Audiobooks discussion
Audiobooks in the News
>
Question is still open: audiobooks = reading?
date
newest »
newest »
I can't figure out what kind of self important shit feels the need to knock down how other people take in books. I was reading one book a year before discovering audiobooks and I have created 8-10 audiobook addicts out of non-readers. People who were consuming zero books are now consuming dozens a year. I hope I never come face to face with someone asking this question. I'm a non-violent person, but I'd be likely to go full three stooges on the wise guy.
I'm glad you posted that link, Pamela. I got it through another site but I didn't know how to copy it over here.
Can't we all agree that the world is a better place when more people consume books, regardless of the format? I just don't understand. I don't mind people who state that they prefer reading to audio. It's when they declare that listening isn't as legitimate as reading that I get really upset.
HEre’s the way I look at it - you do what you do - if you want to count them then do it; if not then don’t - you will rarely convince folks to change their minds so why try? (Yeah i’m Kind of jaded)
When I joined my neighborhood Book Club a few years back, I was told by a high school English teacher in the group, that audios were NOT real reading. She has since come around and will now even ask me questions about books in the high school curriculum. I agree with Dee, a conversation will not change minds. But my monthly contact with this teacher, has her at least not putting her nose so high in the air.
MOVIES != AUDIO BOOKS != READINGWHY? Movies - In movies you have outsourced everything to others - Others think for your - Others read for you - Others sing for you; You are passive; You have nothing to do - Except sit back and watch;
AUDIO BOOKS - You are outsourcing reading to someone; But the burden of hearing it, converting the data into information and then imagining that information to make sense and derive knowledge out of it - rests in your own mind! Thus you are not passive - You are active here!
BOOKS- You need to me most active here - You have to read, you have to save it into your mind - then your mind has to create information - Then process the information and then imagine in your minds eye about it and create knowledge that is required to move further.
PAIN
BOOKS >>> AUDIO BOOKS >>> MOVIES
Again books can be sub-divided the same can be done to Audio books and Movies. The type of book you read also decides how well you can understand it as a Book vs Audio Books vs Movie
With my experience.
If you are going to read adventure and action with musicals and dance numbers - Please watch a movie. Things which flow, and are more graphical in nature fall into this spectrum.
If you are reading a detailed plot, a master piece of philosophy, a poem, please go for an audio book; This will slow things down. Arts can be tackled with audio books. Things which also flow i.e. no breaks in between, no pauses and things that require little thought and focus - Novels, History Epics etc...
If you are going for sciences, i.e biology maths physics or complex philosophy or thing that need you to memorize etc... Anything abstract in nature i.e. things that come with visualizing ideas and concepts and things which require you to take notes, do research etc.. Please go for a book.
For example I was trying to learn about Sociology - Audio books were enough. I was trying to learn about UI/UX design and product management, every other page there was a prototype or a design; Thus audio books were not enough.
Thus each format must be used according to the requirement. Don't ever think that one format is inferior to the next. A picture might be worth 1000 words but putting a picture where you don't need one is equal to 1000 words that will confuse the reader.
this whole argument reminds me of the people who correct others over the use of the word decimate. Yes, it's original meaning meant to reduce by one tenth, but it broadened over time to mean near total destruction. I think the word "reading" is already acquiring a broader second definition to include consuming printed material through whatever means rather than only the specific act of decoding letters on a page with one's eyes. Just because some people are lagging behind in this expansion of the language doesn't mean we have to be held to the more limited definition. In the years to come, this argument over visual versus auditory reading will be viewed as quaint. ;)
I agree with Jeanie. I'm sure there were people who once thought reading in vulgar English wasn't really reading at all because everything worthwhile was written in Latin.The bigger problem for me though is finding an Audible book that's both well written and well read. It's 2 x difficult.
The crazy world of Internet opinions. If people want to pontificate about why they *think* it's not "reading" let them. Seriously who cares what they think. I used to read the printed word a hell of a lot but fell out of love with it as eyes got more tired more quickly and I simply didn't have the time.Audiobooks have fixed that and I now "read" a lot more in a year than I previously did in a decade. Some of the narrators genuinely add to the experience, the likes of Steven Pacey, RC Bray and I'm sure we can all add others.
If someone has a need to feel superior about how they consume books just let them. After all, we know . . . :-)
As someone who often falls asleep while reading a print book, regardless of how good it is, yes, audiobooks are reading. When I'm listening to my audiobooks I'm up and moving, can't fall asleep and therefore absorb more of the content. The only situation where I would say that audiobooks are not reading is if someone is learning to read. Learning to read involves the painstaking acquisition of certain skills that can't be obtained from listening to audiobooks.
I struggle understanding people who do not think audiobooks are reading. I have always been a big follower of Jim Trelease and The Read-Aloud Handbook. He did studies years ago that basically proved that reading aloud to students INCREASED their actual reading scores and helped them learn to read faster. This applied to students throughout the grade levels since many of the studies were done at the middle school and high school levels.
So being read to (whether in person or with an audio) is reading and will improve reading skills in the long run.
Jan wrote: "I struggle understanding people who do not think audiobooks are reading. I have always been a big follower of Jim Trelease and The Read-Aloud Handbook. He did studies y..."
Being read aloud to is of course enjoyable....and helpful... but it's not the same as acquiring the skill yourself. It's a little like using a calculator while doing math.
I just discovered this discussion and am dumbfounded that it is even occurring. When humans read books, they do so with their brains. The brain is the only organ that interprets and understands the marks I am making appear on this screen. It matters not what sensory organ is used to transmit the data contained in a book to the brain, the book is still being read by the person.Eyes sense (see) marks on pages but cannot understand that they are letters, much less interpret the meaning of the words. They send the visual data to the brain for reading.
Ears sense (hear) sounds in the air but cannot understand that they are syllables, much less interpret the meaning of the words. They send the auditory data to the brain for reading.
Fingers sense (feel) bumps on a surface but cannot understand that they are letters, much less interpret the meaning of the words. They send the tactile data to the brain for reading.
Our brains do all this and so much more; what a miraculous thing is the human brain.
Phil wrote: "I just discovered this discussion and am dumbfounded that it is even occurring. When humans read books, they do so with their brains. The brain is the only organ that interprets and understands the..."Thank you for mentioning braille here - that's a good point I've been missing! I don't remember anyone ever saying that the blind do not read because they don't use their eyes ... is that a thing, too? I would think that if fingertips are acceptable, then ears would be as well ....
Phil wrote: "I just discovered this discussion and am dumbfounded that it is even occurring. When humans read books, they do so with their brains. The brain is the only organ that interprets and understands the..."Really good interpretation, Phil! I also think it is too simple to say that one type of reading is easier than another. It really varies. A couple of my family members are visual learners. They have to make a big effort to follow an audiobook, and struggled in college lecture classes. But they can read the material in print or interpret maps and diagrams better than I can. I can easily remember things I hear, so audiobooks are relaxing for me and I can follow them while doing something else.
By the way, when most of us read, we "hear" the words inside our heads. We may not be conscious of it, but it certainly comes up when we try to discuss the book and have an idea of how a character's name is pronounced, for example.
Honestly, I don't even care what other people think. Reading a book and listening to the book are the same thing, they just use different parts of the brain. Now, people will argue that you hear a different voice when you listen to it versus reading it yourself. The same thing happens if you read a book and then you see the movie. How many people had their own voice for Professor Snape after reading the book, that now has been superimposed by the actor? Did they unread the book?If you want to be very specific, go ahead and say consumed a book . But I'll just say reading and if you don't like it suck it up.
When learning another language, I am first able to follow it in print before I am able to listen (full speed) and get every word.This makes me think print is actually easier than listening ;) (I always like to turn these kind of thins up side down).
I wonder if the attitude about audiobook's being not reading comes from the fact that most audiobooks used to be abridged. Very few audiobooks have been abridged since 2000.
It saddens me that people have time to judge how other people absorb stories, whether through movies, audio or reading. I've been affected, and I like to think my mind has been expanded, by stories in all of these mediums.
I don’t I would not have been exposed to as many books as I have had it not been for AUDIOBOOKS. Cassette tapes then Cd disc, and now downloads from OVERDRIVE, HOOPLA, AXIS 360, RBDIGITAL from our libraries.
Peg wrote: "It saddens me that people have time to judge how other people absorb stories, whether through movies, audio or reading. I've been affected, and I like to think my mind has been expanded, by stories..."Peg, there IS a difference between what the author wrote and the movie. Very few movies follow the author's writing. So, yeah, movies and books/audiobooks are not the same thing.
I find Audiobook readers are often just as guilty of this as paper book readers.There are have been threads, or comments within threads on "how to convert people to audiobooks".
I don't know why some people think that just because they enjoy audio that they feel the need to convince other people of the same thing.
I think if we are saying leave us alone to enjoy the books the way we want to, then we should be showing that same respect to others.
We had a member here for a while (who is gone now thankfully) who was rabid on this topic and constantly going on about "converting people" to audiobooks.
I think it is equally annoying both ways...everyone needs to be free to just let people enjoy books in the way they want to and the way that suits them best.
I've got a friend who knows I listen to audiobooks and she has just decided on her own to start listening too and she's come to me for some help...but it was totally her decision and it's been fun to share my favourite books and narrators with her over the last few weeks. I'm all for helping someone if they ask for it, but I don't like being told "how" to experience a book, so I'm pretty sure 'paper' book readers feel the same.
I think we all need to be aware that we don't do the same things to others that we complain about ourselves.
For someone in high school or earlier, if I were a teacher I would not accept audiobook listening only as reading. But for casual reading and everybody else, yes. I'm fine with using the word 'consuming'.For children or adults learning to read, listening will not help them advance. It might help them with understanding, particularly if they have a learning disability, but it is not the same. I'm not saying this to be pendantic. I have three siblings who all had reading disabilities and you could clearly see the difference as they continued to read paper books. They enjoyed audio, but that did nothing to advance their reading skills, which was necessary in employment or reading the newspaper. So yes, there is a difference. That said, if I listen to the latest Stephen King novel, I will say that I read it. :)
Movies are only based on books - they are not equivalent to books while unabridged audiobooks are.
Storytelling and listening are a big part of who we as human beings. We have been listening to stories all through the centuries. Many cultures highly value the spoken narrative. What is wrong with a culture that doesn't value this method of delivery I don't know..Personally I think the magic of the story is in the story itself and how it can be shared with anyone, not in the font or shiny cover.
I think all the members of this group also value print books and know how important reading is, and we wouldn't want children to bypass mastering print reading. I do have fond memories of teachers occasionally reading to the class in later grades, such as 5th and 6th. I think it was at the end of the day as a reward. Audiobooks are great for those of us with vision issues and all of us who like to read while doing something else.
Stephanie wrote: "For someone in high school or earlier, if I were a teacher I would not accept audiobook listening only as reading. But for casual reading and everybody else, yes. I'm fine with using the word 'cons..."My youngest daughter was a slow reader. I got her to read along while listening to audiobooks and I believe it helped.
Good point J. (and glad to hear you found a way to help your daughter).
Please forgive me for some sweeping generalities, which may be a little sloppy, but I think that I have the gist right.Before books, there were storytellers. In order for history to go forward, the oral tradition was all there was before writing was invented. I recently read of the fascinating of the discovery of the epic of Gilgamesh, the current 'first' written story.
Only the rich and powerful had written language, which really evolved for them to keep track of their money, their greatness, and their laws.
Fast forward to the printing press, when the only books produced for a long time were bibles. Books like we have today didn't exist until a couple of hundred years ago. I'd call the written word not the same as 'real' storytelling. lol
First, there were notices, newspapers, and broadsides, which included serialized novels. This is why Dickens, Wilkie Collins and many other's books were so thick: the authors got paid by the chapter. One person would read to those who couldn't, and they told the story to the rest of the family when they got home.
Books were for the richer. A family with money might have a few books, but often only one member of the family could read, and that person read aloud to the rest of the family. That was 'Entertainment' in those days. (Can you imagine sitting by the fire, listening to "The Pilgrim's Progress" because there was no electricity, music, or tv? Just shoot me.)
They didn't usually have a large library unless they were wealthy. So, they got to hear the same books over and over. Do you think that they thought they hadn't learned the books? Really, people. History. Read history. Or listen to history! lol
The brain may perceive books a little differently read or listened to, but I often find books even more fascinating when well performed. My imagination isn't as fast as the narrator can act out all the different voices. I don't 'hear' the accents from other parts of the country or the world, because I don't have personal experience of those places. Isn't that why we read novels? To live another life for a little while?
But, moreover, think of the author. Isn't the author telling you a story? Don't you think that s/he wants you to hear that voice in your head? I write, and I reread my work out loud, to make sure it sounds right to the reader. I know that my inflection isn't like everybody else's, and I'd want someone to do my story justice when they read it.
I'll bet that most people who think that it's cheating have never listened to an audiobook, or have never thought about the history of the book that they're holding. I just learned this this year, and it blew me away.
If you have a different take on it, I'm open to discussion on this.
Totally love that take on this, JZ, and agree
Thanks for sharing this JZ.And wonderful to know you actually go and read your own work out loud to hear how it sounds !!
Yes! And I've heard of famous authors reading their text out loud to catch odd or repetitive expressions. So funny that on some other website someone posted that it was wrong to have audiobooks of classics and the example he gave was Dickens. As you pointed out, many people only got to know Dickens' works because they were read aloud. And Dickens himself gave readings from his works. He was the first to do this as a dramatic performance, where he acted out the characters. He also loved the theater. I'm sure he would have approved of audiobooks making his works accessible and entertaining.
I love Neil Gaiman for this, too. He's wonderful as a narrator.
Neil Gaiman could read me the tax code, and I'd be entranced. Fortunately, his stories are just as good as his voice. Does anyone here know him from "Selected Shorts"? NPR
I would say it's still reading, you're still absorbing the book in full. It's just that the voice you hear in your head telling the story isn't your own.I also think it's about convenience, so many of us can't read as much as we want to. I travel up to 3 hours 20 minutes each day I work, audio books help me to make that time valuable.
Here is another article, from the New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/op...
This one does give listening some pluses, the comments sections is overwhelmingly positive to the joy of listening.
I am in agreement about Dickens, I love to hear his work read, it makes it even better.
Thanks for posting that link, Karen! I saw the article but I didn't know how to link it. I can see the point about a dense informational text being helpful in print for rereading, underlining, etc. I liked how it mentioned that a good narrator can read a book better than we can, by emphasizing the right words. Although, as some commenters pointed out, using Shakespeare for an example is inappropriate, since his work was meant to be seen and heard, not read in print.The comments mainly show how we are all different. Some people are just annoyed by anyone reading to them, and many people love it. For years I thought I wouldn't like audiobooks because my experiences of non-professionals reading to me were unpleasant and boring. Wow, was I surprised when I finally tried it (for my kids) and got hooked. But some people never will.I just wish they wouldn't be moralistic about it.
Some people insist audiobooks in the car are distracting. Yes, if I am in a challenging driving environment, I will turn it off, but mostly they are a help to my concentration. As someone with ADD tendencies, if I don't have a book to listen to, my mind will wander somewhere much farther afield and I will be even less aware of my surroundings. Plus things I am thinking to myself are rarely educational or entertaining!
One commenter insisted that audiobooks while mopping, cleaning, etc. are just wrong. We should all follow Buddhist principles of really being present to the mopping. That's great for them, but for me life is too short and there are too many great books! I will mop longer and better if I have a book to listen to. Otherwise, I will just race through it to get to something more interesting.
I have always read a lot in print and I am a fast reader. Audiobooks actually make me slow down and focus in a different way, and I only speed them up if I'm not enjoying the book. I know a lot of our members always listen faster, and that's fine too.
Here's a link to an article from a Virginia professor. Interesting! https://www.wpr.org/no-listening-audi...
Rick B wrote: "Here's a link to an article from a Virginia professor. Interesting! https://www.wpr.org/no-listening-audi..."Thanks for sharing the article Rick. It brings up some good points why people tend to think of audio as cheating.
Since it mentioned/based from the research, just want to point out it was a small sample and very narrow - 121 people living in New York Metropolitan area, between ages 25-40, college educated with bachelor's degree only, English only speakers. Broke into three groups to compare: Audio only, E-book, and both.
Rick B wrote: "Here's a link to an article from a Virginia professor. Interesting! https://www.wpr.org/no-listening-audi..."Thanks for that interesting article. I LOVE listening to audiobooks, because my mild ADD makes it hard to focus on the written word for very long. Plus, I have a forty-five minute commute, so what better way to spend my time?
But I have always had a hard time having to defend the fact that I am an avid reader. Someone recently compared my audio books to talk radio or podcasts...and I honestly didn't even know how to counter that. But I like how the article said our brains are decoding in exactly the same way as they would when reading a physical book. And most importantly that it pointed out that we readers shouldn't fight a civil war over something so silly!
At any rate, it always seems to me that the people who say things like that, to me at least, are always non-readers. Which leads me to think that they are just trying to bring me down to put themselves up.
https://lithub.com/audiobooks-are-not...is answering
https://thebaffler.com/latest/success...
I subscribe to Literary Hub, which sends links to book-related articles and topics daily. Audiobooks are rarely mentioned but usually there are a couple articles that are of interest to me, out of the dozen provided.
Robin wrote: "https://lithub.com/audiobooks-are-not...is answering
https://thebaffler.com/latest/success......"
I really enjoyed the second article you linked Robin, by Jia Sung. Thanks for posting. I appreciate the point about allowing downtime, sitting and doing nothing, or the "dead time". Don't think I allow enough of that in my daily life; nice to be reminded to let that in from time to time.
Yes, but blaming audiobooks for that is a bit odd. Personally, I hate downtime. As someone whose brain is always going, I know meditation would be good for me, but I can't stand the idea of being bored. My biggest hurdle in exercising is boredom, so listening to audio while walking or exercising has been great. I used to listen to music while cleaning house and sometimes I still do but a compelling book is even better. On the other hand, I see the temptation to always be checking my phone for updates, which are often silly, and I'm fine with being away from my phone for hours on end.
For me, Audiobooks have made it so in my busy life commuting 45 minutes to & from work, I've been able to get back into my love of literature even more. It took me a year to read "traditionally" Les Miserables in my spare time sitting, walking the dog reading on my kindle, etc. In the last year, I've listened to DOZENS of classics, including a fair chunk of the complete works of Charles Dickens. I still make time for daily devotions & meditation. I don't listen to the radio to & from work every day though. And also in the last year, I've taken my love of reading aloud & made it my passion. The process of narrating is incredibly fulfilliing. In narrating, I read the material a minimum of one time, generally at least twice, then I listen to it in the editing process. In that, I'm reviewing the material I already read, usually a few days before & I laugh again at situations in the book, I fall in love with my favorite characters. I appreciate what the author wrote in completely new ways. And on top of all that, I'm still reading to my kids every night, like I have for more than 10 years now. If that doesn't constitute "reading" for them, it has in the very least given them their own love of literature. We take turns deciding what to read & have read everything from Jane Eyre to Alcatraz vs. The Evil Librarians. When you 10 year old girl has listened to & read enough literature that she can accurately guess many of the plot points of Jane Eyre chapters before they actually happen, her brain is obviously developing in ways I can't even begin to understand.
I think the real issue is not "Reading vs. Listening" but rather loving literature & learning. One is not exclusive of the other. Now that I'm producing audiobooks, I'm delighted that I've actually READ a dozen more books in the last year & in so doing, have made the ideas & stories they contain more easily accessible to a much broader audience.
Thanks for sharing Robin, and thank you Benjamin for your food for thought!
Robin wrote: "Yes, but blaming audiobooks for that is a bit odd. Personally, I hate downtime. As someone whose brain is always going, I know meditation would be good for me, but I can't stand the idea of being b..."I'm right with you on this! I am in other worlds (usually Sci-Fi or Fantasy) while I mow the lawn, clean, commute, work in the garage/ on projects... any time I can. Yes, I'll have some quiet time for reflection each day, but I try to fill all possible times of 5 minutes or more with Audiobooks.
Benjamin, I love your comment about reading with your kids. I'm doing the same and feel the same. I have not been able to pick up a book to read physically, though. My kids are young and I'm running around all the time still. It just feels too hard to do still.
Audiobooks
Books mentioned in this topic
The Read-Aloud Handbook (other topics)The Read-Aloud Handbook (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jim Trelease (other topics)Jim Trelease (other topics)
Do Audio Books Count As Reading? : And Other Pernicious Questions That Arise For Visually Impaired Book-Lovers
I found the article through facebook and found it so depressing all the comments that said no...and even compared it to watching a movie. At least there were counter arguments. One person said maybe we need to change the word from "reading" to "consuming" books.