Jane Eyre question

What I usually do with the audiobooks I own is read them along at the same time as I listen to them (usually on my second reading). It enables me to improve my pronounciation of English and to read faster. I like it.

Absolutely not. In my opinion, you cannot 'count' an audio book (or film of a book) as books you have read. Reading tests and increases your literacy whilst the other two test your attention span. With reading it is you who interprets the book; with audio and films you just adopt the interpretations of whoever is reading or directing.
Reading is one of my greatest pleasures in life and I could never relinquish this treat by allowing someone else to do it for me :)

My book consumption is roughly half and half audio and print. I'm so used to doing both that usually when I'm recalling a book I can't remember which, unless the audio performance made a great impression on me. I always have five or six print books on my nightstand and the same number of audios on my phone.

The whole idea of adults telling other adults books enjoyed for pleasure don't "count" because of the format is beyond silly. The point is the story, the language, the impact it has on you, how much you enjoyed it and whether you recommend it. Why other people feel a need to judge the format you choose is beyond me.

For me reading cannot be replaced by any other means if one really wants to feel the beauty of a book! I have always felt that reading becomes an act of conversing with one's own mind too...an act of self review... listening to someone who orates beautifully can be a pleasurable experience but can never equal the gravity of reading!

When I am doing something like weeding the garden or working on a painting, I love to listen. It isn't the same as reading the book but it helps me stay focused on what I am doing with my hands with the other part of my brain.

definitely read this. don't listen because you dont want to miss a moment or misunderstand what the characters say. reading is so intimate. listening is less personal.

It's two entirely different mediums. The sight impaired use Brail for reading and books on tape in order to gain a clearer picture. Many students that I work with are auditory learners and understand better when something is said to them rather than reading. It can improve study strategies. I say do whatever helps you understand the text better. Personally, I enjoy reading so much that I really don't like books on tape. I find it's hard to focus on tape and I miss important elements. Plus, I enjoy the subtlety of language that I miss with books on tape. As I said earlier, use the medium that works best for you. Ask yourself, how do you process information. The answer may surprise you. Anyone who claims there is only way to experience something never felt the inexplicable excellence of Shakespeare live. Or listened to a talented story teller reveal the terrifying sounds of La llornoa. To answer your question, do what's best for you. Try each and if you feel you gained enough from one great, if not try the other.

I would never be able to get through books like Les Miserables (currently on my 3rd listen of this beautiful story but, man, is it long) or The Count of Monte Cristo without audiobooks. For me, and what I describe to those who have not tried audiobooks because they don't think it will be as enjoyable as reading, is that there is a "learning curve" for the brain when switching to audiobooks. For me, I almost felt the switch flip, but I work with voice-to-text translation in my work, so I'm used to thinking with my ears. However, I have tested my hypothesis on others, and they say it is similar for them too. It takes a "starter book" to get the brain to switch over to reading comprehension via audio but once it is there, and especially if the narrator is good, I think it can be better than sight reading. I do not agree that it doesn't count as reading. If that were the case, then blind readers would be considered not able to read, or less able, and that simply isn't true. If I were blind, I would be insulted at the suggestion that I am not able to count myself as much a reader, simply because I accomplished it with my ears instead of my eyes. I have actually read and listened to several books where I absorbed the story better through listening and found things I had missed in the sight-reading of it, and vice versa. It just depends on the book, not so much the media. I haven't met a classic yet that I didn't prefer to have read to me! And there are some simply amazing narrators out there. George Guidall, Simon Prebble, Neil Gaiman does a beautiful job on his own books (which most authors are horrible narrators), John Lee, Bernadette Dunn, Simon Vance, Jay O. Sanders (if you haven't read Catch-22, listen to his narration = excellent!). I'm listening to "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" for my book group right now, and the narration is, I know, elevating the book by at least 1 star. When I listened to "Good Omens," it was the narration more than the story that made it a worthwhile, rather than just so-so, read. "Undaunted Courage"...would be daunting in print, but was narrated very very well. I didn't even bother to pay attention to it all because, really, who cares about every last bag of beans they hauled up the river? But it was an amazing listen. I have had an Audible subscription for about 9 years now, 2 books a month. Worth every penny! (no, I don't work for Audible - but they owe me - I've converted a lot of my friends to audiobooks). I still read almost as many print books as audiobooks (I am stingy with my audiobook selections, only long worthwhile titles to make the most of my subscription), but have read so many I would never read in print! Yes, audiobooks count as read!! I'm willing to take a quiz ;)

Its never felt right for me to listen to audio books. Ive tried to get into them but they just bore me but I can become totally and utterly absorbed in a hardcover book. I listen to music when I read so Im used to having something going on in the background but I just cannot get interested in an audiobook.

I think listening while you are doing a bunch of other things and not really paying attention is not quite the same, but it is a great way to get through non fiction, where the details often aren't so important.

Lying back and listening to a book is hardy different form lying back and reading a book. With a comedy book it is often better to listen, if the person reading it has good timing.

I agree that in reading there is more room for interpretation than in listening, for example people who read Dicken's or Henry James's books often miss what can be interpreted as irony or comedy. Also it is more complicated to stop and think when you are listening.

But I think all this clucking of tongues we're seeing in the comments is just an insecure need to feel superior.
Different does not mean bad.
What is important is that books are read, not how they are read.

Deede wrote: "Does listening to a book count the same as reading a book?"

I think that - when it comes to comprehension and enjoyment - listening is just as good as reading because either method will provide the plot of the story, and for some people, listening and not allowing the words on a page to distract you can help with understanding. I've both read and listened to "Jane Eyre," and the way I was affected emotionally was the same. I've been listening to "A Tale of Two Cities," and I've actually enjoyed it more that way. I've never been able to get through it when I've tried several times to read it. Plus, if you're a busy person and love to read, then listening to audiobooks in the car on the way to work or on your iPod during a session at the gym is a great option.

However, for literacy, academic study, and analysis, I think you do have to read the book. Reading increases vocabulary as well, so I think that reading is incredibly important. Furthermore, if you're going to be analyzing a book's characters, conflicts, plot structure, themes, etc., then I think you need to be able to mark a text - underline, highlight, or whatever - so that you can be thorough in your analysis. I believe that analysis requires textual support, which is difficult if you're only listening. Plus, reading provides a different - and better, in my opinion - experience because you're engaging more of your senses. You have the physical book to touch, the book's weight, the feel of the pages - are they think or thin? - the smell of the paper, the look of the font and size of the text, the art on the cover, etc. I prefer reading because it's a more well-rounded experience than listening.

I would say that reading and listening both "count" as consuming what's between the covers of a book.

I love reading and I do so whenever I can. In the summer, I also work 8 hours a day and a mind-numbingly boring job, picking beans. That is all time that would be entirely lost, but can be filled with an audiobook.

I listen to books that I never would have considered reading, due to the limited collection at my local library and I've discovered some that I quite enjoyed.

Once I got used to it, I found it equal to reading.

I mean, I see no reason why it wouldn't 'count.' That's a silly idea, as if books aren't made to be read and enjoyed but just to be counted, to be achieved. Some people have a hard time reading. Others are really busy. Some people just like to listen to a book. Are they not allowed the honor of having 'read' a book if they had to listen to it? Personally, I'm not a huge fan of audiobooks because they stress me out. I don't know why, they just do. Also, I love the feel and look of a book, and I've never liked having a book read to me, or reading aloud for that matter. I think they're a great idea, though.

Have you ever tried immersion reading? I download both the ebook and audio on my kindle and fill two senses at the same time, which is wonderful when an accent is involved. It's also great on the treadmill as you never lose your place. Jane Eyre is my favorite literary classic and a great immersion read.

If it "counts" for you, it counts. If you find listening to a book being told is not the same as reading it, it does not count.

The effect of reading or listening to fiction is pretty much the same on me, that is, I imagine whatever is going on in pictures and voices, and I sort of transform it into a movie in my head. But I also enjoy listening to more abstract philosophical discussions, though you sometimes need to pause those and think about them, which works better when reading.
As a student, I read for a living, I sit and read or write about 6 to 12 hours a day, whether it is printed or off a screen. I love reading fiction, but the last thing I want to do, is sit down yet again and fix my sorry eyes on a book, even if I had time to. I like to listen to classics off of librivox while I clean, cook, craft etc., and I find that it is very relaxing. The books are unabridged and I do not miss a single detail, but it makes me more adventurous while I am choosing, because listening gets me into some kind of a flow, where detailed descriptions and strenuous bits do not matter as much as if I had to read them. And usually I don't remember whether I listened to or read a book, when recalling a quote, for example. So for me, it counts.

I do both... I usually the audio for lighter books and use it for long driving and walks. And I find audio especially useful for books where timing, comedy and otherwise. Lately I find them helpful for Shakespeare, poetry, etc...the narration (inflections, breaks, etc) helps me understand. For me the human voice is another tool for understanding.

I think it is a level playing field. I used to read but now I just don't sit enough. I started aodio, got Bluetooth ear buds and now I am addicted. I do love books and have a Large collection but I found benefits to audio. for me anyway. I have been working my way through the 100 classics. They were written in their time ( or close enough to make the history recent). the author assumes I know or get thing that I don't register quickly. being here, in 2013. the narrator has the right inflections. I can process the story so clearly. then, I can read the book smoothly. really, it is the same book word for word. I would encourage anyone to digest a good story any way they want. just do it. RE: movies. although I am a movie buff , if you saw the movie ...you did not read the book. it will never count. a movie can not convey thoughts, where a book does. for one.
anyone wanting a good narrator for a classic ( many in the free domain) ,let me know. I am on my 88th . even if I read classic a book I do an audio too. read and listen on good people!

I can type out a story on the internet, while reading a book, and watching a TV program on my i-pad and keep them all straight... but I CAN'T get through an audio book without my mind wanderng and losing track of what's happening.

I think that reading a book is much better than listening to it

I definitely think that listening to audiobooks and reading accomplish the same goal - you get the story, which you translate into visual images in your head. Now, are they same thing? Obviously not, one uses the ears and one uses the eyes.

But just to clarify, it seems that non-audio readers have this idea that narrators 'interpret' the book for you. This is not true. Writers are very clear on the feelings, expressions and motivations of the characters and narrators must follow them to the letter. If a character 'whispers sadly', the narrator does exactly that. He doesn't decide that the author really meant 'exclaimed coldly' or 'shouted happily', he follows exactly the cues outlined by the author.

Now that doesn't mean that all narrators are good or even if they're talented, that they're good for particular books (there is miscasting in audios.) Also, if you've read a particular book/series in print and switch to audio, you may have ideas about how the characters sound like that may not match with the narrator (somebody may sound too young, too old, etc.)

That's why the narrator is very important in audios. If I don't like the narrator, I immediately switch to print.

I would say that audiobooks - or listening to someone read - are vital tools for young children who are not yet able to read for themselves. I thoroughly enjoyed reading bedtime stories to my children, grandchildren and will soon have the pleasure of reading to my 1st Great-grandchild. Having someone read to you at this time in your life sets the pattern for grammar and syntax... providing, of course, that the person doing the reading has these skills in good supply. When the child is old enough to read for themselves, then reading is better as this helps with spelling and punctuation. What I'm saying, in effect, is that both have their merits!!

Maybe. But whenever I listen to a book I make sure to follow along.

I disagree with the above comment. Reading a book is marvellous, but in my opinion, it is the story that counts. Many people don't possess the same reading talents as I assume you do (not meant ironically) so this is an easier way of enjoying literature. As I said before, I thoroughly enjoy listening to an un-abridged version of Jane Eyre. On the other hand, I find the book quite a hard read. I can also pause what I am listening to to find out a word if I don't understand and easily get back into the 'flow' of the story. As a child who has not yet started Secondary school (UK) I believe that audiobooks are a fantastic way to indulge in a fantastic story while not feeling pressured to finish chapter after chapter in books.

There are abridged and unabridged audiobooks. Unabridged audiobooks are the same as visually reading a book. You lose part of the author's vision when listening/reading an abridged book. Listening to an audiobook can be an enriching experience. I have listened to some audiobooks when i was unable read them. Watching a movie is not the same as reading a hook.

Deede wrote: "Does listening to a book count the same as reading a book?"

yes, it does - quite a few studies in the last few years have shown that people who listen to audiobooks have the same memory recall (if not better) than people that read - because in listening you have to listen to every word, whereas with reading, even if you don't intend to, you may skim over something important.

audiobooks are also a valid method for individuals with learning disabilities or who are slow readers - because it allows them to not feel like failures when they can't read a book assigned to them

A lot of authors listen to audiobooks while taking long drives, etc. (Sarah Dessen & Stephen King both do this, I believe). I don't think that the two methods are the same, and also believe that, depending on whether you are an auditory learner or a visual learner, you will glean more of the story from the particular method suited to your learning style. However, an audio book, unabridged, is the same story, the same words. By listening to an audiobook you have been exposed to that story, even if the experience isn't quite the same as reading. In both cases, you need to use your imagination to picture what is going on. The only thing about an audiobook is that I feel that your interpretation of the story could be somewhat skewed, depending on who reads it. After all, sometimes the way that you say something is more important than what you're saying.

I don't worry about "counting", I mean what is that anyway? Does reading an Agatha Christie novel at the beach "count" over listening to Anna Karenina in my car? I like listening to books because it helps me tolerate long drives, but it also helps me have a calm and peaceful morning. Also, it's good for getting ready to teach, I teach ELA high school, and it's really helpful to listen to the book right before going into the classroom.

It's about what you take away from it and what you want to get out of it in the end.

I do prefer reading. Sometimes the Audio's cut out alot of the story.
But I do still like audio books.

I count audios the same as if I had read it!

Of course listening to an audiobook counts as having "read" the book. I listen to books when I walk and when it is a good book, I walk further. I listen to a book when I prepare meals. I listen to a book when I mow the lawn. I only wish there had been i-pods or even portable, inexpensive, cassette players when I was a kid and had to spend hours turning bales of hay and doing other jobs on the farm. I also read in paper, hardcover, and on Kindle. They all count. Some authors/series I only listen on audio, such as Patricia Cornwell. And some audios are amazing - the narrator for the Harry Potter books was just so good. And, The Poisonwood Bible was amazing in audio. I love listening to the No. 1 Ladies Detective series. I have always loved being read to. It is a great way to develop listening skills. There are some books I just have to read after listening to them but there are some I only "read" because I can listen to them, including those classics like An American Tragedy, which I doubt I would ever have finished if I read it in print!

No. Unless you are blind.