Audiobooks discussion
Audiobooks in the News
>
Listening isn't cheating
I'm endlessly amused by this. I have a group of friends mixed readers and listeners and we'll all listen to the same book separately. The listeners have never struggled to have conversations with the readers. lol
I don't get why people think it's cheating to listen to a book than to read it with your eyes. The article says that in order to cheat, you receive something without doing the work. In my mind, going to a movie adaptation of a book is more cheating than listening to the unabridged audiobook edition.
J. wrote: "I'm endlessly amused by this. I have a group of friends mixed readers and listeners and we'll all listen to the same book separately. The listeners have never struggled to have conversations with t..."I think that I'll tune out just as easily to a physical book as I will to an audio one, so yeah, I don't see it as cheating. When I'm tired I miss the same amount of lines / context reading or listening. =P
I've been using text to speech a lot lately. Really helps me get through fiction digitally without exhausting the eyes.
I like to think of it as consuming books. Sometimes I consume a book by reading it, sometimes I consume a book by listening. And one mode of consumption is not superior to the other, in my mind.
I do not think listening is cheating either. In fact some audio books are so well done that I think some are better than sitting and reading the actual book. I am one that listens to audio books just as much as I actually read. I work from home so during the day while I am working I like to listen to books. On my free time after work and on weekends is when I do most of my actual reading.
I use the Kindle reading app and my iPad's / iPhone's Voiceover settings out of necessity as I have physical and visual disabilities which make books difficult to access. Audiobooks and technology really helps. It is not cheating if it helps me, and anyway everyone should access books however they can. Interesting question for debate.
Anne wrote: "I do not think listening is cheating either. In fact some audio books are so well done that I think some are better than sitting and reading the actual book. I am one that listens to audio books ju..."Well said, helps with situations like this I agree.
Hi Katherine, in a situation such as yours I cold not imagine life without audio books! I loved when I had a Kindle; unfortunately both of them need a new battery. I have not tried reading/listening on my iPad yet as I have not had it very long. And yes! This is a very interesting topic for debate :)
I don't think listening is cheating but many of my friends do. I normally ignore them since most of them cannot remember when they read a book and thinks that the movie is just as good as the book so why read. I think looking at the movie is cheating and the movie leaves out so much.
Reading and holding book or Ereader is great. But you can't read them while you are doing your morning walk, washing dishes or other stuff, so listening to your book makes it easier.
Craig wrote: "I don't think listening is cheating but many of my friends do. I normally ignore them since most of them cannot remember when they read a book and thinks that the movie is just as good as the book ..."Yep. The most strident "That's cheating!" people I know are people who almost never read. If they don't read, and they can't articulate why it's cheating, I can't see why I should pay attention to them.
Maybe they think we listen to audiobooks like they listen to radio - i.e. background noise that they use to fill the silence but don't actually pay attention to?
And the argument that listening isn't what the author intended doesn't hold up either. Someone on GR once said that listening was wrong for a classic like Dickens. But many people at the time only absorbed Dickens by listening since everyone couldn't afford a book, or a family would read it aloud. Dickens himself even did public readings. And some more modern writers who have seen how successful their books are on audio take that into account when writing. (I think John Scalzi wrote a blog about that)
I don't think listening is cheating, and even if it was I don't see why some people would get upset about it. After all reading is just a hobby and you have the right to entertain yourself the way you want.Sure audiobooks allow me to read with my eyes closed but that doesn't mean that my brain isn't actively working to understand what I'm reading. Especially since english isn't my native language, I have to concentrate as hard to listen to a book than to read it.
So no, listening isn't cheating !
In one of my reviews I mentioned I had listened to it and someone posted a comment saying "that is so wrong". I just don't get what the problem is. I spend more time with a book listening than if I was reading it so its not like its a short cut for me.
It just demonstrates that we live in a society of intolerance.
And if it's because people think that you will just accept the narrator's voice and interpretation of the book, there are several instances that I've thought, "Gee, that's just the wrong emphasis. It completely changes the meaning into something that I don't think the author intended." (The old 'Time to eat, father vs Time to eat father.)So I'm not just placidly accepting the words, I'm interpreting them, same as I would interpret written words.
Shanna_redwind wrote: "And if it's because people think that you will just accept the narrator's voice and interpretation of the book, there are several instances that I've thought, "Gee, that's just the wrong emphasis. ..."If that's their reason (that narrators may not interpret the book exactly as the author intended), then translations would logically be counted as cheating too. There's even more leeway there for the interpretation to go astray.
I find the argument that a narrator may not be faithful to the author's preferred emphasis or tone quite funny... the reader of print may not emphasize the words the author wanted or give the correct tone to passages either. It's one of the reasons authors attempt to give readings of their own work... and don't always do such a great job since it is a different skill than writing.
Awhile back, I commented on a Goodreads Facebook post re: audiobooks, and I got a typical lame, uninformed response dissing audiobooks. Essentially I said that it's your choice not to listen, but to dismiss others' choice to listen rather than read is closed-minded (not to mention that it's about the only choice for those with vision and other health issues who want to consume books). Isn't the world better when more people consume books, regardless of whether you agree with the format? I also shared the data on the major increases in audiobook sales, illustrating that there are a LOT of us making this choice. This response got lots of support from others and no debate from non-listeners (including the original responder). I think (/hope) that those intolerant reading purists are just a (vocal) minority.
I didn't really mean that the argument might be that narrator wasn't faithful to the author's tone... More that people might think that people listening would just accept the narrator's tone rather than establish their own interpretation of that tone, hence cheating.I was refuting my own imagined argument, when I said that there have been times that I've disagreed with the narrator's tone, sometimes to the point of thinking that it changed the author's intent with that line, meaning that even though I was listening to the narrator's tone, I had also developed my own personal thoughts.
Lelivrosaure wrote: "I don't think listening is cheating, and even if it was I don't see why some people would get upset about it. After all reading is just a hobby and you have the right to entertain yourself the way ..."I agree with you. Why listening to an audiobook would bother someone is beyond me! And as Katherine stated that she has a visual impairment, is it considered cheating then?
Some people have too much time on their hands, lol.
Shanna_redwind wrote: "I didn't really mean that the argument might be that narrator wasn't faithful to the author's tone... More that people might think that people listening would just accept the narrator's tone rather..."The argument was also noted in the article. I agree that audiobook readers do listen critically and many have noted, as have I, at times that they felt a narrator missed the intended emphasis or tone of the author. I think most of us do recognize that the narrator is merely providing one interpretation and we may also re-inflect certain sentences in our own minds. So, still not cheating.
I am also blind and never learned braille because screen-reading programs for computers made print readily available to me. I noticed no one claims using fingers to read braille, since it doesn't use the eyes, is cheating though.
I suppose it may come down to what a person defines as the principle function of reading. If it is to experience every word an author uses to convey an idea, relay facts, or tell a story, then visual and auditory readers are equal. If the point is to demonstrate and/or increase the skills involved in visual reading, then I guess we auditory readers are out of luck. Me, I'm in it for the content.
Many of us read a LOT in both print and audio, it's not one or the other. And I read much faster in print so I make more effort and spend more time with audio, not less. Some people just don't appreciate how great audio is!
One thing audiobook readers can say that very few print readers can... we read every single word the author wrote. We don't skim, we can't take in whole sentences at a glance and decide it isn't relevant, and we are going to read every word the author labored over--every if, and, or but. Authors should love us.
I have been amazed how much I've enjoyed listening to audio books since setting up my Audible account. I counted the book titles I had consumed in the first 6 months of my account: I had read 15 paperback/hardbacks, read 30 Kindle books, and listened to 60 books. I doubt I'll ever be exclusively audio, but I'm certainly enjoying the vast majority that way!
I've been an Audible member for around 20 years. My library is so large it is unwieldy. At the beginning, I read regular books and listened to a few audiobooks while I commuted. Then I added ebooks and audiobooks were still running third. These days, I would say about 2/3 of all the books I finish are audiobooks and the rest are mainly ebooks with a few physical books. I like highlighting and tagging non-fiction and self-help/how-to books. So far this year, I've finished 54 books.
54 books so far this year - that's impressive. I think I've only listened to 14 so far this year.Tina wrote: "I've been an Audible member for around 20 years. My library is so large it is unwieldy..."
I can't imagine what my Audible account will be like after that long! I've had mine just under three years, and I already have over 300 books in my account. My daughter was just giving me a hard because we've both had our accounts for so long and I literally have seven times as many books as she does. But I have listened to over half of the ones in my account thus far (as well as listening to several of her books with her). And the ones I haven't listened to yet - I plan to!
Happy listening!
I am actually working my way through the books sorted alphabetically by author to check for new books in each series or new books by my favorite authors. I've even come across a few that I've completely forgotten. (Made it to RU, but skipped some.) I am now listening while doing crafts and slow periods on the job. I love being able to switch back and forth since Amazon bought Audible. If I had to recommend just one series? Jane Yellowrock by Faith Hunter
If listening is cheating, then reading Shakespeare is cheating as well since you are supposed to see it PERFORMED not read. It's a play. Somehow though, I think the original paragraph was simply contrived and never happened. I can't think of anybody who would consider listening to the unabridged audiobook is somehow less than reading the text. There are those who HAVE a preference for text, but that's not the same thing.
Stephanie wrote: "If listening is cheating, then reading Shakespeare is cheating as well since you are supposed to see it PERFORMED not read. It's a play. Somehow though, I think the original paragraph was simply co..."Unfortunately, the original claim has been made by many people, including some on Goodreads (not in this group of course!)
It all depends on the book I think. Some books lose something when they are listened to, and others gain from the narrator. I pick and chose what I'm willing to listen to and what should be read. The most significant factor is the narrator; some narrators can COMPLETELY RUIN a book because they suck at life. lol Others make the whole experience.
And as I always love to point out - when the young art of writing and reading came into being, people had been listening to stories being told orally for thousands of years!I read regular books, ebooks and listen to audiobooks in one happy mix, and some books with relevant illustrations, colored letters meaning different things etc. are more suitable for print, but I've more than once given a book an extra star because of an awsome narrator
Grumpus wrote: "Came across this today. Thought it was funny.https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily..."
REALLY enjoyed this! So, it appears we audiobook readers have gained sufficient credibility to feel secure about being militant! ;P Come the revolution...
What would our protest signs say?
Duh, we won't carry no stinkin' printed signs!
Grumpus wrote: "Came across this today. Thought it was funny.https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily..."
Mic drop. :)
Jeanie wrote: "Grumpus wrote: "Came across this today. Thought it was funny.https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily..."
...Duh, we won't carry no stinkin' printed signs!"
Between and article and Jeanie's comment, I can't stop smiling :)
Really nice one, thanks for sharing this.
Great article. I can't figure out what the problem is with these "anti-audio" readers. Cheating? No way. They seem so strong about their opinions. I've heard people say the narrator's character voices just didn't portray them and that could have something to do with it.
I've had people tell me audiobooks aren't really reading, but they don't usually go so far as to say i'm cheating. I had previously shown this article from last year to some people in response...
If a person is real busy with crafts and housework and even exercising, not to leave out travel time in a car, then they would get very little done in the way of reading books. Audiobooks helps them to continue their reading when they're swamped with life. I love it. I will listen to an audiobook while crocheting gifts.
The "anti-audio" readers are just hysterical control freaks, obsessed with lecturing other people on how they should behave. Ignore them and enjoy your audiobooks.
Alan wrote: "The "anti-audio" readers are just hysterical control freaks, obsessed with lecturing other people on how they should behave. Ignore them and enjoy your audiobooks."
Hahahahaha.
I think one issue for visual readers is they've lost their position of superiority... reading used to be an intellectual exercise that took time few people had. "Have you read...?" was their opportunity to show off. Audiobooks opened up great books to so many more people and, to the horror of some, made many previous non-readers into more prolific readers than the visual readers. Audiobook readers suddenly had the advantage.
Jeanie wrote: "Audiobooks opened up great books to so many more people and, to the horror of some, made many previous non-readers into more prolific readers than the visual readers. ..."I've gotten the best of both worlds. I was a prolific visual reader when I was younger (though without the "superiority" component). When I switched almost exclusively to audiobooks, I found that I was an even more prolific reader for the reasons we listeners already know: reading while doing chores, walking, and driving more than doubled my exposure to great books. In fact I wish I had discovered audiobooks earlier in life, when they were still "Books on Tape."
I wonder how the "anti-audios" feel about blind persons who listen to audiobooks in lieu of reading the Braille versions, or to access books that aren't available in Braille? Are the blind folks "cheating" too?
The threat of blindess is why I tried audiobooks in the first place. In the early '90's I was diagnosed with Glaucoma, and in my particular case the Ophthamalogists weren't entirely certain about a positive prognosis. So I panicked and started getting audiobooks to read - I was concerned that many of the obscure titles I was reading would not be available in Braille editions.
I was amazed by how well the readers performed, and so took to the audio versions instantly. As a bonus my Glaucoma did turn out to be treatable, so I can also occasionally access print versions of nonfiction for reference, or rare titles to satisfy the collecting demon.
If this is "cheating," then cheaters sometimes do prosper.
Of course not!!!!! I walk a lot, and it’s nice to listen a book.
Alan wrote: "Jeanie wrote: "Audiobooks opened up great books to so many more people and, to the horror of some, made many previous non-readers into more prolific readers than the visual readers. ..."I've gott..."
Well said, and congratulations on prospering! ;P
I am one of the blind who reads via audiobook... and never learned braille because technology made print forms accessible. In fact, many speculate that braille will disappear entirely from use someday due to technology. Some blind persons used to--possibly some still do--called those who used text-to-speech rather than braille for reading "cheaters"... ah well.
I think for many it is because visual reading and braille are skills that must be acquired rather than occurring naturally as part of human development (for those who can hear). They feel cheated at having put in the hard work acquiring the skill only to have a more natural form take its place. Imagine how all those poor monks felt about their hand-written manuscripts once the printing press came into being! ;)
Hearing isn't a skill, but listening certainly is!
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/08/...