Challenge: 50 Books discussion
Audio books...Do they count as reading?
Brian wrote: "If audiobooks count, then I'm definitely still in the running for reading 50 books!Do Podcasts count? Just kidding, but please check out Clay Jenkinson's weekly podcast, "The Thomas Jefferson Hour..."
I would like to second the endorsement of The Thomas Jefferson Hour. It is almost completely non-partisan. A lot of good books regarding the founding fathers are suggested on this podcast and occasionally an author is interviewed as well.
Sort of? I get all the stories about blind people, families of the past, etc., but most people I know who "read" books on tape do so because they think it will be easier than actually reading a book. One friend is listening to Pride and Prejudice on tape because she couldn't get through it when she tried to read it. It's not enough effort to count as reading, unless there's some circumstance that makes it difficult to read books. I guess I'm saying no.
Seruh wrote: "Sort of? I get all the stories about blind people, families of the past, etc., but most people I know who "read" books on tape do so because they think it will be easier than actually reading a boo..."It's interesting that you know so many people who read audio books because they think it will be easier. I know a bunch of people who read audio books, and not one does so for the reason you stated. I personally find audio books to be much harder. You have to give your full attention, which is definitely hard, especially when you don't have the words in front of you. Also, it takes so much more time to read the book in audio book format than it does when reading a physical book. By reading the audio books, your brain is as, if not more, activated than when reading a physical book because the concentration level is much higher when reading an audio book. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
No, because Reading, for me that is, is the action of actually holding the book and reading it. I couldn't really say anything againste listening to audiobook though since ive never tried it. LOL
It's all semantics. Everyone has a different feel for the definition of the word 'reading'. We 'read' body language...but there aren't words printed on a forehead or an arm. In the listening mode, the hearer conjures up an image from the spoken word he/she hears...just as a page-turner conjures up an image from the letters put together to form words, sentences and paragraphs. There is, in all information ingested, a previous knowledge that allows us to form images we can understand and relate to. So it isn't surprising to me that some people do that more quickly with 'heard' words and some people do it more quickly with 'read' words. The result is the same...a story gets told, information gets imparted, I surmise that a satisfaction of some sort is gained. I myself would have little satisfaction in hearing a technical manual than reading one, and perhaps more satisfaction in the audio version of a fable or fantasy offering. For serious reading I would have to resort to reading, for the sheer necessity of going back over and over again, sentences and sometimes whole paragraphs, and that's not only in the technical books. The purpose of any kind of book is to impart knowledge, whether it be technical or fluff...you know more after you are done than before you started.But finally, the question itself is absurd, given the fact that this GoodReads group has consistently said that any challenge is strictly up to the individual, and what they want to count, how they want to count. Some people count pages...that is totally off my page, but I'm not campaigning against it. I can actually see some logic in it as then you wouldn't wonder if the book you were reading would qualify as a read because it was too short. To each his own, and they have made this a place where all can feel welcome and can choose to go at their own pace. These challenges are not contests...I don't think GR is giving a prize at the end, or are they? Rather, it seems to me that the challenge is to oneself...can I read more this year than last year? Can I read more classics, more diversified authors, a different genre? It's kind of fun to challenge myself, knowing that my peers, my buddies, are doing the same, and that we may even be reading the same books, and could have a(n intelligent) discussion about them.
Carol -- Such a well-balanced response. I am so weary of this "argument" about whether audio books "count." As you point out, this is an entirely personal issue, and it is only the individual's opinion that matters. I have found that most people who disregard audiobooks have never listened to one.Just like all the people who don't like Kindles because they aren't "real" books. I was the first person in my book club to get a Kindle, and almost everyone else was negative about it, because they like to "feel a book in their hands." Now about half the members of the club have one, and wouldn't live without it.
50 years from now, people will look back on these silly exchanges with amusement, I'm sure. Does anyone really believe that traditional books will still be published in the future? Audio and e-books are going to become the norm.
In the past the question was about Cliff Notes and comic books! lolAt least with the audio books you are getting the whole book. I like to read, anyway I can. And I even count my Ellery Queen and Alfred Hitchcock magazines toward my books because they are short story collections and usually run over 100-200 pages. Sometimes I even count the books I read out loud to my granddaughters.
Kathleen wrote: "Carol -- Such a well-balanced response. I am so weary of this "argument" about whether audio books "count." As you point out, this is an entirely personal issue, and it is only the individual's opi..."Carol, I was checking the by-laws and found that, although audio-books count, books on a Kindle do not. Sorry, but those are the rules. The good news is that those read on a Nook do count, so you have that going for you. Coincidently, I happen to have a Nook that I can let you have for a popular price.
I just finished reading Octavia E. Butler's Bloodchild and Other Stories. In addition to the stories, the book has a couple of autobiographical essays that include Ms Butler's insights on the writing life. Unsurprisingly, she recommends reading a lot. She also has something to say about audiobooks (this book is copyrighted 1995, so that's why she refers to using audio tape)."If you commute to work or if you spend part of your day doing relatively mindless work, listen to book tapes. If your library doesn't have a good supply of complete books on audio tape, companies like Recorded Books, Books on Tape, Brilliance Corporation and the Literate Ear rent or sell you a wide selection of such books for your pleasure and continuing education. These provide a painless way to ponder use of language, the sounds of words, conflict, characterization, plotting, and the multitudes of ideas you can find in history, biography, medicine, the sciences, etc."
So there you have it. If it's good enough for Octavia E. Butler, it's good enough for me.
"Carol, I was checking the by-laws and found that, although audio-books count, books on a Kindle do not." Where are these by-laws found? Could you send me the link? Or is it a secret?
Sorry, you can only read them if you have a Nook.
Brian wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "Carol, I was checking the by-laws and found that, although audio-books count, books on a Kindle do not. Sorry, but those are the rules..."Oh noes! I bought a Kindle! Better remove all the ebooks I've counted...
Brian wrote: "I just finished reading Octavia E. Butler's Bloodchild and Other Stories. In addition to the stories, the book has a couple of autobiographical essays that include Ms Butler's insights on the writing life. Unsurprisingly, she recommends reading a lot. She also has something to say about audiobooks (this book is copyrighted 1995, so that's why she refers to using audio tape)..."
Oh, I'm so glad someone brought this up! It's her "Furor Scribendi" essay isn't it? Indeed, anything good enough for Butler is more than good enough for me!
Amanda wrote: "Brian wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "Carol, I was checking the by-laws and found that, although audio-books count, books on a Kindle do not. Sorry, but those are the rules..."Oh noes! I bought a Kin..."
Ayup, that's it. I'm looking forward to reading more of her works, but right now I'm reading my way through Mary Renault's books. I'm reading The Persian Boy currently. I sure wish I'd begun reading her a long time ago, but better late than never, I reckon. Ditto with Ms Butler's work.
Mod
Just a clarification for any newbies that may be reading this thread: Our 50 Books group doesn't have any by-laws, however, we welcome those with a sense of humour. Make your own challenge rules and don't believe everything you read ;)
Our only guidelines are those posted at the top of the group's main page.
Cheers,
Faye on Admin Duty
P.S. Those without a sense of humour are totally welcome, too.
Faye wrote: "Hey everyone: Just a clarification for any newbies that may be reading this thread: Our 50 Books group doesn't have any by-laws, however, we welcome those with a sense of humour. Make your own c..."
"Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do...except perhaps my wife and some of her friends...oh yes and Captain Johnston. Come to think of it most people likes a good laugh more than I do. But that's beside the point."
---The Colonel, Monty Python's Flying Circus
Faye wrote: "Hey everyone: Just a clarification for any newbies that may be reading this thread: Our 50 Books group doesn't have any by-laws, however, we welcome those with a sense of humour. Make your own c..."
Thanks for stepping up. I love this group. I have gotten alot of reading suggestions from the reviews, and it is fun to see how you are keeping up with others reading.
I've listened to the audio book version of The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. The author himself read the book and it was wonderful to hear the Afghani accent and pronunciation of words. The way he said "Kabul," "Afghanistan" and "Insha Allah" made the story feel so much more authentic. It really added a lot and I learned so much...more so than had I simply read it, I feel.
Stephanie wrote: "I've listened to the audio book version of The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. The author himself read the book and it was wonderful to hear the Afghani accent and pronunciation of words. The way h..."Really? I'll have to keep an eye out for that!
Amanda wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "I've listened to the audio book version of The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. The author himself read the book and it was wonderful to hear the Afghani accent and pronunciation o..."Me too!
It really depends on what you want to say you did, doesn't it? If all you care about is getting familiar with the book (the characters, the plot, et cetera), then whether you read it or listen to the audiobook is irrelevant. But saying that you READ the book when you listened to it seems a little perverse. I'm not saying that reading a book is better than listening to one. But reading and hearing are two very different things.
well, if you were to look up the definitions of "reading" and "audio" they two completely different forms of media. "reading" is READING, while "audio" is LISTENING. just like i won't count the cooking and fitness magazines i read as "reading" in terms of this challenge, just because i cannot in good and clear conscience do that.
Carla wrote: "well, if you were to look up the definitions of "reading" and "audio" they two completely different forms of media. "reading" is READING, while "audio" is LISTENING. just like i won't count the coo..."Carla, you are free to count whatever you wish, as is everyone else. It isn't a competition, there are no rules, and good luck to everyone in these last few weeks of 2011. Happy reading to all, in whatever form you wish your reading to take!
I just "read" a mystery book by Dorothy L. Sayers. Actually it was an audiobook. I downloaded it out of necessity when I couldn't find any print versions of the book in the library or at my local bookstore. (The book was selected by the leader of our mystery book discussion group at the library. You'd think they would have enough copies to go around. Yeah, right.) Anyway, I'm glad that I was able to download the book onto my MP3 player from the library's web site without any glitches. That was the first time I've ever done such a thing. The biggest problem was that I kept falling asleep while listening to the actor/narrator. The audio version of the book is divided into 6 sections, each consisting of several chapters. Whenever I fell asleep I had to go back to the beginning of a section to try to find out what I had missed. It seemed like I always fell asleep during a certain part of Section 2. I wasn't too happy about having to go back and listen to the first chapter in that section several times, because there was no way to fast-forward or skip over it.
Listening to a book on an MP3 player is convenient because you can do other things at the same time--walk, cook, clean or sleep--as you wish. In any case, I still would rather read a book than listen to one. It's easier to find the place where I stopped reading, for one thing. Regardless, I think audiobooks should count as reading, just the same as if you read a regular (printed) book. My only stipulation is that the audiobook should be just the same as the print version. Shortened or abridged versions are not okay, in my opinion. That's my personal rule. I feel like I would be cheating if I didn't listen to the whole thing.
I haven't tried reading on a Kindle or a Nook yet.
Listening to a book on an MP3 player is convenient because you can do other things at the same time--walk, cook, clean or sleep--as you wish. In any case, I still would rather read a book than listen to one. It's easier to find the place where I stopped reading, for one thing. Regardless, I think audiobooks should count as reading, just the same as if you read a regular (printed) book. My only stipulation is that the audiobook should be just the same as the print version. Shortened or abridged versions are not okay, in my opinion. That's my personal rule. I feel like I would be cheating if I didn't listen to the whole thing.
I haven't tried reading on a Kindle or a Nook yet.
Patricia wrote: "I just "read" a mystery book by Dorothy L. Sayers. Actually it was an audiobook. I downloaded it out of necessity when I couldn't find any print versions of the book in the library or at my local b..."Patricia, just a thought: when you downloaded the book to your MP3 player, did you download it to Overdrive first and then to iTunes? Because I know at least with an iPod, if you hook it up to your computer you can find your place on iTunes (and I believe also on Overdrive) and then re-sync your iPod and it will start your audiobook wherever you left off on the computer. Consider this if you ever have this issue again, where you lose your place somewhere in the middle of a section.
As to the original question, I almost always have an audiobook going - I read regular books and books on my nook as well, but I keep a book on my iPod to listen to while at the gym and while doing chores around the house.
Good question for a Challenge: 50 Books discussion group. For me, there is no other way I could read over 50 books per year. Many of the books I have read this year were around 1000 pages each. While I think this is a good question, I have to wonder why it was asked in the first place. I have my suspicions, but why would audiobooks not count?
Random wrote: "Why ever not? If I were blind or had sight issues, would my use of audiobooks not count? What about when my husband and I will enjoy a book by reading it to each other. Its not like we're childr..."No, because then you would read braille.
When you read, it is automatically implied that you read with your eyes. You can't READ a book with your ear drums.
It's not about competing. It's about the proper term for certain actions. You cannot re-define reading because you don't have the time, or make the time to actually READ a book. It does NOT count as reading.
Dictionary definition:
Reading: look at and understand written word.
Hearing: detect by perceiving sound
I read The Count of Monte Cristo to my husband. We enjoyed it. He wanted to own it, so he READ the book himself. So now we have both READ it. He couldn't claim he had READ The Count of Monte Cristo if his wife read it to him.
To use your own example, if reading is ONLY looking at and understanding the written word, a blind person would not READ a book in braille. It is a completely tactile experience. I think all too much emphasis is being put on the word reading when in fact it is the author's writing that counts. A person seeks to enjoy what an author wrote. The manner in which that enjoyment is met is irrelevant. When someone asks, "Did you read such-and-such a title?" it's highly unlikely they really meant "Did you read the words printed with ink on paper bound together with glue in some time of binding." They mean "Do you know the story? Did you like it? What didn't you like about it." And then the conversation revolves around plot and characters and style. All of which can be experienced in a variety of media.
Chris wrote: "To use your own example, if reading is ONLY looking at and understanding the written word, a blind person would not READ a book in braille. It is a completely tactile experience. I think all too mu..."Well said, Chris!
Chris wrote: "To use your own example, if reading is ONLY looking at and understanding the written word, a blind person would not READ a book in braille. It is a completely tactile experience. I think all too mu..."Because in the DICTIONARY braille is described as "reading". That's not MY definition, it's the dictionary's definition.
braille:
a system of writing or printing, devised by L. Braille for use by the blind, in which combinations of tangible dots or points are used to represent letters, characters, etc., that are read by touch.
Audio: of or relating to sound or hearing: audio frequency
On the other hand, the word "read" is not anywhere where it describes audio. Therefore you cannot "read" with your ears.
Are you guys looking up the meanings in the dictionary, or making things up as you go along because it's convenient for you?
"When someone asks, "Did you read such-and-such a title?" it's highly unlikely they really meant "Did you read the words printed with ink on paper bound together with glue in some time of binding."
It is highly unlikely?? In what world?! When someone asks you if you read a book, it is UNIVERSALLY ASSUMED that you READ the book with your eyes, not your ears.
It also used to be a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. Not so any longer, I think. As for the braille. It was your definition that I was quoting: reading is an activity that must be done with the eyes. Ergo, the definition that braille is "reading by touch" is either wrong or proof that reading is something that can be done without the use of the eyes. If one can read by touch, there should be no reason why one can't read by sound. Such a conundrum. But really, what does it matter? If you don't want listen to audiobooks, don't.
I "read" books like I "run" to the store - I don't think it's necessary to insist on the literal definition. I will continue to list my audiobooks as having "read" them. Those who choose to disapprove are free to do so.
Oh so you are redefining a definition that is in the dictionary. That's rich..Who said I didn't want to read audiobook? I have LISTENED to AUDIO books. They are fine by me.
Now I know to take people's "50 book challenge" with a grain of salt. Since a lot of people probably Ear-read their books..
i think if someone asks you if you read a book and you didn't actually READ it with your eyes, you should say "yes, I audio-read the book". It's very deceiving to allow people to assume you actually took the undivided time to read it. Anyone can listen to stuff while they multi-task. It's like watching tv. How much can you really concentrate on the words and lyrics of a book if you're doing other things at the same time?
Why would anyone care whether I listened to a book or read a print book? The "50 Book Challenge" is not a contest, but a personal goal. I really don't care if you or anyone else takes my list "with a grain of salt." It's something I'm doing for my own satisfaction, not to impress anyone.I certainly don't think I'm deceiving anyone by failing to state on my list in which form I read a book. Do what you want, but accusing people of being deceitful and doubting that anyone can actually absorb a book while listening to it is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? I have no problem at all absorbing an audio-book while I walk my dog, which is when I usually "ear-read," to use your term.
If you don't feel it appropriate to "count" audio-books, then don't count them. But criticizing other people for doing so and wielding the dictionary at them to prove your point is quite disrespectful to the others in the group.
So you'll be questioning the posts of members of this group, wondering if we're "deceiving" you? What does it matter? Some people include children's picture books, graphic novels and manga in their lists. They're not doing it to impress you. They're doing it because it's what they enjoy. How many books I read or listen to should have no impact on your life at all. Nor should you care how well someone can concentrate on an audiobook. I have been so enraptured by an audiobook that I can still remember whole sections of it years and years later. And there are books I've read-read that I can barely remember the name of the main character. What I'm trying to say is you're welcome to your opinion, but please refrain from casting aspersions at those who feel differently.
I prefer reading the actual book rather than listening to someone read a book to me. I have only tried an audio book, once and thoroughly hated that 1st hour. I like the feel of the book or ereader in my hand as well as the time I make for me to read that particular book. But I just retired (early retirement) so I have time now to read, read, and read.But to each reader, his/her own. My choice is the book, not audio. That's probably why I score low doing the Seasonal Reading Challenge.
This thread was started asking the question, "Audio books...Do they count as reading?". I took that question to be literal, exact, undeviating... Do AUDIO books count as READING? how is it that I'm being accused of being "disrespectful" by proving my point? that's pretty fascist attitude if you ask me.Audio and reading are two different words, with two different meanings. That is a fact. Now whether you want to change the definition of those words to suit your conscience is up to you. I provided you with inferable proof. You're the ones who keep bringing up words like "impressing". No one has to impress me...but call it what it is.
Perhaps this thread should have been called:
"Audiobooks count as reading, everyone agree with me!".
I will personally question people listening to and trying to pass them off as read because anyone who does that is being deceitful by omission. That is how I feel. How is that disrespectful? disrespectful because you didn't read the answer you wanted to read?
You guys can all hash it out here for yourselves in your little comfy bubble. Bonne nuit.
We were merely responding to your post, in which you used the words "deceiving," "a grain of salt," etc. I love the fact that you continue to try to insult everyone who doesn't agree with you ("comfy bubble," "deceitful by omission"), and then pack up your tent and leave, because you really have nothing of substance to say. No one is asking you to agree with them, but your superior attitude is a bit much. Why not have a nice glass of wine, and relax?
I'm here.. would you rather me stay and argue about this all day long and well into the night? because I can go on forever. I have the stamina of a bull. You choose..Superior because I didn't agree with you.. Oh I see..
Mod
However, this group is about fun, personal best and the love of books.
Beware that people on the 'net will egg you on in ways they wouldn't in person. Don't let 'em get your goat. Take the high road.
Faye wrote: "I've been scratching my head for the last little while trying to decide what an administrator's role is in such a thread as this. Perhaps there is none. I'm happy to see some spirited discussions, ..."Thank you, Faye. I'm taking that road. Thanks for giving me some perspective.
Faye wrote: "I've been scratching my head for the last little while trying to decide what an administrator's role is in such a thread as this. Perhaps there is none. I'm happy to see some spirited discussions, ..."I think of this as the thread that JUST WON'T DIE!! Every year someone unearths it, lobs it out unto the masses and someone ends up offending someone else.
How come no one ever unearths the "Who are you?" thread?
Hey, I'm someone.... I guess I need to go topic spelunking.
Mod
![Adrianna [SypherLily] (sypherlily)](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1399076174p1/2997955.jpg)
I'll start off saying I think I'm a visual learner. I'm pretty good at multitasking, but with stories that have a lot of important details, I'll only catch them if I'm reading. I listened to the first 6 or so chapters of Eldest by Christopher Paolini. I listened while in the car, and aside from the hideous voice the reader portrayed as Saphira, I just couldn't get into it. My mind would constantly wander and by the end of my ride I couldn't remember anything that happened exc ept for the last sentence he had said. That night I took my actual Eldest book off the shelf and read in bed. I read the same chapters and got it ALL. Everything. My mind didn't wander, all the characters had the voices I imagined them having, and quite frankly, I knocked out the chapters much faster than the audio book (which is to be expected). I consider listening to an audio book the same as reading a book, it's just a different way of taking in the information. If you can't chew food and the food goes down a tube do you still consider it eating?
"Reading" is the general term for taking knowledge from a story that's originally written. Since the original stories are in book form, we use read instead of listen.
I am seemingly one of those people that just can't listen to audio books. I'd much rather hear the voices in my head ;)
"I think of this as the thread that JUST WON'T DIE!! Every year someone unearths it, lobs it out unto the masses and someone ends up offending someone else."
Oops, sorry. This is the first time I saw this thread, so it made me happy to read people's opinions. Sure there will be some who argue, but why argue over an opinion such as this? Reading (or listening) and taking in information is for personal benefit. Whatever works for each person is what matters.
I love listening to audiobooks and those I download to my mp3 player. Does this also mean that the picture books that I sometimes pick up don't count either? If this site gets more people reading new kinds of books then "Yeah!". Just because a newspaper is on microfilm or a webpage doesn't change the news.i agree that people reading this 20 years from now on their new devise, whatever that may be, will say what were those people getting so upset about?
I don't care whether it counts or not, I do what I like, and I like audiobooks.
I think it is the enjoyment of a book. Would you say someone enjoyed a book if it was read to them? Many call that reading for children or the elderly. I think it is a different means of 'reading' though not literally reading.
I think of it this way: If I were blind and listened to audio books, that would be reading, so yes, it is reading. Actually, I spent a lot of time listening to audio books when I was traveling for work, it was a marvelous break to the radio! Then when I stayed home, I listened to audio books because I could then do needlework at the same time. I actually did a bunch of research (TONS of note-taking) while listening to some history/historical books. :)
Your library does have a website, right?