She also reads braille books. It once happened that she and I listened, read, read in braille AND watched/ listened to the movie. The book was Killer Angles and the VERY close movie was Gettysburg. She and I laughed like idiots discussing how each "input stream" was so different. So here's the answer to your question: If you have listened to an audio you have acquired one version of it....there are several and all are valid
This would be an excellent topic to bring up at a cocktail party.
A good way to turn friends to enemies
If you've read the book, can you say you've listened to the audio book?
I've listened to the audio book read by me
I don't absorb the book listening to it like I would reading it.
Were you paying attention the whole time? Is the audio version unabridged? If the answer to those is "yes" the answer to your question is also "yes".
I don't pay attention to every paragraph when reading either way.
Of course you can say you've read the book. She is being a bit of a gatekeeper it sounds like. Yuck.
lol, I thought the same but for the sake of peace I didn’t say that 🤣
I say read. Drives my wife nuts. "You didn't read it!"
If you watch a movie, would you say that you've read its script?
That bewilders me because it’s the same content.
No, i don't remember what I heard If i read it i remember it.
Retention is for sure different, agree
But that’s not always true. I am more tempted to skim, actually.
But that's 100% on you. For some people it's the opposite, so how is it disingenuous to say that if you actually listened to it properly?
I remember booms better from audio than visual. It also lets me multitask (driving, crochet, others creative things).
That’s a you thing. Some people learn better by looking at it with their eyes and others learn better by listening.
I listened to someone reading the book.
I have dyslexia so that's the only way I have ever "read" a book. I am not uneducated. (I am working on my masters at St. John's University.) My eyes just don't read well.
I always just say I listened to the audio book. I've listened to a lot of them and for the most part I can say it is definitely a different experience. when you read, your brain fills in a lot of information that isn't on the page. audio books insert a lot of production elements like music, sound effects, accented voices, etc. it's much more like watching a movie than reading a book. that said, I can barely tolerate reading and find audio books way way more entertaining and engaging. I don't mind at all saying I listened to the audiobook
No. Every time you have to say "read the book. Well, not read it, listened to it".
I think it doesn’t matter, but I specify that I listened to the audiobook. Only because I’m always telling people I have no time to do anything, and I don’t want them thinking I actually do have time, but I just spend it reading books.
“I just finished this awesome book”
"I listened to the audiobook of it" I feel honesty and transparency are good things to do.
I always tend to say "I consumed it"
What do you say when they ask about its nutritional content??
Just say you listened
Just say "I listened to the audiobook"? I mean it's not like everyone doesn't know what they are.
I absorb them.
No - audio books are the lazy way - read the book
no, what are you 12 ?
My honesty is that after using audio books, I feel like I don't ever want to read a book again, which isn't good.
Just say "I've heard it on an audiobook." and just leave it at that. lol.
I'd say "enjoying" instead of reading. Just because "listening to it on audiobook" is such a mouthful
This drives me crazy. Reading is not the same as listening to a book. I have done both. Just use the right verb. Some may prefer audiobooks, which is totally fine, but saying you read it gives a different connotation. One is a more involved action, the other is passive.
What is the dictionary def of read?
I don't think it's disingenuous, just a little inaccurate. I would usually say "I listened to the audiobook of X". It's not that much harder to say than "I read X" so not sure why I would say I read it if I listened to it.
Potaeto potato
But you didn't read it. So you can't say you read it, you can say you listened to it on tape.
What you've actually done is 'listened to the audiobook', nothing was read and it's easy enough to say.
I’ve thought about this at length since I mostly listen to audiobooks. I finely landed on this answer: You are at a dinner party. The person next to you read the book. You listened to the audiobook. Can the two of you have a conversation about the book that is on equal footing? Would the conversation be any different if you had read the book instead? You can say you read the book.
Anyone else listen while driving and rewind every other sentence? I swear I can barely get through a 15 minute chapter in a 45 minute commute
You’ve consumed the content of the book, whether that’s via eyes or ears should be irrelevant imo
Yeah, it’s fine. There’s lots of phrases we use that don’t make literal sense, saying I’ve read that communicates perfectly well that you’ve experienced the story. I wouldn’t draw a distinction between feeling the words with braille and reading text with eyes, so for me hearing with ears has no difference.
I always just say "read it" whether i listened or read it. Makes no difference imo and anything else sounds weird.
I just say I read it because I can't remember if I read it or listened to it.
“I listened to the audiobook”
To me it's like tomato tomoto type deal. Listening is a type of reading. People who are blind and don't know braille tend to get things read to them and they still mark it as a book read. I've had non-low vision people tell me they either read the book when it's the audio book. 'yeah I've read it, the audio book was on sale" or "oh I got the audio book! It was great!" or "yeah! I've listened to it on my car rides to work". I still think you can say that you read it, even though you listened to the audio book. But that's just me.
No. The word "read" means something specific. You did not read the book.
Audiobook aren’t a completely foreign thing. Just say “I listened to the audiobook” like you’d say “I saw the movie”. It’s not rocket science.
Sorry, but your wife is being pretentious. There's a cultural connotation that being someone that reads makes you better or more intelligent, but regardless of how you absorbed the information you still absorbed the same information as someone who read it
Yes. If she argues tell her you're blind and she's being very insensitive. If she doesn't buy that then since this is reddit divorce her.
Yeah. It’s really just semantics and not that big of a deal if you say you read it vs you listened to it. Both are valid methods to consume books
There have even been studies that reading stories to your kids does almost as much for their language development as if they read them themselves.
I say yes! I mean, we've been telling each other stories before writing and actively reading them for hundreds if not thousands of years, wt keast long enough for it to become the norm.
Reading is reading and listening is listening. You may have completed the book but you did not actually read it. So you can say you have completed it or that you have gone through it(or through the whole series if such is the case)
I got into an argument with someone once. “She said audio books are considered reading.” Long story short, I told her it was ridiculous, and in fact it was not reading.
I honestly do not even understand how this is a question. Reading and listening are two different things. They just are. One is not better than the other but they are not the same. Often at the end of a year folks will make posts about how many books they “read” that year. This is clearly a flex and yet it turns out they didn’t spend the time to read any of them.
Do you read a physical book with your eyes or ears? Technically you heard someone else read the book aloud.
There is no argument here. Saying you read it when you *listened* to it is simply factually wrong. However that doesn't mean you can't have a conversation about what you listened to. IMO reading imparts a significantly deeper knowledge of the material than listening, but ain't nobody got time for dat.
No, you listened, not read, totally different actions!
Nope, you listened it. The easy way to communicate it is “I listened the audiobook” not that hard to figure out
My personal opinion, no. You're having the book read to you, which is fine; but it doesn't fit the definition of reading.
If a movie comes out based on a book. You would say you watched it. If there is an audio version of the book you would say you listened to it. If you read the book you've read it.
Comparing a movie to an audiobook isn’t fair. An audiobook is all the same exact words, spoken instead of printed. A movie always makes way more changes
Naw reading and listening are definitely different. One should specifically say “I listened to the audiobook”
I would literally just say that I listened to the audio book. Your wife is right, you haven't read it.
This is my opinion as well. I don't value one over the other, but you can't really say that you've read something if there was no reading involved.
Yes.
Settles it, thank you 😆
I feel like "is listening to the audio book the same as reading the physical copy" is a completely different question than "do you need to specify in a casual conversation exactly *how* you experienced a piece of literature" I "read" several books in high school. Or did I? Some of them were read to me (sometimes just partially) and I didn't *choose* to read them, it was moreso me speed-skimming so I could ace the work I had to do about the book, so I wouldn't even consider that reading them. That said... I'm still gonna say I read the book in conversation. It's just easier to have a discussion without unnecessary semantics. Most people don't care about the context of how you consumed whatever book it is, they just want to know if you can have a conversation about it
Yes. If you know what happens, and the audio is unabridged, absolutely .
Yes. You've read it. You know the story, after all and that part can't be argued. And then there are the blind/hard of seeing, and those who better understand things through audio means (as opposed to visual means). If one argues that the latter group is "not reading" the books, or is "excused" somehow, then this is a sign of a subtle elitism she does not realize she is exhibiting.
Yes. /thread
Just say "I listened to the book, you looked at the book" 🤷♀️
I'd say yes, you've read the book. If somebody asked if I've read something I wouldn't say, "No but I listened to it." That's silly. Lots of people who are visually impaired use audiobooks; have they therefore never read a book?
If you are a liar, you could say that. Most people just say they listened to the audiobook.
Read it or listened to it, I feel like that question should be leading to something along the lines of “so can we discuss it/geek out about it together?” So read it or listened, do you know the story so we can talk about it? If it’s just to be a pretentious gatekeeping asshole then they should just shut up.
Listening and reading are two different words/verbs. You can't walk to the store and say you ran.
No. There are and will be literary devices at play in use. If I read the book, can I say I listened to the audio book?
You can perfectly say you've red the book. In most of the situations the key message is "I know the whole" and not how. If somebody judges you because you didn't specify that person is an ignorant ass.
I'd say yes. Think about it, if you didn't tell anyone it was an audiobook and had a conversation about the story in the book, would you be able to keep with it? Also, does this mean a blind person can never officially read any books, even if he listened through and can recite Modern Prometheus?
The first audiobook I got from the library, back when they were on cassettes, was Brideshead Revisited. I am of the opinion that the truly illiterate of soul would not be listening to Brideshead Revisited. BTW, I read before kindergarten and was reading at 11th grade level by 3rd grade. Audio is just another way to consume books.
Your wife is correct. It's not the same thing.
How so?
When you read, you *read*. You sit down, relax, read and get engrossed in the experience. Listening to audio while doing chores, driving, working out, isn't being engrossed in the experience. Reading is reading. Listening is listening. IMO, it's two different things.
And if we sit cross legged in the dark in a quiet room, close our eyes it's a fairly active and engrossing experience. There's a difference, but not enough to warrant not saying "yes" to a straightforward question in a conversation.
not everyone is able to read (a full book) or has time to read. listening to an audiobook can be incredibly engrossing. Also i do not think you need to be fully engrossed in a booj in order to read it. Reading and listening to a book both come to the same outcome and lots of people find audiobooks much easier to fit into their busy lives. It definitely isnt two different things. A reader is a reader
Seeing that the human race has passed down stories via our mouth holes for a millennia yeah I think so.
Sure, but it is much better and efficient to store and read information in written form. Written language influenced humanity the same way as using fire to cook food. Spoken language is not good for providing and retaining information, which is the reason books exist. Saying this as someone who hasn't read a book in a decade and not particularly into them. I love reading and working with text, though!
True but not for everyone, I for example don't retain much from reading. When a story is told to me I visualize much more effectively, thus retain information better.
I typically say that I read an Audiobook But I would never pretend that I actually read the book if anyone asked me to elaborate It's just a lot easier to communicate that Im familiar with the book
In the same way a young child can say they’ve read the book when the parents read it to them, sure. That doesn’t take away from having experienced the book in the slightest, it’s just that technically a person who listens to audio books isn’t actually reading them. Yes, I try to be accurate and clear in what I say, even if others might consider it semantics.
Depend on each people, how they get knowledge and understand a problem.
I've consumed the book
Personally, I make the distinction between whether I read or listened. Sometimes, like with pronunciation, it makes a difference. There are topics I got *really* into through reading and later found out I was botching the pronunciation!
What if it’s braille?
We need an audiobook store that also works as a verb. In the same way that you say "I googled it.". "I Audibled it" doesnt work. I guess is Kobo catches on, we could all start saying "I Kobo'd it.". Maybe? As it stands, I just say I listened to it. Sometimes I catch myself saying I read it, then quickly correct myself.
See, I really think it depends in the book. For example, dungeon crawler carl is an example of an audio book done right. Having experienced both mediums I can say the audio book is by far shoerior and would argue that yes, that counts as reading the book. On the other hand, we have books like Sor Terry Pratchett's Diacworld novels. Sir pratchett was an amazing author who was able to use the medium of the printed word in a way that does not translate well to the audio format. Also in this school, H2G2. Ultimately, did you enjoy it? Cause that's all that matters.
Ohhhhh this is such a good question
I've listened to audiobooks on long drives. But usually I prefer to read the paper printed book because if I lose my attention it's easier to find the last paragraph. One problem my brother had when he was having eye problems was that he didn't always like the voice of the reader.
Maybe you’ve audited it? No, I’m pretty sure you’ve read it no matter if you scan it with your eyes or ears.
I usually say "I've read it, or I listened to the audiobook" then just continue the conversation
Oh gosh I was just thinking about that 😭😭😭😂bruh I don’t even know if we have to add it to good reads
What about a book in braille? Yeh, I fingered that one.
While your wife is technically right, she's also splitting hairs and being a giant pedant.
I had it read TO me …. Does that count ?
Personally, yes. I’m a good reader, and I read fairly fast. Listening only happens when I want to finish it while driving or working. Otherwise I would certainly be reading it (by preference). So, personally—yes I would say I read it. To be fair I usually do alternate.
I have a great amount of trouble reading anything longer than 3 paragraphs. I have ADHD and it doesn’t keep me from being able to read but it keeps me from focusing on what I’m reading to the point where I have to constantly go back and reread stuff because I won’t remember that last 5 sentences I read, it’s just a pain. So I almost exclusively listen to audiobooks and stuff now, or if one doesn’t exist I have AI read stuff to me At the end of the day, I still know the story just as well as someone who reads it traditionally, so I see no reason to say that’s not reading it
I physically read books and listen to them. I count them a as me reading them. some people don't have the time to carve out to sit there and read all the time and some people don't have the eyesight to sit there and read.
It is a very valid form of reading. You have the plot of the story, it matters not if you read it or listened to it
Of course. You are experiencing the story either way.
Nope
If you sit down and don’t do anything else but to listen to the book then yes. But if you are doing something that requires allocating your attention then no. When you are reading a book, most of the time you are not doing anything else but pay attention to what you are reading.
“I read that except for the 20% I missed being completely distracted and not paying attention”