Poll

Absolutely and anyone who says otherwise has obviously never dealt with a learning disability.

I used to feel the same way but with all sorts of things pulling at attention, it really just lets me multi-task so that driving time or folding laundry time is still time spent "reading" and not a complete drag on my day.

Whatever blithely clueless Ableist who said Audiobooks shouldn't count clearly hasn't dealt with any of the disabilities and medical conditions that might cause a person to require the use of audiobooks in order to read and still access literature.

It's not are they really reading? It's People with disabilities may do things differently than you. And whatever Ableist person is out there saying audiobooks shouldn't "count" has clearly never had to deal with the following issues:

-Visual impairment/blindness
-Severe eyestrain/pain
-Learning disability/severe dyslexia
-Adults with low IQ who LOVE books and will never be able to read/write
-Physical conditions that make it impossible to hold a book or turn its pages (you don't think of this one--but imagine developing a degenerative condition where you can no longer control the muscles of your hand, or lift your shoulder, or manipulate your fingers well enough to flip a page)

By the way, if you or anyone you know needs the use of books on tape and are in the US, you can apply for services through NLS at the Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/nls/

The fact that this is even considered a debatable question is disgusting to me, and I'm not even someone who uses audio books because of a disability.

Most of my reading is done through audio books because that's how I find time to read & still live a productive adult life full of responsibilities. When you try and classify "reading" by the methods of consumption instead of the experience of the story it implies there's some elitist "better than" award for reading a physical book when there isn't.

Ridiculous. Of course audio books is reading. Don't come at me with the technical definition of "reading" because you're just showing your own ass tbh.

Can you have an in-depth discussion of the plot? Characters? Overall themes? Favorite quotes? If so, I’m going to say you “read” the book, no matter how you got there.

I don't think there can be much of a difference. Physical books and audiobooks are ways of transmitting a story, information, or ideas. If a person is interested in the written word or the mechanics of sentence structure, that person is going to read; if a person wants to get swept away in a story while doing other things, or convenience or ability, that person is going to listen to them. I've seen different benefits from both ways, so I can see equally both sides of this topic, but ultimately in this day and age, they both should count here on Goodreads.

Rick wrote: BTW...reading the word ABLEIST is far more enjoyable to me than if someone had read it for me.

Glad that does it for you. Somehow I suspect that won't be the last time you'll encounter it...

IMO: As long as your brain has processed the writing and you can effectively dialogue about the story or such, you have read the book no matter the method.

I listen to the audio version of a book.
Rick reads the same book, just one where you can flip the pages.
Both Rick and I can answer the same questions about the same book.
BOTH RICK AND I HAVE READ THAT BOOK!

Rick wrote: "Good question to ask. In my humble opinion the answer is broken down like so:
1. That thing with pages is called a book
2. A book is read.
3. That CD or audiofile is not a book. It goes by audioboo..."

Heather Codename: ♕Dutchess♕ wrote: "Absolutely and anyone who says otherwise has obviously never dealt with a learning disability."

I agree. Ever since I read this article about a visually impaired man and his love of audiobooks, I can't forget it:

"Alone in my bedroom when I was 16, popping tape after tape into my talking book player, it didn’t matter if I was reading or listening. The book titles on the side of the green cartons were the same as the copies found on the shelves of bookstores and regular libraries. They were the same authors. The words in my ears were the same words other people saw when they held a book in their hands."

https://lithub.com/do-audio-books-cou...

Melissa wrote: "I used to feel the same way but with all sorts of things pulling at attention, it really just lets me multi-task so that driving time or folding laundry time is still time spent "reading" and not a..."

I felt the same way too ... until I actually listened to my first audiobook! Then I was hooked. I absolutely love listening to books while I drive, do yard work, cook, clean, shower -- basically every little quiet moment of my life is more enriched with the magic of books.

Rick wrote: "Good question to ask. In my humble opinion the answer is broken down like so:
1. That thing with pages is called a book
2. A book is read.
3. That CD or audiofile is not a book. It goes by audioboo..."

University of Virginia psychologist Daniel Willingham disagrees. "If, he argues, you take the question from the perspective of cognitive psychology — that is, the mental processes involved — there is no real difference between listening to a book and reading it." -- You may find this article interesting: https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/listen...

Rick is the worst.

He should read this once his smug cloud clears. https://bookriot.com/2017/10/24/audio...

Laura! I was just about to post this post from Daniel Willingham. http://www.danielwillingham.com/danie...

Most of us "decode" (the act of turning written language into something the brain understands) automatically by puberty. Decoding is the only difference between reading and listening to an audiobook, so if we're able to decode automatically, there isn't any difference left.

Great articles.

Rick wrote: "Good question to ask. In my humble opinion the answer is broken down like so:
1. That thing with pages is called a book
2. A book is read.
3. That CD or audiofile is not a book. It goes by audioboo..."

Rick, I understand your points and where you're coming from.
However, according to Merriam-Webster, the word "read" was first used in 1586 - long before the existence of audiobooks.

The Oxford Living Dictionary, takes us back even further:

* read * Origin
"Old English rǣdan, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch raden and German raten ‘advise, guess’. Early senses included ‘advise’ and ‘interpret (a riddle or dream’) (see rede)."

The beauty of the English language is that it is not stagnant, it evolves with us as we transform as a society, and need words to absorb new meanings. As technology grows, our language has to adapt.
On average, approximately 1,000 new entries are added to Oxford Dictionaries Online every year - and definitions are also updated, transformed.

To "read" has early roots in interpretation, gathering information out of something, whether it was a dream, a book, or a chart. When we consume audiobooks, we are transferring the information via a sense, just not the eyes. Does a blind person not "read" because they use their fingers instead of their eyes? If you can read with your fingers, why not your ears?

Rebecca wrote: "Rick is the worst.

He should read this once his smug cloud clears. https://bookriot.com/2017/10/24/audio..."

Thank you for the link, Rebecca.
I'm a big fan of Dr. Daniel T. Willingham.

katwiththehat wrote: "Whatever blithely clueless Ableist who said Audiobooks shouldn't count clearly hasn't dealt with any of the disabilities and medical conditions that might cause a person to require the use of audio..."

Thank you for the link! I appreciate your passion, and completely agree with you.

These words by a visually impaired man and his love of audiobooks has stuck with me ever since I read it:

"What I know for sure is this: Sooner or later, the voice in my ears ceases to be a voice. It becomes the words, the words become sentences, and the sentences become the story."

https://lithub.com/do-audio-books-cou...

Mary ~Ravager of Tomes~ wrote: "The fact that this is even considered a debatable question is disgusting to me, and I'm not even someone who uses audio books because of a disability.

Most of my reading is done through audio boo..."

🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼

Rick wrote: "I think disabled or otherwise we need to look at definitions such as "read" and "listened to." If you listened to the book that is fine. Reading the book is simply different than listening to a boo..."

I think you said it best: to each their own.
I see your point, but I also politely disagree.

Kate wrote: "Can you have an in-depth discussion of the plot? Characters? Overall themes? Favorite quotes? If so, I’m going to say you “read” the book, no matter how you got there."

Thanks, Kate! Love this! And yes, to all! I always take notes, rewind if I've missed something, and even make bookmarks. The point is getting through and enjoying the story, no matter how! 🤓

Abel wrote: "I don't think there can be much of a difference. Physical books and audiobooks are ways of transmitting a story, information, or ideas. If a person is interested in the written word or the mechanic..."

Thank you for your comment, Abel! I completely agree. And if it was good enough in the days of Homer ...

I can see both sides, but the English language has always adapted with time and technology -- maybe we should petition the dictionaries to amend the definition to include audiobooks.

Matt wrote: "Of course you can add audio books to your READ list on Goodreads if for no other reason then its your list and you can do whatever you want with it. Enjoying books in any form is not a contest or c..."

Thank you so much, Matt! 🤗 I will continue to do so, but was mostly just curious about what the general consensus on the subject was. Still, at the end of the day, you can't please everyone, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I think this is always going to be a debatable topic because both sides have pretty relevant points.

Personally I feel that, when you listen to a word being spoken, your brain is actively working to comprehend that word which is very similar to what it does when you look at the word. Of course it's not the same exact thing, but I feel like it's similar.

Regardless though, it is not for someone else to say what you can and cannot consider worthy of adding to your reading goal. I'll never understand where people get the idea that they can decide something for someone else. >.>

Jennifer wrote: "IMO: As long as your brain has processed the writing and you can effectively dialogue about the story or such, you have read the book no matter the method."

100% agree.

Bear wrote: "I listen to the audio version of a book.
Rick reads the same book, just one where you can flip the pages.
Both Rick and I can answer the same questions about the same book.
BOTH RICK AND I HAVE REA..."

Love this, Bear! Excellent deduction.

Sarah wrote: "Laura! I was just about to post this post from Daniel Willingham. http://www.danielwillingham.com/danie...

Most of us "de..."

We're on the same wavelength! Fantastic article - I'm a fan of Dr. Daniel T. Willingham. Thanks, Sarah!

Rita wrote: "I actually do better with and audiobook because I have to listen to every word. I also have trouble holding paper books because I have Parkinson's Disease."

I am so happy that you can still enjoy books in this way! I think no matter how you consume them, as long as they go in your brain - that's what counts! Keep listening, Rita! 🤗

Amber ☾♥ wrote: "I think this is always going to be a debatable topic because both sides have pretty relevant points.

Personally I feel that, when you listen to a word being spoken, your brain is actively working ..."

I agree with you, Amber. And what is Goodreads anyway, other than a way to track books? I love being able to see which books I've "consumed" (either visually read, or listened to) at the end of the year - and that's the main point of using this platform for me.

Was Homer not worth attention until he was written down? Oral (audio) presentations of literature predate Gutenberg's thingamajig by millenia.

Tom wrote: "Was Homer not worth attention until he was written down? Oral (audio) presentations of literature predate Gutenberg's thingamajig by millenia."

Yes, glad someone else brought up Homer too. Thank you for your comment, Tom.
Stories have a myriad of ways to reach us, and language keeps evolving as we do through time, and technology.

:)

Interesting debate! I'm undecided. If audiobooks work for you, that's great. For me, unless I've read the book myself, I won't feel that I've read it.

The main thing is, that people continue to have an interest in stories and books, however or whatever medium they use.

It depends on how much one comprehends from a book. Reading gives a different type of visualization and imagination for fiction reads but reading is reading and listening Audio books does not match the amount of learning when one reads a book instead of listening.

Nat wrote: "Interesting debate! I'm undecided. If audiobooks work for you, that's great. For me, unless I've read the book myself, I won't feel that I've read it.

The main thing is, that people continue to ha..."

Agreed! And I've come to the point now, that I know I use this platform for me, and that's all that matters! To each their own!
But I do love the bibliophile community, so many great people.

Fahad wrote: "It depends on how much one comprehends from a book. Reading gives a different type of visualization and imagination for fiction reads but reading is reading and listening Audio books does not match..."

Thank you for your thoughts, Fahad. I think everyone has a different approach to learning, and even reading, and that's okay! You may find this article and Dr. Daniel T. Willingham's research interesting: https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/listen...

Songs are completely worthless unless you look up the lyrics online. Why even bother with the radio? Because you know listening doesn't have any value whatsoever.

Some might argue that the aural quality of listening to a story could add levels of complexity to a text that reading alone can not deliver. Tone of voice, sound effects, cadence, etc....

CAN OF WORMS!
I listen to Audible at work and it really keeps my bipolar mind focused. I have some great books in my library. I've already read 51 this year. I'm counting to see what % of my goal is actually audio. I'm curious. I don't think it'll be anywhere near my paper books, but reading is becoming more and more technologically influenced. Audio is just one way

Funny story, when I listened to my first audiobook, while driving, it was really difficult to envision the scenery the same way I do while reading. Seems like a different part of the brain is used and it’s hard to pay attention to the road and envision the story. Now I usually can do it but it takes awhile.

John wrote: "Songs are completely worthless unless you look up the lyrics online. Why even bother with the radio? Because you know listening doesn't have any value whatsoever.

Some might argue that the aural q..."

Nice point, John! I especially enjoy hearing authors read their own work, as they know how they wanted it to sound - how can you get any purer than straight from the source!?

BAM wrote: "CAN OF WORMS!
I listen to Audible at work and it really keeps my bipolar mind focused. I have some great books in my library. I've already read 51 this year. I'm counting to see what % of my goal i..."

Agreed. Just one method, and a personal choice, which is a-okay whichever way you swing. I'm about 60/40 audiobooks/physical books. Music and podcasts hold little interest for me these days, I get bored too quickly. Congrats on hitting 51 so far!

Lynne wrote: "Funny story, when I listened to my first audiobook, while driving, it was really difficult to envision the scenery the same way I do while reading. Seems like a different part of the brain is used ..."

Everyone has their preferred method of learning/consuming material - and that's okay! I wasn't a big fan of audiobooks ... until I actually started listening to them. I think they do take a little time to get used to.

I have yet to see any legitimate arguments against having audiobooks "count" as reading. Sometimes it's someone being ableist, against the blind for example, but most often it's an insecure person trying to project themselves as a reader above people to counter their insecurity.

Greg wrote: "I have yet to see any legitimate arguments against having audiobooks "count" as reading. Sometimes it's someone being ableist, against the blind for example, but most often it's an insecure person ..."

Thank you for your thoughts, Greg! I appreciate your viewpoint and agree with you.

I think audiobooks count as reading. I listen to a lot of audiobooks. I listen to them when I drive. They really help pass the time.

Steven wrote: "I think audiobooks count as reading. I listen to a lot of audiobooks. I listen to them when I drive. They really help pass the time."

I 100% agree, Steven.

While "reading" and "listening" are two different processes, I feel like saying that audio books don't count as reading would be pretty ableist. Not everyone can use their sight or reading ability to enjoy a book due to a disability.
Reading and listening are just two different paths to take to get people to the same destination.

They are absolutely reading! Not everyone can use their sight to access a story. Using an audiobook still counts as having 'read' or experienced the story.

Yes, they count and anyone who says they don't is just ableist, sorry not sorry. Blind people? Learning disabilities? Whatever format gets a story into a person's brain, is reading. Audio book, Ebook, Physical...it's all reading.

M. wrote: "While "reading" and "listening" are two different processes, I feel like saying that audio books don't count as reading would be pretty ableist. Not everyone can use their sight or reading ability ..."

Couldn't agree with you more! It's incredible though — I actually lost a "friendship" over audiobooks. She told me I had "no morals" for counting them in my yearly book total.