Audiobooks and Reading

[ColtonWrites]

Ok I am going to poke the hornets nest. What can I say, I'm bored.

Do you think audiobooks count as reading? Why or why not?

 

[StillStunned]

Yes. They tell the story as the author wrote it. It doesn't matter whether it reaches your brain through your eyes or through your ears.

Otherwise you might as well say that reading aloud to children doesn't count, and that's probably one of the best ways to get them into reading.

 

[TheLobster]

No.

What can I say, I’m pedantic.

 

[Britva415]

It's literally not reading.

That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to say you know the book. I for one would never say I "read" it if someone read it to me.

What's the actual question?

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Reading results in the consumption of words, stories, and ideas.

Is that consumption less when received through listening rather than viewing? For some people, the answer is, "yes". For others, the answer is, "no".

I like listening to a good audiobook and receive as much enjoyment from it as I do by reading. I also see higher sales of my stories that have been converted to audiobooks over the e-book and print versions, so I like that aspect of them as well.

 

[Britva415]

Reading results in the consumption of words, stories, and ideas.

Is that consumption less when received through listening rather than viewing? For some people, the answer is, "yes".

People say "I saw the movie." They can say "I heard the audiobook." Nobody says they "read the book" when they saw the movie.

 

[ColtonWrites]

People say "I saw the movie." They can say "I heard the audiobook." Nobody says they "read the book" when they saw the movie.

But I know a lot of people who "read the book" via audiobook.

No

It's literally not reading.

That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to say you know the book. I for one would never say I "read" it if someone read it to me.

What's the actual question?

If someone is physically unable to read and listens to an audiobook/was read to, would you say they got as much out of it as someone who read for themselves? Why?



I ask because personally, I love books and their stories in any form. I love reading print words, I love audiobooks, I love tv and movie adaptations. I love fanfic and transformative works. I love comics and graphic novels.

But when my daughter is allowed to substitute comic books and audiobooks for her summer reading hours...I feel some kinda way about that, you know? Somehow I feel like theyre letting her "cheat" at reading.
But if the point is to get her to ingest facts and stories and characters, to learn how people talk, see how different narrators and POVs work, understand how a "story" works...
Well, shes getting that?

Her grammar and spelling are *atrocious* but thats more due to learning disabilities that make reading and writing hard, and arent the point of the discussion I think.

So I dont know if I think audiobooks count as reading. Im legitimately trying to see what other people think.

Also, as I said, I'm bored. I thought the topic would provoke discussion without getting mean.

 

[Writer61]

Do you think audiobooks count as reading? Why or why not?

I think that they do. These days, I mostly listen to audiobooks, rather than reading a story. It is primarily for convenience, specifically multitasking: I'm listening to one as I write this, and often when I am driving.

Unlike a film/TV version, it is exactly the same text.

 

[TheLobster]

The obvious difference between books and audiobooks is that the latter deprive you of the ability to control the pace. You listen to how someone else is saying the words, in a way and with tempo chosen by them, rather than absorbing them at the speed that’s natural to you.

You’re also unable to easily return to previous passages, to read them again for better comprehension or appreciation of the text. Conversely, you cannot easily skip passages, or mentally edit out speech tags, or any little half-conscious manipulation that you’d do as a reader when you’re going through a text.

Audiobooks take you on for a ride; books put you in the driver seat. Sometimes the former is alright, but personally I’d rather drive.

 

[Writer61]

The obvious difference between books and audiobooks is that the latter deprive you of the ability to control the pace. You listen to how someone else is saying the words, in a way and with tempo chosen by them, rather than absorbing them at the speed that’s natural to you.

You’re also unable to easily return to previous passages, to read them again for better comprehension or appreciation of the text. Conversely, you cannot easily skip passages, or mentally edit out speech tags, or any little half-conscious manipulation that you’d do as a reader when you’re going through a text.

Audiobooks take you on for a ride; books put you in the driver seat. Sometimes the former is alright, but personally I’d rather drive.

Nice non-answer. The question was whether listening to an audiobook is the same as reading one.

 

[TheLobster]

Nice non-answer. The question was whether listening to an audiobook is the same as reading one.

How is it a non-answer when I literally begin with “The obvious difference”?

 

[Writer61]

How is it a non-answer when I literally begin with “The obvious difference”?

Because the question was, "Do you think audiobooks count as reading?"

Your reply did not address that.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Does this really have to degenerate into arguing about the wording of the question vs. the wording of the answers, instead of the original already-contentious question?

 

[ElectricBlue]

Ok I am going to poke the hornets nest. What can I say, I'm bored.

Do you think audiobooks count as reading? Why or why not?

No, because the brain is engaging in a different way. An auditory input is not an visual input, and different areas of the brain process the information, differently; ergo, they're not the same.

Reading, listening. Two different senses.

 

[Britva415]

What's the actual question?

OK, so the actual question is "does it count."

You have to specify what "count" means. If an illiterate person listens to an audiobook or just looks at the pictures in the comics, there is no way I would "count" that as reading.

But when my daughter is allowed to substitute comic books and audiobooks for her summer reading hours...I feel some kinda way about that, you know? Somehow I feel like theyre letting her "cheat" at reading.

You can read comics/graphic novels. You can't read an audiobook.

Do both of them contribute to literacy? Not in the "skill of reading" sense, no, but, in the "acquiring culture" sense? Sure. I would never discourage a kid from consuming literature, even if it's in a format different from what other people prefer. And I would side-eye snobs who won't consider graphic storytelling to be "literary."

Graphic novels or comics are more of a concern to me than audio books. Audio books at least expose a reader to certain conventions of contemporary commercial prose, and to the craft of narration. How important are those conventions? I don't know.

But I do consider the craft of narration to be important, and that's what one misses out on when all one reads is speech "quoted" inside of wordbubbles in a series of pictures. Someone who reads this stuff exclusively isn't illiterate and can read, but they aren't learning how to describe stuff or tell stories with words.

Again: Is that important? Maybe not, but it's probably more important than learning to mimic certain contemporary commercial literary conventions.

 

[Britva415]

my daughter is allowed to substitute comic books and audiobooks for her summer reading hours

Who requires summer reading hours, and what are their actual requirements?

Is she supposed to be getting reading practice because she's still learning to read? Then yeah, audiobooks impair that.

Is she simply supposed to be doing something other than screenhogging? For, like, health reasons or something? I personally think either graphic novels or audiobooks would be just fine. I personally don't think that a question like "is she getting as much out of it as someone who read it fOr ThEmSeLvEs" is a very useful one.

 

[Sasha_Bends]

This is just my personal experience. For me, it is not the same experience.

I feel like listening to an audiobook is ingesting information and reading a book is digesting thoughts.

When I read I take breaks to enjoy a certain turn of phrase or to think about a certain sentiment that is being felt by the characters. Or to ponder about an interesting thought that is being shared by the author. Or to marvel at how something that happened 100 pages ago is now connected with another part of the story. It's much easier when I'm reading because I can just stop reading without thinking about it. My brain switches instinctively from reading to thinking about what I read and when I'm done I resume reading from where I stopped.

With an audiobook, the narrator is immediately on to the next phrase and either I have to stop, rewind, relisten to get what I need or my brain just starts phasing out the narrator in order to process the information and I find myself five minutes later trying to figure out what is going on in the story. It's a very frustrating experience, that's why I gave up after the first 2 or 3 audiobooks that I tried.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

I don't know. Do you think reading sheet music counts as listening?

Does it even matter though?

Honestly, storytelling is older than writing. Humans have been making stuff up for longer than cuneiform alphabets showed up. I don't think both are different, but the musician in me can see the whys of I write what I write the way I write.

Believe it or not, sound is important writing word. An advice here is using a TTS app or feature to spot for typos. Good advice, for spotting typos at least, and perhaps one or two sentences that sound too unnatural. But even with the power of AI TTS software, it will still sound unnatural.

Have you tried reading poetry out loud? It's a practice that really benefits prose writing.

Actually, reading out loud, either to yourself, or to someone else, is the actual experience of storytelling.

In fact, every word, every paragraph, every punctuation mark, sentence length, line breaks... all of those things have an effect on the sound of the story, even when you're using your eyes instead of your ears! I don't see those two as completely different experiences, but rather both feed on each other. I think a story is at its best when it is so damn delicious to consume, whether that is through the written word or the spoken word; no need for fancy voice actors and studio recordings. Sucks to be House of Leaves or Infinite Jest, I'd tell you that much! But my bottom line is that orality and literacy shouldn't be considered opposites when both feed on each other.

In short, call it whatever you want. Be pedantic if you want. Your life will not be any different just because of whether someone considers listening to audiobooks as reading or not. It will still remain as pathetic as it currently is.

 

[JGittes]

Reading is an unnatural behavior that requires years of training to master and cognitive engagement to perform.

Audiobooks are listened to, a naturally acquired human activity.

They are two completely different activities. Whether an author earns more from one or the other is irrelevant.

Audio books are nearly entirely entertainment. Reading can also be purely entertainment, but it requires more active engagement, and (to repeat myself) years of training to perform.

 

[SmilingLez]

Ok I am going to poke the hornets nest. What can I say, I'm bored.

Do you think audiobooks count as reading? Why or why not?

Does just listening to the TV (no pic) or listening to a podcast count as reading? Hell no

 

[OddLove]

I'll say no.

Every book I consume outside of Literotica stories is audiobooks. I listen to them.

And I prefer that over reading. It's more enjoyable to me.

Cambridge's definition of reading is "The skill or activity of getting information from books"

(EDIT: I'm not retrieving the information from the book myself, I'm simply receiving it from someone else through my hear holes)

If I got the information from a recording of a person who read the book, I'm being "read to"

Under Cambridge's definition, I would need to retrieve the information directly from the book.

I mainly listen to audiobooks and I don't have some kind of "let me in the book club!" agenda, so I don't care if the readers think less of those who enjoy audiobooks. Those types of readers are just a bunch of Brian Griffins.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I'll say no.

Every book I consume outside of Literotica stories is audiobooks. I listen to them.

And I prefer that over reading. It's more enjoyable to me.

Cambridge's definition of reading is "The skill or activity of getting information from books"

(EDIT: I'm not retrieving the information from the book myself, I'm simply receiving it from someone else through my hear holes)

If I got the information from a recording of a person who read the book, I'm being "read to"

Under Cambridge's definition, I would need to retrieve the information directly from the book.

I mainly listen to audiobooks and I don't have some kind of "let me in the book club!" agenda, so I don't care if the readers think less of those who enjoy audiobooks. Those types of readers are just a bunch of Brian Griffins.

But you're defining "book" as "folio containing visual representations of glyphs." If you permit audiobooks to be books, then listening to them is reading!

I think this whole thread boils down to "What is your definition of the word xxx?"

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

I'm gonna go ahead and say no. Someone already pointed out that listening activates different areas of the brain than visual input.

But if someone told me they "read a book" when they mean they listened to an audiobook, I wouldn't say anything. Only jerks do that.

 

[UnexpectedLuggage]

I don't really care to distinguish between the two. There are books I only ever listen to the audio book of (mainly when I was driving for a living and that was the only way for me to take in those narratives), and they were the same story weather I took it in via my eyes or my ears.

Being picky, judgemental and pedantic abiut it really accomplishes nothing.

 

[ColtonWrites]

The obvious difference between books and audiobooks is that the latter deprive you of the ability to control the pace. You listen to how someone else is saying the words, in a way and with tempo chosen by them, rather than absorbing them at the speed that’s natural to you.

You’re also unable to easily return to previous passages, to read them again for better comprehension or appreciation of the text. Conversely, you cannot easily skip passages, or mentally edit out speech tags, or any little half-conscious manipulation that you’d do as a reader when you’re going through a text.

Audiobooks take you on for a ride; books put you in the driver seat. Sometimes the former is alright, but personally I’d rather drive.

Ok, I like that as a reason why they're different. Kitty Steele said basically the same thing.

Who requires summer reading hours, and what are their actual requirements?

Is she supposed to be getting reading practice because she's still learning to read? Then yeah, audiobooks impair that.

Is she simply supposed to be doing something other than screenhogging? For, like, health reasons or something? I personally think either graphic novels or audiobooks would be just fine. I personally don't think that a question like "is she getting as much out of it as someone who read it fOr ThEmSeLvEs" is a very useful one.

She has reading hours imposed by the school, and there are competitions at the library. Both allow comic books and graphic novels, the library allows audiobook listening.

Do you think reading sheet music counts as listening?

You know, thats an interesting comparison.

I dont, but I also cant read sheet music, so I dont know what the experience of doing that is actually like.

Cambridge's definition of reading is "The skill or activity of getting information from books"

Under Cambridge's definition, I would need to retrieve the information directly from the book.

Hmm, no, I don't think that "directly" is necessarily implied there. If they meant "via the written word" i think they would have said so. Getting definitions right is kind of their job.